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?

This question is built on top of another questions asked in this site (not all by me). Based of these premises: 1) Kamma is not the only phenomena/process responsible for the current condition of beings. There are other processes apart from those borned from anthropologic interactions or from any kind of will/intention (e.g. weather conditions, geological events, biological diseases, etc.), which can affect our lives and states. 2) I heard from one user that ghost and other 'paranormal' entities (let's assume for a moment that they exist, and let's just consider what the suttas tell us) can control other's minds. And even if is not "the person itself" the one doing an action, the kamma will be ripen for that person eventually (and I insist, even if that person didn't have the intention of doing an unwholesome deed) And the question: for those who believe in literal rebirth (i.e. the continuation of certain mind states and kammic seeds from one life to another after the break up of the body), what do you think it happens after biological death to those whose brains begin to malfunction as a product of some biological conditions or fortuitous event, such as a tumour, dementia or a lightning striking on someones head? What if those persons begin acting impulsively and heedlessly, even if before those misfortunes they had completely normal -or even wise- behavior? Will they rebirth in hell or something like that? Thanks in beforehand for your time and patience!

What meditation practice(s) are encompassed by 'asubha' (non-beautiful)? I've heard one teacher say that in the EBT (early buddhist texts), asubha practice only refers to 31 body parts, and later Theravada expanded it to include 9 cemetary corpse decay, and perhaps other practices as well? Does anyone know for sure? In the pali suttas, most of the references to asubha do not specify a specific meditation practice(s). Is AN 10.60 the only place where asubha is specifically assigned to 31 body parts? I'd prefer to believe asubha meditation encompasses more practices than just the 31asb, unless there is conclusive evidence. Simply because in an oral tradition where memory of teachings is mandatory, it's helpful when a label, 'asubha' in this case, covers all the practices that could qualify for doing that job. We know that the purpose of asubha (ugly or non-beautful), is to counter the effects of subha (beautiful) have in inducing lust/passion/desire for sensual pleasure, especially for sex. Clearly the stages of decomposition of corpses, the discharge from the 9 orifices of the body, all qualify in accomplishing that goal. AN 10.60 defines the practice of asubha as 31 body parts contemplation: > *Katamā cānanda, asubhasaññā?* And what is the perception of ugliness? Idhānanda, bhikkhu imameva kāyaṃ uddhaṃ pādatalā adho kesamatthakā tacapariyantaṃ *pūraṃ nānāppakārassa asucino paccavekkhati:* It’s when a monk examines their own body up from the soles of the feet and down from the tips of the hairs, wrapped in skin and full of many kinds of filth. *‘atthi imasmiṃ kāye kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco, maṃsaṃ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṃ vakkaṃ, hadayaṃ yakanaṃ kilomakaṃ pihakaṃ papphāsaṃ, antaṃ antaguṇaṃ udariyaṃ karīsaṃ, pittaṃ semhaṃ pubbo lohitaṃ sedo medo, assu vasā kheḷo siṅghāṇikā lasikā muttan’ti.* ‘In this body there is head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.’ *Iti imasmiṃ kāye asubhānupassī viharati.* And so they meditate observing ugliness in this body. *Ayaṃ vuccatānanda, asubhasaññā.* This is called the perception of ugliness. summary of my research on this so far: (lots of hyperlinks embedded within source link) http://lucid24.org/tped/a/asubha/index.html a-subha 🧟‍ = un-attractive ✅in EBT meditation, it refers to 31asb🧟‍ body parts contemplation. See AN 10.60, AN 6.29. ⚠️300+ years after EBT, in Vimt. and Vism., Theravada re-defines asubha meditation to refer to 10 stages of corpse decay, and they reclassify 31asb🧟‍ under kāya-gatā-sati 🏃‍. It's important to know this, because in EBT suttas, an instruction to "develop asubha" is frequently mentioned, but without detail (examples: SN 8.4, SN 54.9). 31asb is immediately accessible, corpse contemplation considerably more complex. • What's the purpose of asubha meditation? To counter perversions of our inverted perception AN 4.49, SN 8.4. • But be careful, this is an advanced practice. Best to first have foundation in breath meditation SN 54.9. • SN 12.61 and SN 12.62 is the more general case of seeing 4 elements via dependent origination 12ps as not being worth clinging to.

*(English is not my mother tongue, sorry in advance if I make mistakes)* I am currently reading a philosophical book that I stumbled upon by chance, a unique work by a young (23yo) Italian of the early 20th century, after what he killed himself: *Persuasion and Rhetoric* by Carlo Michelstaedter. I don't know if anyone here has read it? I hope so, because I may not be the clearest. At first I must confess that I didn't understand it at all, but as I progressed through the book I began to see what he was talking about: I haven't finished his book yet, but I can already tell - it's amazing. There's so much to say, I'll try to keep it synthetic. This book had been sold to me as "the most depressive philosophical book (that my interlocutor had read)". I'm not disappointed, I got my money's worth. But in fact, its analysis is incredibly deeper than that. Let me be clear: the more I read it, the more I am struck by his observation: his whole book seems to me to be about dukkha. It's really incredible, I'm pretty sure he's never heard of Buddhism and yet his whole book is a wonderful analysis of dukkah, this cosmic suffering-unsatisfaction hidden in the hollow of all phenomena, like a cursed mark on (conventional) life. He analyses both dukkha caused by boundless desire, dukkha caused by the impermanence of all things, and dukkha caused by conditioning itself. This is wonderful. I would like to quote entire passages from the book to show you that a Buddhist monk could approve everything. My point is that he committed suicide after this book. And when you read it you can understand why, it's even almost logical: he didn't know Buddhism and therefore the radical teaching of Buddha: certainly dukkha exists and is everywhere, but it is not absolute; a way out is possible (nirvana). Except that Carlo didn't know this way out, and when one realized only dukkha, what's the point of living? The problem is that I recently read a very good article (PS 5) in the blog 'Politically Incorrect Dharma' about the difficulty of reaching enlightenment: in this day and age, in fact, hardly anyone achieves nirvana. Therefore, even if we can believe the testimonies of the historical enlightened about the existence of a way out (nirvana), when the chances are infinitesimal that we reach it, for us, it is as if there is no way out. From that point on, how can we not be depressed when we have (at least partially) realized dukkha? I'm not talking about a purely intellectual understanding, but a real beginning of realisation. How not to end up like Carlo, or completely depressed at the very least? ​ PS 1: At the risk of repeating myself, I have chosen only one part of the book's topics here, apart from the absence of solution (nirvana) because of his ignorance of Buddhism, his whole book sounds deeply Buddhist to me, as it delivers a brilliant and profound analysis of impermanence, desire (tanha), conditioning, life, phenomena and suffering-dissatisfaction. ​ PS 2: >“Are you persuaded of what you do or not? Do you need something to happen or not in order to do what you do? Do you need the correlations to coincide always, because the end is never in what you do, even if what you do is vast and distant but is always in your continuation? Do you say you are persuaded of what you do, no matter what? Yes? Then I tell you: tomorrow you will certainly be dead. It doesn't matter? Are you thinking about fame? About your family? But your memory dies with you,with you your family is dead. Are you thinking about your ideals? You want to make a will? You want a headstone? But tomorrow those too are dead, dead. All men die with you. Your death is an unwavering comet. Do you turn to god? There is no god, god dies with you. The kingdom of heaven crumbles with you, tomorrow you are dead, dead. Tomorrow everything is finished—your body, family, friends, country, what you’re doing now, what you might do in the future, the good, the bad, the true, the false, your ideas, your little part, god and his kingdom, paradise, hell, everything, everything, everything. Tomorrow everything is over—in twenty four hours is death. > >Well, then the god of today is no longer yesterday’s, no longer the country, the good, the bad, friends, or family. You want to eat? No, you cannot. The taste of food is no longer the same; honey is bitter, milk is sour, meat nauseating, and the odor, the odor sickens you: it reeks of the dead. You want a woman to comfort you in your last moments? No, worse: it is dead flesh. You want to enjoy the sun, air, light, sky? Enjoy?! The sun is a rotten orange, the light extinguished, the air suffocating. The sky is a low, oppressive arc. . . .No, everything is closed and dark now. But the sun shines, the air is pure, everything is like before, and yet you speak like a man buried alive, describing his tomb. And persuasion? You are not even persuaded of the sunlight; you cannot move a finger, cannot remain standing. The god who kept you standing,made your day clear and your food sweet, gave you family, country, paradise—he betrays you now and abandons you because the thread of your philopsychia (love of life) is broken. > >The meaning of things, the taste of the world, is only for continuation’s sake. Being born is nothing but wanting to go on on: men live in order to live, in order not to die. Their persuasion is the fear of death. Being born is nothing but fearing death, so that, if death becomes certain in a certain future, they are already dead in the present. All that they do and say with fixed persuasion, a clear purpose, and evident reason is nothing but fear of death– ‘indeed, believing one is wise without being wise is nothing but fearing death.” ​ PS 3: >“Likewise, however little man, in living, demands as just to himself, his duty toward justice remains infinite. The right to live cannot be paid by finite labour, only by infinite activity. > >Because you participate in the violence of all things, all of this violence is part of your debt to justice. All of your activity must go toward eradicating this: to give everything and demand nothing; this is the duty—where duties and rights may be, I do not know.” ​ PS 4 (>Xbox): >“I know I want and do not have what I want. A weight hangs suspended from a hook; being suspended, it suffers because it cannot fall: it cannot get off the hook, for insofar as it is weight it suspends, and as long as it suspends it depends. > >\[...\] > >Its life is this want of life. If it no longer wanted but were finished, perfect, if it possessed its own self, it would have ended its existence. At that point, as its own impediment to possessing life, the weight would not depend on what is external as much as on its own self, in that it is not given the means to be satisfied. The weight can never be persuaded. > >Nor is any life ever satisfied to live in any present, for insofar as it is life it continues, and it continues into the future to the degree that it lacks life. If it were to possess itself completely here and now and be in want of nothing—if it awaited nothing in the future—it would not continue: it would cease to be life. > >So many things attract us in the future, but in vain do we want to possess them in the present.” ​ PS 5: [http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-ive-almost-stopped-meditating-part\_15.html](http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-ive-almost-stopped-meditating-part_15.html) **Edit:** *I just learned that Evola was a reader of Michelstaedter, that he wanted also to kill himself at 23, and that he changed his mind after reading the Pali Canon. Amazing. My hunch didn't come out of nowhere!*

As, pointed out by Buddha in Mangala Sutta, the causes of downfall of a man. Among those following is the one among them; 1) Those who have ample wealth does not support his old aged father and mother has a downfall! Question remains, How if pursuing the goal of Nibbana, one abandoned the all relation and property. Including that of old age mother and father, won't have Downfall. How, if that 1st statement is assumed valid, there was not a downfall of Buddha, although abondened his old age parents? Please answer the above correctly!

The title is not meant to be disrespectful, but only to highlight the incongruity of the representation with what I understand of Buddhism. Images of [Maitreya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya) in English Wikipedia are modest and comtemplative, but the [Chinese](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BD%8C%E5%8B%92%E8%8F%A9%E8%96%A9) page shows one familliar image with a large, well-fed body, surrounded by riches, and a big happy grin. Where I live these representations of Maitreya are everywhere. It is understandable that as buddhism spread to different cultures certain superficial aspects might be altered to convey ideas in different ways. Here I'm just asking about history of the change. When and where were depictions of the Maitreya buddha first changed so dramatically? **edit:** The question [Why is Budai often associated with the future Buddha Maitreya?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8775/11327) suggests to me that this is not actually a representation of Maitreya at all, which conflicts with what I remember and what a google translation of the Chinese Wikipedia page at least *seems to* say. [Source](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HK_Sheung_Wan_Hollywood_Road_%E5%A4%A7%E8%82%9A%E5%BD%8C%E5%8B%92%E4%BD%9B_Buddhist_statues.JPG)

So I have been doing different meditation techniques to control/reduce different poisons(Klesha) of mind. Such as I do 1. Asuaba(Perception of Unattractiveness) for Lust 2. Perception of Loving Kindness (Metta) for Hatred 3. Anapanasati for overflowing of thoughts 4. Perception of Compassion (Karuna) for thoughts of harming 5. Perception of Sympathetic-Joy (Muditha) for jealous and so on. But when ever I encounter thoughts or memories of sorrow and pain, loss, I get confused on what meditation technique I should use to overcome it. All the dark memories haunt me, and i tend to fight them. But most of the time I fail to overcome them. And in that process my mind and body energy is already consumed and i become tired and sometimes i get a migraine. Is there any specific technique to overcome sorrow and pain? I know that Satipattanaya is there only way of overcoming sorrow, pain and loss, But i want to know the specific technique that I could practice on. A sutta reference is appreciated. -Metta

I sometimes see rules suggesting that monks (at least Theravadan) should not eat various animals. The lists vary, but includes to varying degree: elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, slugs, cows, and humans. When I try to find something authoritative about this, I've come up short. Can anyone shed light on: (1) is there a list of animals that monks are prohibited from eating, and if so, (2) where does this appear in the canon, and (3) how/why were the particular animals listed?

Is there any authoritative sourced that a man can have more than one religion if he pleases?