In the context of modern mindfulness, one should pay attention to awareness non-judgmentally. I have tried this, and wondered whether it is possible to do so without an object, e.g. the breath. Jon Kabat-Zinn, founder of this movement in the West, advised in one of his talks/books that one should keep with the object for a long time, even years. **What is the effect of attending to awareness without any object, merely being non-judgmental to what arises? Is there such a thing?**

What is the difference between domanassa & dukkha? Does domanassa arise in enlightened beings? Does bodily dukkha arise in enlightened beings?

Often as part of mindfulness meditation (at least the Westernized form with which I am familiar) we can practice awareness of breath, parts of the breath, arising thoughts etc. However, if the aim of mindfulness is to be in pure consciousness, how can we at the same time be directing attention to something? Wouldn't this constitute a 'doing' which arises from thought rather than from consciousness? EDIT: I have accepted an answer that seems to be the most useful for me right now, but I can see that this a complex subject and I will certainly not ignore the content of the other answers.

Bread has flour and yeast. Therefore, a scientist can say that it is both an animal and a vegetable grain. Is there anything wrong with eating bread?

I am currently meditating thirty minutes per day. I wonder whether I should meditate an hour instead or meditate for thirty minutes twice. Basically, I meditate on compassion and after thirty minutes I'm not generating much of anything. I just sit there moving about on my chair, wondering about the time, etc. Does this saturation after thirty minutes occur because I have always meditated this amount of time before? Or is it because I'm just not ready yet? In other words, **are we used to whatever amount of meditation we're usually doing?** If this is so, would it be better to just always try to sit an hour if I'm capable? **Should I just meditate as long as I can sit, whatever the quality may be?**

In Timsa Sutta Buddha says: "What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?" Furthermore he also says: "The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans." Doesn't this mean that there is a soul in Buddhism?

What can those following the Theravada learn when studying the Mahayana as the Mahayana see it? What can those following the Mahayana learn when studying the Theravada as the Theravada see it? Is it possible for individuals to use different concepts and arrive at the same goal even though those concepts are misinterpreted by many people in both schools?

for example, when he was being tempted by Mara, he said "the Earth bears witness." how do we know this? he was clearly alone, right? no one was there witnessing this to write about it. did Buddha just tell it to everyone later? not just that, there are so many instances in his story where he was clearly alone. no one else could've known about those moments to write about them.

On wikepedia is written that buddha-boy had in 2005 said that he was at the level of a rinpoche. He said that he will need six more years of meditation before he can become a Buddha. So in 2011 he could had become a buddha. But is he still /already living in the bush as a buddha? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Bahadur_Bomjon

>"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower. Which five?...He/she has conviction; is virtuous; is not eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts kamma, not protective charms & ceremonies; does not search for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings here first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower." [An05.175](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.175.than_en.html) What does one think is meant here by gifts and by outside, the Sangha? How would a wise understand it correct in line with the Dhamma? (not sure if [MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,9546.msg20559.html#msg20559) might help for investigation the question on topic without going astray) *(Note that this has not been given for trade, exchance, stacks and stucks but for exit from this wheel)*

Loose definitions for mindfulness and flow (text from Wikipedia): *Mindfulness* involves being aware moment-to-moment, of one’s subjective conscious experience from a first-person perspective. *Flow* is described as a deep focus on nothing but the activity – not even oneself or one's emotions. Both are good, but they appear to be opposite mental states. Is entering a flow state incompatible with developing mindfulness? If so, then would flow be considered "bad"? If not, then how can these distinct concepts be presented so that they are compatible?

(article link contains all sutta reference passages collected so far) https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2020/01/all-ebt-sutta-references-to-marana-s.html excerpt: > All EBT sutta references to maraṇa-s-sati 💀, death-remembering > > AN 6.19 and AN 6.20 are really the only two suttas that fully explain the practice of maraṇa-s-sati, and use that name maraṇa-s-sati explicitly. The practice itself though, is a frequent theme in the suttas, but it's not easy to identify and track them all since they're referred to tangentially or indirectly, often not having the word marana anywhere in there at all in those passages. So here I set out to gather all of those references. Help me complete the collection. **maraṇa-s-sati 💀 = death-remembering** ‘appamattā viharissāma, tikkhaṃ maraṇassatiṃ bhāvessāma āsavānaṃ khayāyā’ti. (AN 6.19) 1. Never forget, remembering to assiduously practice ☸Dharma for arahantship every moment, giving it everything you got, for the time it takes for one breath, or the time it takes to eat one mouthful of food. If you get sidetracked or forget to be assiduous (ap-pamāda), the Buddha calls that negligence (pamāda). (AN 6.19). 2. Remembering, not forgetting that fatal accidents can strike at any moment, so practice the ☸Dharma assiduously every moment. Doing this correctly, will activate the 7sb☀️ sequence producing virtuous-mirth (mudita/pamojja) and rapture (pīti). (AN 6.20).

What is the Pali/Sanskrit term(s) for 'intelligence'? Is there another word(s) in Pali/Sanskrit for 'wisdom'? I hear 'intellect', 'intelligence' and 'wisdom' used interchangeably, is this correct? What is the relationship between intelligence and wisdom in Buddhism? Are they really the same thing or can they be the same thing or what? :)

What are the 3 recollection (protection) chants of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha? It's told that they can be used to dispel fear. Thank you for your time.

We come to understand the groundwork of Buddhism, along with traditional beliefs/traditions based on what the mind may declare, what tradition may teach, what the sutra may declare. Beyond the Tripitaka, is not much of what we rely on for Buddhism outside the scope of true enlightenment? In short, in today's world doesn't secular Buddhism better fit reality?

Is Buddha nature everywhere the same? I don't think so, that seems wrong. But original enlightenment is always everywhere bliss, right? So how can Buddha-nature, which I would translate into, rather than "awareness" as the early Korean Son master Chunl's translators do, *place*, ever be impermanent *independent* of the body? Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just ***nothingness***, unless original enlightenment -- just like enlightenment itself -- can be lost and gained?

what's the emptiness, 空, in 3rd jhana of STED 4 jhana formula in agamas? https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/12/whats-emptiness-in-3rd-jhana-of-sted-4.html excerpt: The 4 jhanas standard formula in the agamas of MA, match up very closely with the pali STED 4 jhana formulas. There's a striking difference in the 3rd jhana though, which is not in the pali. There's a sunyata/kong/空 on this part of third jhana: 聖所捨、念、 樂住、 shèng suǒ shě, niàn, lè zhù the noble’s equanimity (捨), mindfulness, happy (樂) abode, 空，kōng and emptiness. 得第三禪成就遊， dé dì sān chán chéngjiù yóu He attains the accomplishment of the third meditation.

>You, the richest person in the world, have been laboring and struggling endlessly, not understanding that you already possess all that you seek. I saw this quote on Instagram and the caption accompanying this quote says it's from the Lotus Sutra. However, I couldn't find any analysis of it online. I had interpreted it as the person in question not knowing that he had already achieved nirvana, and is laboring and struggling endlessly to achieve it, but that didn't sit right with me. I also thought that it might've meant that he was working towards material goals, despite having all he needed to find happiness, but that seemed very hedonistic and contrary to Buddhist views to me. What does this quote mean?

When a person trains a muscle, there is a necessary recovery from training before one can train again. I'm wondering **if there's such a thing with meditation sessions?** If so, how much time between sessions is necessary or even desirable? Are there guidelines in Buddhism about the length of pauses to take and the amount of sessions possible in a day?

I apologize if this has an answer on this site or if this does not make any sense. I am wondering if being conscious alone is enough to attain nibbana? If not, why? I think conscious person will (always?) act in a way that will not cause sorrow to themselves (and others?). I just thought someone who is fully aware of their thoughts and actions will only work towards a joyful life. If someone does anything that leads to sorrow, I think it's only due to lack of consciousness of it's consequences. However, I am not sure if being conscious alone is enough to develop the wisdom required to attain nibbana. Can someone consciously do unwholesome deeds? I would like to clear this up. Any help is appreciated.