This other day I was meditating and I got a feeling as if I spinned around on an axis, counterclockwise wise and really fast. Later on it became more of a left>right feeling alternating feeling in short bursts, and eventually it subsided. What is this? Is it a sign of progress?

I recently came across the concept of doing walking meditation, but I am not clearly aware of the technique or procedure to do walking meditation. Can someone help me understand this? Thank you.

According to the Buddha's teaching in the Buddhist scriptures, when is it appropriate: >To assist in creating the structures of a group or society? >To embrace the established structures of a group or society? >To defend others by enforcing the established authority of a group or society? >To push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society? >To defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society?

As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where analysis is necessary to remove an attachment, automatically rejecting intellect means (1) the attachment is not removed, and (2) they don't think they have attachment at all. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have [anti-thought bias](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525) , and I think anything they say would be [thought-terminating clichés](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%c3%a9) at that point. How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant? Related: - [intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/23639/13525) - [I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31152/13525) - [How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31193/13525) - [How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/60848/19487)

A question to those of you who’ve spent some time in academia: is academic research right livelihood? Given that it requires one to engage in thinking for the entire duration of one’s working hours, could it actually be a hindrance on the eightfold path?

In the doctrine of no arising does the past and future still exist, and if so do they exist in the same way as the present does? And if not, *why*? From Dogen's Genjo-koan: > Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after. As firewood never becomes firewood again after it is burned and becomes ash, after person dies, there is no return to living. However, in buddha dharma, it is a never-changing tradition not to say that life becomes death. Therefore we call it no-arising. It is the laid-down way of buddha's turning the dharma wheel not to say that death becomes life. Therefore, we call it no-perishing. Life is a position at one time; death is also a position at one time. For instance, this is like winter and spring. We don't think that winter becomes spring, and we don't say that spring becomes summer. I wondered whether Dogen is saying that there is a before and after and these are the same as the past and future that are cut off -- from the present: so that anything that occurs only does so in the past or future.

I stumbled upon a question about the danger in lying and Andrei's answer caught my attention. He claims that '...key qualities of good character are: Honesty, Integrity, Responsibility'. Then it made me wonder - is being politically correct an obstacle on the way to enlightenment? By the term political correctness I understand 'enforced language, ideas, or policies that address **perceived** discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes")'. >It seems that: > >Lots of public figures no longer say what they really think but they mince their words so as not to offend any of the groups. > >Media doesn't report certain facts/events/results of studies in fear of offending groups which won't feel comfortable with certain facts/events/results. > >Most of the time it is not based on honesty. > >Clearly this leads to violated integrity. > >In everyday life we also seem to be forced into political correctness. > >Challenging someone's views can be **perceived** as an attack and more and more jokes are **perceived** as offending (although it used to be a great virtue to be able to laugh at oneself). I would be mostly interested in what *contemporary Buddhist teachers and masters* think about this topic. Please refrain from sharing personal opinion if it's not based on specific teachings. I am looking for advice from Buddhist masters and texts mostly.

In the [Paritta Parikamma](http://www.softerviews.org/AIM/parikamma.html) , there is the line: > May you take care in protecting yourselves from the dangers of tyrants, robbers, human beings, non-human beings, fires, floods, demons, **tree-stumps**, thorns, evil planets, epidemics, wrong-doers or heretics; from wild elephants, horses, beasts, oxen, dogs, serpents, scorpions, poisonous snakes, leopards, bears, hyenas, boars, buffaloes, ogres, devils etc., and from dangers of various fears, diseases and disasters. * What dangers would tree-stumps pose? * What would protection from tree-stumps look like?

Is the pitāpūtrasamāgama-sūtra, a Mahayana sutra or does it occur in the nikayas or somewhere else? What is the historically accepted date of this sutra? Does this sutra precede Nagarjuna or is it a post-Nagarjuna sutra?

I believe that the word for composite or compounded dharma is sankhara. What puts sankhara together, according to Theravada or Mahayana Buddhism? I'd especially like an explanation that contrasts the answer to Hinduism.

In this Reddit post [Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/arl4jl/is_buddhism_about_cognitive_linguistics_and/egnx005/?context=3&st=js95qe3c&sh=48e53d8a) , I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it. But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently. I am reading Nagarjuna's *Middle Way* if that matters.
Related: • [intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/23639/13525) • [How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31193/13525) • [Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525)

From [I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/31152/13525) , I get that Buddhist goal is not only to get wisdom, but as a practice for "understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point." This explains why others miss my point. It is more of Daoism I think, in which sufferings are not meant to be cessated, but to be transformed into something more useful. It's like saying "hey, sufferings are fun. Please give me more". This attitude makes sufferings not sufferings anymore, although technically you are suffering. I think every Buddhist aware of the importance of intellect. Yet, when I especially ask for an analysis they still focus on the core goal, thus missing my point. For example, [this person](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/arl4jl/is_buddhism_about_cognitive_linguistics_and/egnx005/) stops replying after I explain the Daoist point. Another example is my very previous question. At first the titular question asked for "what to do" , but then *all* answers focused on the reason, forcing me to change the title to "why is that" (ChrisW's answer is an exception). (Nevertheless this has a good side, as it tells me that I am missing Buddhist points too.) There are two advantages if I can ask other Buddhists to do analysis with me: - My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected - If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be beneficial for them (cf. the snake sutta, the raft sutta) So, why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
FWIW, my though is said to be [interesting](https://www.reddit.com/r/EasternPhilosophy/comments/ar4qbj/are_eastern_philosophies_early_understanding_of/?st=jsc0k1oy&sh=5a22127d) if the readers are in analytic mode. Related: [Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/22195/13525)

In the Heart Sutra, Avalokiteshvara says to Sariputra > this Body itself is Emptiness and Emptiness itself is this Body. This > Body is not other than Emptiness and Emptiness is not other than this > Body. (translation by Thich Nhat Hanh) What does it mean to say that Body itself is Emptiness and Emptiness itself is this Body?

** Practice Mindfulness of Body ---------------------------- ** I'm trying to being present with the help of body sensations. As I'm a beginner . I place my hand over my chest to feel that I'm live and presence. This is to ensure that I do not "think" that I'm being present but as a fact I'm . After few minutes , I do feel tightness of my heart , breathing rhythm. Then starts to feel energy flow (tingling) inside my legs and Torso .This is like being my attention expanded beyond the chest . When thoughts come I bring my attention back to chest . Of course I feel a calm state but it is again a temporary state . The moment I release my attention to include whole environment again it keeps going to whatever it "wishes" to be with . Could anyone help me with the next step that could help me to keep my attention where I wish it to be ? to ensure I would not identify with unnecessary feelings , emotions etc.

I am not necessarily Buddhist but I am a vegan and killing doesn't sit well with me. I have suffered terrible sleep condition over the past 2 years and can't work in my field anymore and have no experience in any other field and have a hard time getting to work at an early time so midday work is best for me. Unfortunately the restaurant I work at currently has oysters for sale and they are alive when you prepare them which involves killing them. I don't know how to rationalize this but I am struggling financially and am working on getting a different restaurant job where they might not serve this dish. But I have killed some oysters already. How do I come to terms with this?

I understand that Advaita practitioners believe that we have an eternal self (consciousness) that is one with everything but that we are under an illusion that we are separate and through enlightenment we can realise the truth. Theravadin Buddhists on the other hand believe that there is no 'self' but that we are under the illusion that there is one because we are too distracted to see that what we call self is nothing more than a bunch of impermanent processes i.e. the 5 skandhas. I have issues with both beliefs. With Advaita it doesnt matter how many Rupert Spira videos I watch I just dont see any evidence of anything living on beyond the death of my brain. Unless some penny drops and I finally get it somehow, my view won't change any time soon. Sure there is the sense of an observer when we sit and watch the thoughts etc but there is no proof that this is an 'eternal self' and not just some process of the brain being able think about thought. With Buddhism I have begun to grasp the concept of Annatta because it kind of makes sense that all these different things are arising and passing however I have failed to hear any clear explanation about rebirth. If there is no self then what is it that is reborn? I know this question has been asked a zillion times but all I ever hear from Buddhists is that lame analogy about a candle flame going from one candle to the next which explains nothing. If this illusion of self is not what gets reborn therefore I will not even remember my past life then why does it even matter at all? Also what do Buddhists believe about the observer of experience? They teach to sit and observe what is going on internally so what do they believe is observing? Nothing? Nothing is observing something? The Advaita school of thought say that Buddhists are overlooking the truth. That the reason they think there is no self is because the self cannot look at itself just as eyes cannot look at themselves.

I think I know some of these, but the rest are a translation muddle. The west seems to **not** attempt to translate nirvana, sangha, dharma, mantra, mudra, buddha, bodhisattva (and probably a few more) and that for me is actually helpful. I expect that some of these correspond to multiple Pali/Sanskrit words. **Enlightenment**. In English, it is an anachronistic reference to the European age of Enlightenment. **Meditation**. This word predates the west's contact with Buddhism. I have no idea what non-Buddhist baggage it brings along. **Loving-kindness**. This sounds like Christianity projected on Buddhism. **Soul**. Seems like this is atman, but everyone seems determined to call it something like "self," which is for a man-in-the-street just a reflexive pronoun. (Does the self exist? Well, as much as any other pronoun, like "he" or "they") **Reincarnation/rebirth**. Synonyms in man-in-the-street's English, but I've seen people argue passionately how Buddhism believes one but not the other, sort of like believing in leasing but not renting (which are synonyms). **Repentance**. I know for sure this is a big deal in Chinese Buddhism. **Pure/Purity**. Means scrubbed clean of earthly dirt. I know this is a metaphor, but somehow, after 2000 years it falls as flat as if I tried to use a computer metaphor to explain to a 500BC farmer how the brain and cellular DNA works. **Heaven/Pure Land**. Sukhāvatī comes to mind, but I'm not sure if this is a specific pure land, or the jargon for pure lands in general. Again, 'pure' makes it sound either homogenous or really well scrubbed, like a hospital. I'd rather just use whatever jargon word the originators used. **Deity**. This in man-in-the-street English mean a god, or God, just like the one's the Christian's pray to. In Vajrayana, people seem to argue that yidams are something else.

People with wrong view often try to practice the Noble path for whatever purpose, but is it actually possible or doesn't it require stream entry first? >"In a person of wrong view, wrong resolve comes into being. In a person of wrong resolve, wrong speech. In a person of wrong speech, wrong action. In a person of wrong action, wrong livelihood. In a person of wrong livelihood, wrong effort. In a person of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness. In a person of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration. In a person of wrong concentration, wrong knowledge. In a person of wrong knowledge, wrong release. > >"This is how from wrongness comes failure, not success." > >— [AN 10.103](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/index_en.html) *[Note, this question is not thought to keep one there where he/she is bond, for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism, but to offer release and go beyond]*

It might be the case that someone uses to engage into entertaining with Dhamma reads and talks in his working time, or uses resources of other for such, yet not really given, just like one may chat or do whatever private while in the office. What might be the effects of such deeds? Would it be possible to get long term benefit from doing so? Possible to gain good while thinking, acting, like a thief? *[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism or other entertaining that keeps one caught but for liberation.]*

If people, maintaining a Buddhist identity, are good, they do whatever sacrifices of which they expect benefit or where they feel touched. Now, when a person gives outside the Savaka-Sangha, outside the Noble Ones, can he/she be called either, faith-, dhamma-follower or even Sotapanna? Would he/she be regarded as being ready and worthy to be taught by wise? *(Note, this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or entertainment for bounds but to escape dry lands and go beyond)*