I have read about sakkayaditti https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sakkayaditti Sakkayaditti means something in Buddhism, Pali. please help me to clarify

I am usually filled with common doubts (not necessarily doubts towards the dharma). My mind keeps forming thoughts that say: "Maybe things are like *this!* Maybe things are like *that!*" without much certainty. I wonder: **Does meditation help with such doubts, namely by preventing them from arising?** I noticed when I am concentrated in meditation, on the breath, that thoughts rarely arise, and that I'm focused on sensory perception rather than this type of speculation. Hence, does meditation remedy such hesitation and doubtful thoughts? If so does it do so by preventing them from arising? Or, does it do so by another mechanism. Thank you.

In reading about Zen I see encouragement to question "notions". Understand them as to some extent misrepresenting the things they represent. The map is not the territory. I'm not sure how to interpret that and I can think of a couple different meanings. Consider a statue like The Statue of Liberty. To some it represents a country with a history of slavery and Jim Crow laws and the statue is a lie. To others, it represents a land of opportunity, an escape from tyranny. To someone else, a statue is just a bunch of copper, the copper itself being made of atoms, the atoms made up of quarks. The statue has no "romantic" or "pessimistic" meaning. Does Buddhism make a distinction between the emotional notions like "freedom" and "tyranny" versus more material notions like "copper" and "atoms"? I could see the distinction mattering in terms of suffering. If you see a statue and it reminds you of unpleasant things, you suffer. If you just look at the statue and just see a bunch of copper, it won't make you suffer. If "All Emotions are pain", then even positive associations with the statue are a painful thing. Neutral associations like "The Statue is made of copper" seems to be of a different substance, a concept more directly "pointing at" what it refers to whereas the emotionally loaded notions in a since "point away". Are both kinds of notions the kinds of notions to be wary of? Even still, are there distinctions made between the two?

The path of Dhamma is a journey towards the end of all suffering through the attainment of Nibbana. The Buddha set out to find the cure for human suffering, but there are so many people around us today, suffering in so many ways. Most of the people end up still finding a cure in the material world. There are very few people who are suffering might end up starting to think about life itself as suffering for e.g. philosophers like Schopenhauer. But even these intellectuals don't seem to have come to the conclusion of the need to transcend the mind. As against there are those might not be in a lot of suffering but in an, existential crisis seem to arrive at the path of Dhamma. I am asking, is existential-crisis a pre-requisite and more fundamental human need than wanting to end suffering to start the journey towards Nibbana?

Is there anything considered the opposite of Buddhism? I have guesses and I'm thinking contrasts might give interesting insights. In my limited understanding, the concept of an "opposite" to Buddhism is over dichotomising. I think some meaning might be put to it though if we consider what's offered as "not-buddhism" here The Four Seals of Dharma and consider thoughts, actions, and other deeds which might increase suffering for oneself and others. What are we likely to believe that runs contrary to Buddhism and is likely to cause harm? Possible examples below. For each of Rinpoche's points we have: "All compounded things are impermanent": A negation would be "Some compounded things are permanent." While the opposite would be "All compounded things are permanent." We readily see the opposite is false just by virtue of things being able to move. What things can we consider permanent? If we just postulate the existence of such, what are implications and what destructive actions might they lead to? I draw a blank here. "All emotions are painful": Any contrary to this whether a negation or a precise opposite would probably imply some clinging. If we regard an emotional state as truly representing reality, we are likely to cut ourselves off from reality. Does any emotional state entail a bit of ego, a certain false self distorting our perspective? We also have the dualism problem Rinpoche elaborates. "Everything is empty; lacking inherent existence": He simplifies, The way things appear is not the way they actually are. The opposite would be, appearances are never deceiving. This means we should never doubt our first impressions.Now impressions are often out of context. What we think they are, we think they are, despite other impressions giving us more insight. I think this would increase delusion. "Nirvana is Beyond Extremes": I'm not sure what this means in its original form and have no guesses as to what might constitute an opposite.

Ive seen television programmes and videos of buddhist shaolin monks who perfom incredible techniques such as breaking iron bars with their heads, impaling themselves with spears, throwing needles through glasses windows etc. It was said that these monks create, harness and use Qi Energy which makes it possible for them to perform these techniques. I have two questions: - What is this Qi Energy? - Is it a strong and profound level of concentration like the Jhanas in Theravada Buddhism? Thank you for your time. _Click on photos for full size_ [](https://i.sstatic.net/o2w4o.jpg) [](https://i.sstatic.net/cOTtx.jpg)

I am hindu. So My mind say if you Will help anyone . you get rewards for example job,beautiful wife, health, Rebirth good place and rebirth in healthy human beings. So I do good act for rewards. This is also my greed .? This is sin? This is good deed?

I will admit I am just starting to look into buddhism and such. I am confused because so far I understand that the Satipatthana sutta provides everything anyone needs to become 'enlightened'. If that is the case, then why is there so many different forms of buddhism (including the tantric one) each with various meditation techniques etc? If the Satipatthana sutta (or Anapanasati sutta) are the 'bread and butter' of buddhism, why would anyone need anything else/different to achieve their enlightenment? Its like, if something works then why even bother changing it up?

I am not versed in Tibetan language but wanted to know what the literal meaning of ཕལ་པོ་ཆེ། is, which is translated into either of [these](http://www.thlib.org/encyclopedias/literary/canons/kt/catalog.php#cat=d/k-1-3-1) - The Sūtra of the Buddhas' Vastness - The Flower Ornament Sūtra Those are very different words, so I'm wondering what the essence of the etymology or whatever is. Wondering if one could layout the literal components of the word and how they could possibly be translated.

Q: > Do Buddhists argue over topics? Wouldn't that be unwholesome and view > clinging?

I had a question. I have been getting deeper into the Buddha's teaching and meditation & I feel awkward to be around or to talk to people, specifically those who do not meditate. > How do I overcome this or is this OK?

Q: Would an arahant get physically exausted if he/she was to exersise, like if they were to run 5 miles? Would this in anyway shake their mind?

Here is my question: > How does a lay Buddhist respond to awkwardness and how does a monk > respond to awkwardness such as dropping something while ordaining or > falling on the floor?

Here are my questions: > Can lying be nonverbal? like in action? > > Is cheating lying? > > Is writing the wrong answer when you know the correct answer lying? > > Is skipping the line cheating, and in a sense lying? > > If I break a promise, is that lying or in anyway kammically bad?

q: > Is not doing anything in a situation and just being mindful breaking > any of the precepts?

I realized that my use of social media always involves doing something else, and if I am on the internet I might also be on social media. Thus, I am always multitasking seemingly. **How does the mind process multitasking? Is it possible to be mindful of each task (e.g. *social media* and *writing a text*) one after the other, or is such a thing impossible?** EDIT: By one after the other I mean for a short amount of time, going back and forth between the tasks.

Why is Tibetan Buddhism the fastest way to enlightenment? What is the difference of Kashmir Shaivism and Nyingma School? Why is Tibetan Buddhism faster and the only way? Tibetan Buddhism developed from traditional Bön and Together with Kashmir Shaivism, and traditional Buddhism was imposed to the Bön tradition. Why was Buddhism better than Bön Religion? Why did Buddhism adopted the lucid dreaming of Bön Religion if it was better? Am I missing something?

[SN 12.15](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html) says, > 'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle We know that by the Buddha's time, the early Upanishads propounded some sort of "everything is existence" or "everything is the Self" doctrine. But who propounded the latter doctrine ("Everything doesn't exist") in the Buddha's time? Certainly not Carvakas or Lokayatas, who were simply materialists. So who exactly was propounding this during the Buddha's time?

I heard about the practice of concentration. But I work 13 hours per day doing coding. How can I meditate while studying, thinking really deep? I can focus on one static object, but not reading (coding) documentation, write code remaining in one state of completely self center

I am non-vegetarian but since reading through Buddhist scriptures, I felt like going towards Vegan would be prefered approach in order to follow and know Buddhism. Please guide me on this dilemma. Regards