I want to use meditation as a way to deeply concentrate, I always feel as if im in my head and it stops me from doing what I want to do and stops me from getting work done. I want to use meditation. I have been doing meditation, and I understand it a bit. But how can I achieve one pointed focus to help me stop being in my head and focus?

I am trying to see whether the presence of certain characters and stories in the Jataka tales can be taken as a proof for them (stories and characters) being known in that form in the time of the Buddha. So, the question is different from the other thread on this forum Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories? though related. I would assume that even the commentary portion of the Jatakas are based on some authentic source. Yet, is there a way to know by when these stories (the prose portion of the Jatakas) were added to Kuddaka Nikaya? Was it by the first council, or later? Does the author of the prose portion affirm that his commentary is based on an oral linage of the narration coming all the way from the Buddha? Since some of the characters in the Jataka tales (such as Dasaratha Jataka and Ghatapadita Jataka) are seen in non-Buddhist literature in India, and often developed into dramatic stories later, the scholars in India are divided in three ways: a) Independent folklore of the time inspired such stories in both the Buddhist and non-Buddhist sources. b) Buddhist sources, just like the Jain sources are re-interpreting stories from the epics that were already fully developed and existent, and using it to support their respective philosophies. (I would not like to take this position because the Buddhist versions of the stories are much less dramatic and have not taken an epic-like narration. I don't see any motivation for the Buddhists to make the story less attractive if a more dramatic version was already available.) c) The Buddhist Jataka tales and other unrelated stories would have inspired some others to later connect them together, modify the characters and develop grand epics such as Ramayana and Mahabharata. And, some characters were glorified later through they were ordinary characters in the Jataka tales. (Most people do not think in this line. However, I find this more justified. However, to prove this, it is important to know what is the general consensus within Buddhism and particularly Theravada regarding the date of origination the Jataka commentaries.

I was talking to someone about my morning routine, which includes meditation. They asked me why do I do it. I didn't know what to say. Finally I said "you should find out yourself" with a smile. I don't know how to answer this question. I don't want to explain, don't want to preach and don't want to come off like I'm hiding something by not explaining myself. And it's rude to not answer the question. I felt what I said was not the right way to respond. Suggestions?

Buddhism teaches that what is real is experience; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking. From this perspective, is virtual reality, (video games, [Oculus Rift] [1] , and such) objectively less "real" than reality? One certainly sees, hears, feels and thinks in virtual reality. If material objects are not real; are digital images of them any less real? I suspect there is an objective answer to this from a Buddhist point of view and I'm interested in understanding it.

A long time ago I had a romantic relationship with a married woman, and later I regretted. How is this seen in Buddhism?

My question is basically as to what constitutes skillful and unskillful activity. I noticed I return to unskillful craving-related activities when I am idle. However, I cannot ascertain what is skillful in terms of activities. I would think the application of effort is important in terms of an activity, because I am often contemplating/analyzing ideas, but in a slightly lazy way. Concretely, is idleness bad? For example, I often take public transport, wherein I contemplate certain subjects. But, I often tell myself I should read in public transport instead. I think to me, some contemplative activity occurs when idle, but it is not focused, nor effortful. Can mere contemplation without much effort or focus be called meditation? Or is it simply wasting time? Thank you. EDIT: Also, I would think activity and industriousness generates energy in some sense. What states accompany idleness? (e.g. lethargy, fragmentation, etc.)

I live in a pleasant apartment complex and work as an Instructor. My job is cushy, which is good because I have health issues (and teach adults with health issues). But I watch workers mow the lawn at the apartment complex, re-shingle the roofs, etc. Other examples are food service workers and auto repair people with oil and sweat on them. I have worked on an assembly line for a while and the biggest problem for me was the intolerable loneliness. (It didn't do much for my feet, hands and back either.) I have cooked, cleaned, repaired cars and appliances and so on, but all in some moderation. I wonder about jobs where people do the same drudge work day after day? I know about the idea of Karma, but it has gone flat for me, because the idea of Reincarnation has also. Leaving those aside (except for people getting good or bad consequences of their recent choices) **what does Buddhism say about whether various work situations are more or less *Just / Fair* to the workers?** This is not about *Right Livelihood*, because I am addressing the circumstances that workers are put in - the external world - rather than them choosing their work - the personal realm. [Consider only legally allowed work: I am not trying to deal with crime here. Also, don't try to solve the problem, only explain the perspective on it, please.]

Is there a Buddhist term for a lack of self identity ? I don't (of course) mean a radical acceptance of the anatta doctrine, but whether the Buddha or any Buddhist scholar or writer, talks explicitly about being unable to take one's own personal identity seriously enough: even to the extent of becoming quite thirsty for one. Thank you for your compassion :-)

Can you gain stream entry by focusing on the links in dependent co-arising http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html . The buddha says this: "And what is the noble method that is rightly seen and rightly ferreted out by discernment? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices: When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that." In reference to dependent co-arising, but I wonder whether it's actually a method.

Recently I am fascinated by the accounts of Gautama Buddha and of Buddhism, after having read [The Story of Buddha](http://www.movemequotes.com/story-of-buddha/) within the book [The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28257707-the-subtle-art-of-not-giving-a-f-ck) by Mark Manson. I am led to want to ask this question as I am unsure whether this is an adaptation made original by Manson, further I wish to know the true original source of The Story of Buddha as it relates to Buddhism and without interpretation. Is anyone able to provide me with additional insight?

For our next meeting in the "interreligious dialogue" we members are asked to do a statement about the "mystics" in each ones religion. Now, "mystics" is itself a mysterious term, I looked via wikipedia at some sources, what exactly the term means - well, not much more than that there is something hidden that noone else can see/sense/know, derived from the greek root of the term saying "closing eyes, closing the mouth". (Which does not mean that the term was not used for many speculative or intimate concepts in many religious threads, be it in Brahmanism (later, around the Buddha's time with the Upanishads and even later many that threads which we subsume now under "Hinduism"), Judaism ("Kabbala"), even Christianism (especially in the medieval east-european religious scene), Gnosticism and also Islam (by "Sufism") and surely other religious stands which I cannot name all here, and that it does not have a very broad usage over the cultures.) For me, Buddhism (as I know it from the Tipitaka) has never been a matter with (systematically) "hidden" things/concepts (at least not prominently), so I tend to develop my statement towards something like *"mysticism (in this sense) has not been intended by the Buddha"* - and I remember vaguely that there is a sutta, where he explicitely says, *there is no "closed fist" in my teaching* or something very similar. (Of course, meditating towards the occurrence of Jhanas, the Jataka-stories, the Deva-worlds, the sutta about the Kalpas and the non-accesible "Beginning-of-all" deals with concepts which cannot be seen and need *closed eyes, closed mouth* and might be used as source for extended mysticism in folklore (I just recall the funny story of Maha-Mogallana, when he saw an otherwise invisible skeleton flying around and how this bizarre event made its way even into a discourse with the Buddha ...), but for me these are not so prominent as the teachings and guides for the analytic access to the relevant world) So, ***my question is*** : in which sutta did the Buddha speak (explicitely/citeable (!) ) about that his teaching has nothing closed/hidden in it (as I think to recall with the term "fist")? Addendum: I've put so much context around my question because it might as well be that there are (again explicitely/citeable) sayings which contrast this in a sensical way - of course when we meditate also we "close the eyes to look inside" and focus on the "inner world"...

Where do *hiri* and *ottappa* (shame and fear of wrongdoing) fit it, in: - The Four Noble Truths (4nt) - The Noble Eightfold Path (8aam) - The 37 Bodhipakkhiyādhammā (37bp) - The Seven Factors of Awakening (7sb) In AN 7.67 we see it working, protecting the fortress with outer road and moat (and the remaining 5 factors are 5 indriya, and Dhamma weapons): https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/06/an-767-frontier-fortress-sutta.html In [AN 7.65](https://suttacentral.net/an7.65/en/sujato) , it's a vital condition for sense restraint, which in turn is a vital condition for sila. > Hirīottappasutta > **Conscience and Prudence** > “Hirottappe, bhikkhave, asati hirottappavipannassa hatūpaniso hoti indriyasaṃvaro; “monks, when there is no conscience and prudence, one who lacks conscience and prudence has destroyed a vital condition for sense restraint. > indriyasaṃvare asati indriyasaṃvaravipannassa hatūpanisaṃ hoti sīlaṃ; When there is no sense restraint, one who lacks sense restraint has destroyed a vital condition for ethical conduct. There are probably other entry points where it's linked in (to the 7sb, 8aam, 37bp, 4nt)? Unlike the 4 brahmavihara formula, where each brahmavihara has the keyword "abyapajja", which is a direct link to Noble Eightfold Path -- i.e. Right Resolve -> abyapada-sankappo (non-ill-will resolve) -- I can't think of any such very direct explicit link (into 4nt and 8aam or 37bp) for hiri and ottappa. Anyone know for sure? (update to this question 6/25/2019) https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/06/new-uped-dictionary-entries-hiri.html I haven't yet done an exhaustive search (looking at every single occurrence of hiri and ottappa in the suttas), but I have looked at enough passages now to establish an STED (standard EBT definition) that occurs in several key passages. It looks like the strongest tie in with the 4nt, 8aam, 37bp, etc, would be under right effort and viriya, where hiri and ottappa have a strong explicit connection with the STED right effort formula of "papaka akusala dhamma" (evil unskillful Dharma[teachings & qualities]), and also the sutta where ottappa and ātāpi are shown working together (they both have tapa, austerity, strong heat of effort in that word), and we know atapi is a key word in the 4sp (satipatthana) formula that references right effort. Also several suttas, especially AN 4.169, have modified forms of 5bal and 5ind (bala and indriya) to incorporate hiri & ottappa. So those seem like the strongest explicit EBT tie ins that I can find so far. But I am keeping a comprehensive encyclopedia entry for hiri & ottappa in the link above, so please feel free to share sutta references (with sutta ref number in modern numbering system, no PTS page number) on this thread and I'll add to collection. Thanks to all who contributed.

I can see how generosity and gratitude are important as means to foster right resolve. But what if someone do good things sometimes due a sense of obligation, but also cause much harm to you? For example, this mother . Given that our resources and gains are limited, it is not much better to support the virtuous one rather than the unvirtuous? And in the case of supporting the unvirtuous and unwise, how this would not contradict others teachings like "do not associate with fools" and "give a gift in a proper time" ? (a unwise person would surely use a material gift unwisely causing harm for himself/herself and others).

I am trying generally to follow the Mahayana path, with a union of emptiness and compassion. However, I experience clear problems with compassion. These manifest as : 1) general detachment from people 2) spontaneous and stubborn judgments towards others 3) lack of altruistic motivation. I'm wondering how to tackle all these problems. I'm similarly wondering how best to develop compassion, or rather what prerequisites might allow greater feeling and furthering of compassion. Thank you.

According to this answer : > Nirvana is the ground layer ("dhatu") underneath them all. ... > > Nirvana is this most fundamental law (the formula, the rule, the > program) according to which the Universe develops. This comment also seems to support that idea: > ... the expression "the unmade is a foundation for phenomena" is > probably an agreeable thing to say given than it occurs in the pali > discourses "amatogadha" meaning deathless as foundation or deathless > as ground. There is also a reasonable way to defend it, which makes it > not a real point of controversy imo but a rather reasonable assumption > in that the pali wording is to be taken at facevalue and read > literally. This sounds very similar to Advaita which describes Brahman as the substratum or foundation of all phenomena, just as different kinds of pots and plates made of clay, all have clay as their foundation. Questions: 1. Does the notion "Nirvana is the ground layer" come from Mahayana? From which Mahayana subschool or text? 2. Does the Pali Canon support the notion that "Nirvana is the ground layer"? Does this relate to "amatogadha" some how? What's that? 3. The ground layer concept sounds similar to luminous mind . However, we know that Nirvana is unconditioned, while the luminous mind is conditioned. Does this "Nirvana is the ground layer" concept connect to the luminous mind in any way?

I've seen pictures online of young children dressed in monks robes in Buddhist countries. Does someone make the decision on behalf of the child that they will become a monk? Do they eat only one meal a day as adult monks do? Are very young monks also called Venerable Sir? Thanks for helping a western mind to understand this matter.

## Context ## First, let me frame my question by establishing a shared understanding of what I mean by "view." Throughout all forms of Buddhism as far as I know, the Four Noble Truths are considered essential Buddhadharma. Included in the 4th Truth is the Eightfold Path, which Bhikkhu Bodhi (in *Noble Eightfold Path*) describes as follows: >The eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are not steps to be followed in sequence, one after another. They can be more aptly described as components rather than as steps.... With a certain degree of progress all eight factors can be present simultaneously, each supporting the others. However, until that point is reached, some sequence in the unfolding of the path is inevitable. Right view has a very important role in that unfolding. One's very definition of "Noble" or "wisdom" reflects one's view, and in fact it seems that inquiry into and transformation of view is integral to how and where one travels as a sentient being. As Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the same book: > Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors. It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances. To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost in the futility of undirected movement. Doing so might be compared to wanting to drive someplace without consulting a roadmap or listening to the suggestions of an experienced driver. One might get into the car and start to drive, but rather than approaching closer to one’s destination, one is more likely to move farther away from it. To arrive at the desired place one has to have some idea of its general direction and of the roads leading to it. Analogous considerations apply to the practice of the path, which takes place in a framework of understanding established by right view. Back in the full context of the Eightfold Path: among the three trainings, Right View and Right Intention make up the "training in the higher wisdom." This goes along with training in two other sets of Path elements. Bhikkhu Bodhi: > the moral discipline group [is] made up of right speech, right action, and right livelihood; [and] the concentration group [is] made up of right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration To give an example of the role of View from an Indo-Tibetan tradition, Sachen Kunga Nyingpo had a vision in which Manjushri taught : "If there is grasping, you do not have the View.” This same teaching includes 3 specific attachments to relinquish leading up to this: - If you are attached to this life, you are not a true spiritual practitioner. - If you are attached to samsara, you do not have renunciation. - If you are attached to your own self-interest, you have no bodhichitta. Therefore, as is true throughout the Indo-Tibetan traditions I've encountered, the Right View must include a perspective that looks across countless lifetimes as well as beyond samsara; and that takes consciousness as somehow more primary than the physical. The ontological assumptions behind both "matter" and "mind" can certainly be tested, but by framing this in terms of View I want to focus on how one's convictions about the relationship between the physical world and consciousness (whatever one's ontological stance about them) shapes the way one interprets and practices Dharma. Second, let me try to explicitly name my motivations in asking this question: I ask partly as someone born into an environment of unexamined scientific materialsm, who has found greater sanity and happiness extending beyond its bounds as I've inquired into my assumptions. I hope to uncover and test more such assumptions within myself by asking others about their views, and thereby to keep getting more sane and happy for the sake of my own good and that of all sentient beings. I also ask hoping to become more skillful when I encounter people who are both materialists and Buddhists. I've definitely gotten perturbed before (and probably will again) in reacting to materialist views that I consider unhelpful or already refuted. Beyond the afflictive emotion involved, it seems like such a critique on my part is "wrong speech" if it drives someone away from wanting to study and practice Buddhadharma. Given the interdependent and holistic nature of the Eightfold Path, how could wrong speech possibly help to advance right view or anything else? Further, given the immense range of skillful means employed by Buddhas in training beings, why should I assume that a materialist stance (especially given the dominant cultural assumptions of modern civilization) might not fall within one or more of these skillful means, at least as a provisional adaptation to social mores? With a more complete understanding, I can still speak my own truth but do so in more compassionate and constructive ways. ## Question ## Hoping I've now given enough context to avoid coming across as rude or provocative, I'll present my question: if as part of your view you find that what you call physical reality (e.g., "matter & energy") encompasses and underpins what you call mind (e.g., "the space of mental events that includes qualia, thoughts, images and feelings"), how do you: 1. Express this view in your own words; and 2. Carry this view (or not) into how you travel the Eightfold Path? In particular, what are its implications for how you train in ethical discipline and/or concentration?

**... in letting her chose which kind she would like to be?** Valued Upasaka, Upasika, Dear seekers for the way to Awakening and Readers, Atma (polite addressing of the own person toward householders, where Atma dwells) has started the transcribtion and translation of a very seldom teaching in modern and western world in regard of the Maha Manala Sutta by Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera, still not finished. Most stories are taken from the Jataka, some references already found. In redard of "To Look After Feed And Take Care Of The Wife And Children Is Most Blissful/highest protection" it contains a story that goes this: >Sujata, the sister of Visakha Maha Upasika, married the son of Anata Pindika. She was not only wealthy but was also charming. In the home of Anata Pindika she became disagreeable to almost every member of the family and to the servants as well. She was very quarrelsome and had her own say mostly because of her conceit. > >One day Anata Pindika offered food to the Lord Buddha and his Bhikkhus and during the meal, she made a commotion in the household. The Lord Buddha,knowing the nature of the woman enquired about her dispute, which disrupted the peace of the home. The Lord Buddha then asked her, “There are seven classes of wives; have you any knowledge to which class you belong?” She replied that she did not know. The Lord Buddha said, “A wife not in any way agreeable but finding every chance to quarrel with her husband or members of his family, is a quarrelsome wife. A wife whose outlook in life is bent on squandering away the fortune of her husband in gambling or drinking, is a thievish wife, a wife who takes good advantage of the kindness of her husband, adopts a superior outlook in a manner so as to gain control over him in any matter concerning his family or his outside activities, is a domineering wife; but when a wife looks after her husband’s interest with tender care and devotion like a mother over her child, this kind of wife is a motherly one; again a wife who by nature is obedient and shy like a sister to a brothers belongs to a sisterly type; and a wife who shares in like manner the happiness of misfortune of her husband is at once a friendly one; finally a wife who lives in tolerance of the whims and dislikes of her husband and serves him faithfully throughout, is a servantly type. >In the light of the truth Sujata gained the realization of the fruits of the First Path (Sotapatti). >Continuing the sermon, the Lord Buddha remarked that among the first three classes of wives, their existence after death would be in a hellish state, suffering untold pain in the unconsuming fire or tortment. The remaining four classes of wives would enjoy even in their present lives, the store of happiness and after death, their existence would be in a continued state of bliss in the realm of heaven. 1. Does anybody know the reference in the Suttapitaka (thinking Atma came accross one time there)? 2. Does anybody know which Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera wrote this book and some infos, biography and picture of him? Maybe even contact possibility, if still alive? 3. If inspired and knowing also the references of other stories in the book, willing to research them, feel invited to take on this possibility. (If somebody feels inspired to help prove reading and/or translating further, one should feel welcome to take this possibility. Topic as well as sources can be found here: [Mangala Sutta Uannana - Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera(draft)](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,309.msg649.html#msg649) *(Note, this question and content is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commerzial use or other purpose of wordily gains.)*

The Yodhajiva Sutta tells the story of a warrior who thought that brave warriors who fought valiantly and died heroically on the battlefield, would go to warrior heavan. The Buddha disappointed him by saying: > When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already > seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be > struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not > exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus > striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the > body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those > slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior > strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & > slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with > the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of > devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two > destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or > the animal womb." What about judges who carry out their judicial duties correctly and pass the death sentence according to the law? Would these judges suffer the same fate as the warriors above, or not? And why? Is it right livelihood?

In the book *Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind*, I read the following statement: > This is the basic teaching of Buddhism. Pleasure is not different from difficulty. Good is not different from bad. Bad is good; good is bad. They are two sides of one coin. How does this make sense? Does this mean that every good action (for example trying to reduce suffering) is somehow also bad? Or at least destined to fail?