I was reading a particular question about conversion. This particular answer discusses how one converts to become a buddhist: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2031/how-does-conversion-work-in-buddhism > First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you > are truly a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you > consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several > years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher. Is it possible to become a buddhist without a formal teacher or formal teaching? If so, does one just learn from online experiences and research?

I wrote previously that somehow, my meditation practice suddenly became more difficult, without any cause. So, I wondered what measures could be taken. Since my objective -- for now -- is meditation *once* per day, any means by which I'd sit and meditate for an allotted time would be useful. I wondered: what reasons/motives can one contemplate mentally to get that push and sit more easily? For example: - "Once I will sit down, the difficulty will diminish." - "This is part of a path leading eventually to Buddhahood." - "Meditating will help not only myself, but others." I guess I'm looking for canonical or traditionally given reasons to invoke to motivate oneself to meditate or practice in any form. Thank you.

It seems to me that analysing everything to the tiniest degree takes joy and spontaneity out of life. I admit, being mindful can make for better decision making and therefor better outcome, but do you want to be around me if I am so thoroughly earnest?

In our world the belief is that matter is only made of materiality not mentality. What I heard from a Buddhit monk is that materiality is actually mental. Can I hear both the Thervada view and the Mahayana view on this topic. Is it true that both of the paths say that there is only our experience nothing outside it exist.

In accord to Dhamma, What is appropriate to give oneself? What is appropriate to give to others? Does dana ever go to oneself? Could oneself be seen impersonally as another that needs dana? How is metta and dana related or not related?

I have these questions: - If an enlightened mind sees that helping someone is beneficial to them, then would they do it even when the helped doesn't proactively ask? - If they are hated by the helped, then would that hate be irrelevant to the intention? Is it perfectly fine to continue the help despite of the rejection? - How is that different to converting them? My self-answer is that of course it is fine to do that, given that the helper is truly sure that their help will bring benefit in the long term. There are many such stories about the ones sacrificing themselves to rescue those who try to kill them, Buddhists or not. However, from the perspective of the receiving end, it is still unsolicited help. They only see that action as unsolicited, or even stalking. They may even see the helper is having a big attachment/mental problem. Although this is just a misunderstanding, I think the helped has the right to challenge that intention. How does Buddhism address that?
For the question that how the helper knows what is beneficial to the helped, read [Does following logic necessarily require one to conclude that they are objective and have no bias?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/57246/19487)

Can we use Piti as a meditation subject? There are 40 meditation objects are given in Visuddhimagga as follows. Ten recollections; ten foul objects; ten kasinas; four sublime abidings; four formless absorptions; one resolution into elements; and one perception of the filthiness of food. My question is whether we can keep four form absorptions as a meditation objects, but specifically Piti as a meditation object.

I am wondering how to go about starting on the path of Buddhism without offending or appropriating the culture. As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged with the ability to overlook the repercussions of my actions when adopting a new practice/lifestyle what have you. I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it - but I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist. I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture" and I also don't want to offend those who's cultures were shaped by it. I guess what I'm asking is - how can I start myself on the path respectfully in a manner that shows my true reverence for the teachings of the Buddha? I have privately tried my best to follow the path for some time now, but I've realized I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it. Advice?

Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun alone (not a laywoman)? Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun (considering the rule applies) while others a present? Is there a specific rule in the Vinaya for this, if so please cite. What should one do if one sees a monk alone with a female nun and it is not allowed (if that's a rule)?

There is some evidence that plants are 'sentient beings' and can communicate (e.g. see [this article](http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants) or [this wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology))) . However Buddhists believe eating meat is wrong because of killing a living entity, what about plants? If this is true what can you eat?

**A solitary Buddha occurs in one in a million of the human population**: please correct me if that's how often the vehicle occurs -- though I struggle to completely understand the concept of a "solitary" *seed* or fixed yana. Either way, that one million figure is -- I think -- an expression of how it is more unique than arhatship. Or, have I invented the statistic in bold? Anyway: > [[a]s of 2016 Thailand][1] had 39,883 wats (temples). Three hundred-ten are > royal wats, the remainder are private (public). There were 298,580 > Buddhist monks, 264,442 of the Maha Nikaya order and 34,138 of the > Dhammayuttika Nikaya order. There were 59,587 Buddhist novice monks. Thailand's population is about seventy million, which works out, if you ignore 'turnover', as one in two hundred being monks. So that, depending on how you understand the numbers in the first paragraph, suggests in monks, no less than one in a thousand are already arhats. Likewise, assuming they don't get stuck on the first step, in which case more still, about one in a hundred are stream winners. Is that *completely* wrong? Does it make sense, do you know, to say that there are e.g. *three thousand* sages in Thailand? *Three hundred* saints? How does it compare with success in the English speaking nations?

Is Satori like a stage of stream entry? Is Satori only an intellectual knowing or something deeper than that?

When we do a simple observation of breath (in & out) during meditation, how to know if its natural flow I am observing or forced one? Regards

I think I've noticed some conceptual overlaps between Buddhism and Western Philosophy and Science. What are good sources for comparing and contrasting Western ideas and Buddhism? What are suspected sources of eastern ideas appearing in Western works? I list some speculated commonalities below by my admittedly incomplete understanding. What knowledge I have of Buddhism primarily comes from books by Thich Nhat Hanh and Alan Watts. I also attended Pure Land services for a while. **PSYCHOLOGY** For example, Mindfulness has a bit in common with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Meta-Cognition. Mindfulness is, in part, awareness of ones thoughts. Meta-cognition is awareness and control of one's cognitive processes. One's thinking isn't dominated by random firing to which the thinker is oblivious. The Second Nobel truth relates suffering to delusion, CBT relates emotional suffering to "Cognitive Distortions". These distortions are typically lack of present-mindedness, obsessing over past and future. They also involve a general failure to consider events in their full context. **LITERATURE** 'When Hamlet asks Rosencrantz and Guildenstern why they would volunteer to come to a prison, they respond that they don't think of Denmark as a prison. Hamlet explains, “[T]here is / nothing good or bad but thinking makes it / so.” '. Here the 'good' and 'bad' are pleasure and pain and the degree to which they are experienced. CBT says something similar- one has emotional suffering because of thinking one way about them as opposed to alternatives. Buddhism says suffering is due to various delusions. CBT faults "Cognitive Distortions". In his The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde says, "To become a spectator of one's own life is to escape the suffering of life.” One can be self-aware, aware of oneself in a third person sense, and one can be aware of one self in the first person, as an 'I'. Here Wilde seems to be relating reduction of suffering with reducing ego. Just prior to writing this book, he wrote the forward to a friend's book on The Tao Te Ching. His line might also might touch upon a mindful self-awareness as well as a capacity to be amidst unfortunate events and yet not suffer, at least emotionally. William Blake speaks of The Human Form Divine which seems to overlap with Blessed Human Existence. "To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour" speaks to a element of timelessness. Apparently Blake was familiar with Vedic works- Awakenings: Blake and the Buddha **PHILOSOPHY/EPISTEMOLOGY** More significantly, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics approaches ethics with an emphasis on character development as opposed to focusing on only individual acts. One is less ethical than ideal if one does the right things for the wrong reason, if they have the wrong motivation. Western philosophy categorizes ethical theories which emphasize character as Virtue Ethics. So both Aristotle and the Buddha would fall into this category. Also, Aristotle is notorious for advocating Moderation in All Things, similar to The Middle Way, very similar to the Dharma Seal - Nirvana is Beyond Extremes. Buddhism also seems to have a lot in common with Stoicism which teaches something very similar to "All Emotions Are Pain"- The Second Seal of Dharma as discussed here by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche on Four Seals of Dharma . Science strives to be objective and not subjective. A subjective experience is very personal, ego-centered. Personal stake in an experiment's outcome one tries to avoid. Go where the evidence leads and don't shoe horn it into a pet theory, which admittedly may be going on here. There are some elements of experience which are more or less universalizable. There's a distancing of ones understanding from the self or personal stakes. Data is assessed by means of an impersonal method of evaluation. One doesn't have a gut feeling that there is a correspondence in the data, one has methods for proving a correspondence with statistical significance, e.g. Statistical Hypothesis Testing. Are these all just a coincidences? Superficial linguistic commonalities? Are humans in touch with something that speaks to them about Buddhism regardless of their background? I've read that the Dharma is everywhere. Emerson speaks of The Oversoul like some speak of dharma.

- What is it to let go in Buddhism? - What is it to accept in Buddhism? - What are the things we accept? - What are the things we let go? Why? How? - What do Buddhists scriptures have to say about it?

Can mind be free from becoming (Suffering) ? I should be and I should that. I am thin and I want to be a body builder. I am this and I want to that. Can mind free from becoming?

Why are Buddhist concepts so challenging for people to understand? What do people who understand know that average people don't know? What are some of the barriers to the understanding of Dharma? What facilitates understanding of Dharma?

I have been on a few forums and Facebook groups and a lot of people on there seem to be missing the point of their practice. What colour robes should I wear, how many breaths should I take per minute while meditating and (worst of all) what is meant by this word, in this particular translation, of this sutra. No offence to anyone else here. In "Hardcore Zen" by Brad Warner he make some comment about the people who go to the temples, sit there meditating all day, but for all the wrong reasons. The principles are fairly self explanatory and as long as you live a good life as a good person, that is it. Enlightenment aka "the same old, same old". I know my life won't realistically be any better if I won a million punds and I am happy with that. By all means swot up on the methodology but it will just make you a better "buddhist" as opposed to making you any happier. Am I missing something? I hope not.

Can someone give a name of a monk to learn Buddhism? Thanks

Is the Zen term Satori the same as enlightenment or does it have different nuances or emphasis over what is commonly meant by enlightenment in non-Zen texts. If it is the same then why is used at all. Is its usage just a cultural thing and enlightenment could equally be substituted?