I have been practicing insight meditation daily now for over 6 years. I have learnt the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. I focus on my abdomen rising and falling and notice when my attention goes to something else which seems to be mostly thoughts and then I gently bring it back. When my attention goes to a sensation I watch the sensation for a while until it is no longer holding attention then I bring it back to the breath. After 6 years of doing this I can't say that I have had profound insight into the true nature of reality etc. Most of the time I just feel really bored and doubtful that sitting all this time is actually changing anything. My concentration is only marginally better. I understand Dukha, Anicca and Anatta but its more from reading about it than sitting. I sit for an hour in the morning and 45 mins at night. Im not sure whats going on but just feels something is missing. I read about and hear people talking about the profound changes they experience and how their lives are filled with peace and joy from practicing so I wonder where Im going wrong? As far as Metta practice goes I am told that at first it may feel contrived but if you keep going it begins to work but I have to say that after all these years not much has changed on that front either. It seems that the effort and energy I apply massively out weighs the benefits. So I'm confused about this.

I was reading this answer, in which an essay is cited. In this essay, *Freedom From Fear*, an example is given of a hunted deer which experiences anger, and thus aversion. In contrast, the desire to escape isn't aversion, but considered potentially skillful. I have always thought aversion involves aversive states such as avoidance from painful experiences. **Is aversion strictly about anger, and irritation? Does it have nothing to do with avoidance (though the English term somewhat suggests this)?** In sum, I wonder what the nature of aversion actually entails and encompasses.

According to the historical story before the day of enlightenment, Mara apparently lured the Buddha with various worldy pleasures. Now, I am not arguing whether Mara really existed or is just Buddha's mind (which would be rather my interpretation). But The Buddha should at that time be a non-returner and he must have abandoned the fetter of sensuous desires. He should've chilled in the 4th Jhana not giving a damn! So my question is: Why was it a struggle for the Buddha if the conditioned fetter of sensuous desire was already uprooted as an anagami?

I have four parts of this question, 1. Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma? 2. If Nibbana is a state of mind, is it merely the uprooting of craving? 3. If the answer for the second question is **"Yes"**, then why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness? Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving? 4. "One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?

I've heard even though two people do the same good Karma their returns can be different on what they were thinking. And when coming to effect these different Karmas can give different births ("Trihethuka pratisandhi") to the beings who did those Karma Unlocking or Locking the ability to realize Nirvana in that life itself. Can someone explain how Birth Karma effect a being?

Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal release? Would it be conflicting if one is under the branch Theravada Buddhism but perform animal release?

That is a question that emerged from a previous discussion, but here I would like to focus on this story. From the background story: "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any evil." Question: Does it mean that if you work for a company that sells weapons or intoxicants and you do not directly sell or produce it, you also had no opportunity to find another job (it is what you got to pay your bills), you are blameless like the wife of the hunter?

I don't see any other questions, in the suggestions of the site, linked with this precise topic. What is the equivalent of "willpower" in Buddhism? How is it developped? Thank you.

What is the right way of living in the Present? Present day living is full of challenges and with forces in play and to act in certain way. How does one follow the Path in these conditions without incurring karma and its after-effects?

Approaching yr68, I have committed my share of unwholesome conduct over the years, the typical errors of middle-class youth and adulthood in this USofA. I've been practicing sitting meditation for close to two years, and am most comfortable with Theravada vipassana concepts and practices, though I have not taken lay Buddhist vows. I generally sit "with the breath" for one hour most every day, some days see two sessions. I have not yet realized "access concentration". I am perplexed that I never have feelings of remorse or shame or guilt over past deeds arise during sitting, and only rarely have I experienced strong feelings of gratitude or happiness. Might I assume that it is only a matter of time before "the stuff hits the fan" and I find myself overwhelmed with "remorse or shame or guilt" during sitting meditation?

My current understanding of dependent origination is that things cause other things to arise and cease and ultimately it a big interconnected web of influences. If that's reasonably correct (on a provisional level) then what meaning does right effort or just effort generally have in that context. If I arise and cease dependent on other things then where does my own effort come into it? If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web? I appreciate that this kind of questioning can be (rightly) criticised as metaphysical nitpicking. However when I meditate (or even just sit around and reflect) this kind of question comes up for me. It's like a little personal koan that keeps nagging at me so I would appreciate any input - even if it is just a reminder not to worry and get practicing.

Many western Buddhists have non-western names: - **Jeffrey Block** - *Bhikkhu Bodhi* - **Geoffrey DeGraff** - *Thanissaro Bhikkhu* or *Ajaan Geoff* - **Deirdre Blomfield-Brown** - *Pema Chödrön* Are they given to them when they are ordained as monks/bhikkuni (like *Dances with Wolves*), or are they more informal (e.g. *Ajaan Geoff*)? Just curious.

Meditation skill level: greater than beginner, less than adept. Before I can get to the Electric Feel, we need to come to a mutual understanding on how I get there. I have a specific technique to my meditation that I have sown together from random scraps of multiple religions(taoism, buddhism, christianity(yes they meditate), Islam and new age stuff). Imagine my technique to be a pyramid that has many levels(plateaus). I must achieve reaching the first level before going to the next. If I am on the third level and stop doing something that was required to reach the first level, then I have to gone down to the first level again and must work my way up from there. The first level is Breath... of course. 4 seconds in, and 4 seconds out. The attention is on breath. Continues until this process requires no counting of time and is automatic. Second level is muscle relexation over then entire body. The attention is on the entire body in a state of rest. During the first and second levels one must shrug off all thoughts that are worldly worries or thoughts that are hindering your progress. Third level is Electric Feel. I can feel what I would call an energy running circuits through my body. This sensation can be directed through intention: If I want to feel energy coming in through my head and go down my spine, it can happen. Levels after 3 are theoretical. But I feel like I can feel my 'Asteral Body'.(when answering you may disregard anything about the Asteral Body if it has no correlation with Buddhism) So is this sensation a normal one for meditation? How can I move past this sensation to deepen meditation? Are my 'levels' accurate to what Buddhism teaches? What level comes after the electric feel? Does Buddhism support the notion of an Asteral Body?

I have read previous posts on this topic here but wanted some clarification. I want to transfer merit (I am familiar and have great faith and practise with the Therevada tradition, and so am interested in this strand of Buddhism...), to someone who is currently experiencing great difficulties and is not open to buddhism or really anything that can help. If I were to transfer merits, it would have to be done without the person knowing and I was wondering if this would give any benefit to the person. Any advice given to this person directly would definitely be unwelcome.....and I want to help in whatever way possible.

I began meditating a few months ago with the help of guided online meditations for a long time from different sources and read some articles on how to do Anapanasati while continuing my practice. After realising what the essence of the meditation practice is, I decided to practice it on my own with the help of online timers. What is bothering me is that, while other thoughts do arise and the point is to recognise the thoughts and bring the attention to the breath, while doing the meditation there is also an inner narrator in my head which comes in as any other thought would and it guides me as an instructor would in guided meditations, that too in great detail. The voice would often be in someone else's voice and at times on my own voice. I am not entirely sure if I am forcing this on me at times or it comes up effortlessly. And at times it adds up to my dissatisfaction and confuses me a lot. What I want to know is, am I doing something wrong or is it perfectly normal for people like me who are new to meditation and started off with guided meditation as a starting point? If it is wrong, how to avoid this and continue my meditation sessions without hindrance? Should I be non-judgemental or non-reactive to it like any other sensation and visual/pictorial thoughts arising on mind while meditating, observing it, and bringing the attention to my breath be of help? I need help here because I don't think that at this rate, I can bring myself to have the level of concentration to be effortlessly aware of my breath to reach the next stages of meditation. ---------- **Edit:** Apologies to everyone for the delay and maybe I wasn't verbose enough in my question. What I meant was that apart from auditory or visual distractions that come to some/most of us while meditating (eg; a song popping up in our brain, or some conversation which happened a while ago or a long time ago, some negative thought or remark by someone to us which made us sad/angry -- and most of which come without us putting an active effort to bring forth these thoughts, i.e. unwillingly and naturally), I experience the narration of voices of many people based on whose guided online courses, audio files, videos, I started doing meditation (eg; Gil Fronsdal, Sharon Salzberg, John Kabat Zinn, etc.). And often, they come when bodily sensations(distracting in nature -- kind of like a fidgety feeling) or mind wandering (of other forms) start taking the central stage for a brief period of time during Anapanasati, and sometimes without any kind of distractions. I am not certain if this is happening with an active effortless conscious effort from me or whether this is some kind of distraction/mind wandering/cognitive auditory effect of its own coming from the Default Mode Network of my brain. For the record, I do have ADHD and my psychiatrist (of recent) thinks that it may be plausible that I might have BPAD, but he isn't sure as more tests are needed to conclude that. Maybe some of it is because of these ailments. I hope I was more clear now.

I have seen many answers to questions referring teachings of modern teacher in this SE. *But as i have learned* Lord Buddha's understanding is above any other,even above an arahant. Dhamma/Dharma itself is timeless and therefore does not need modifications or updates. ----- So what is the need of the term "Modern practice / Modern Buddhism"? Shouldn't we take Lord Buddha's word above the rest and use any other resource later on for further clarification if there is such a need? Why there is a trend of drifting away from original teachings, does the followers now believe that Lord Buddha's words are outdated?

I've heard it taught by various secular teachers that through mindfulness one can uncover the "true authentic self" because we realise that we are not thought but that we are awareness of thought. Please correct me if I'm mistaken but in my understanding this is not in alignment with Buddhist teachings and a misunderstanding of mindfulness. We can discover that there is an awareness of thought, emotion etc but are we this awareness? Wouldn't Buddha say that even awareness is not self? If we are not thought, not awareness, who or what is the observer? Is the observer just more impermanent phenomena?

I try to maintain mindfulness in daily life and I find that most of the time my thoughts keep wandering and I often find myself regurgitating on some random topic which is not at all useful at the moment. Is there any sutta in which Buddha talks about thoughts - which thoughts are useful to dwell on and which are not?

“finding a place for the mind in a world that is fundamentally physical” —has been puzzled over for centuries, and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. The reason is that apparently every possible solution has inadequacies. Anyone familiar with the philosophical literature is aware of all the problems with Cartesian substance dualism, reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, behaviorism and functionalism, non-reductive physicalism and emergentism. One is tempted to agree with Colin McGinn that the cognitive apparatus of humans is intrinsically inadequate to the problem of explaining the relation between the mind and the brain. How something like consciousness can emerge from something like the brain seems totally inexplicable. What is the Buddhist explanation for Mind-Body problem?

Today, I received an email with a quote in the signature attributed to Blaise Pascal reading > All of human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. A [more accurate quote](http://fr.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal) is, > tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne pas savoir demeurer en repos dans une chambre > > All the **unhappiness** of men comes from only one thing, which is not knowing how to **stay** at rest (or 'remain peacefully') in a room. [Here is the whole passage in context](http://www.etudes-litteraires.com/pascal.php) (I translate), > When I put myself sometimes to considering the diverse agitations of > men and the dangers and trouble which they expose themselves to, in > the court, in war, from where are born so many troubles, passions, > endeavours that are hardy (or fool-hardy) and often bad, etc., I > discovered that all the unhappiness of man comes from just one cause, > which is not knowing how to stay peacefully in a room. A man who has > enough goods to live, if he knew how to live with pleasure in his > home, wouldn't leave it to go on the sea or to the seat of a place. > One buys such an expensive warrant for the army, only because one > finds it intolerable to not move from the town; and one looks for > conversations and the distraction of games only because one can't stay > at one's own home with pleasure. > > But when I thought about it more closely and after finding the cause > of all our unhappiness, I wanted to discover the reason for that, I > found there is one very effective (reason), which consists in the > natural unhappiness of our feeble and mortal condition, and so > miserable, that nothing can console us, when we think of it closely. > > Whatever condition one figures oneself to be in, if one assembles all > the goods which can belong to us, royalty is the most beautiful > position in the world, and nevertheless if one imagines oneself (in > that position), accompanied by all the satisfactions associated with > it. If it's without distraction, and if one lets oneself consider and > reflect on what is, that langorous happiness wouldn't sustain itself, > it necessarily falls among the sights which menace it, the revolts > which could happen, and finally the death and sickness which are > inevitable; such that, if it is without what one calls 'distractions' > (literally 'detours', figuratively 'games'), there he (the king) is > unhappy and more unhappy than the least of his subjects, who play and > distract (or entertain) themselves. How would a Buddhist respond to such a statement ? I have a feeling he or she would agree at least on some levels. Even though it seemed Buddhism was introduced to the west beginning mainly in the 20th century, this quote seems to echo that the West was not totally unawares. If I remember correctly, "Lines Composed a Few Mile Above Tintern Abbey" also seemed to reiterate some principles found in Buddhism. There were probably missionaries who came in contact with it after the birth of Christ. Reverand Kusala mentions Zen Buddhism was actual a reaction of missionaries coming in contact with the existing Therevadan tradition.