Does the Buddha ever instruct us to meditate for the sake of meditation's immediate and temporary benefits? If we see meditation as a car for gaining insights and understanding, but also as a tool for improving our focus or mood or (non)reactivity - does the Buddha ever explicitly urge us to meditate for the latter effects?

Is there a tradition within Buddhism of praying in an easterly direction? If there is what is the oldest known reference to it. Sorry for the simplicity of the question, but I am not a Buddhist.

As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (*Kshana- Bhanga*, or *kṣaṇa*) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing. My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)? Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing). In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller. No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same. I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason? The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.

If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible? I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

I can't remember, perhaps it was a dream, a vague recalling at best...where does Buddha ask ‘do you want to be a dumb animal?’ I’m not accusing Buddha of calling animals dumb, I’m assuming he thought some animals are dumb…like some person (animal), but that other animals are smart, like some person. Anyway, does he say this?

Is there a term or concept for 'feeling' like there's a "me", or for 'feeling' like something "belongs to myself"? Recently I was able to distinguish between two types of feelings, one where the feeling is just there and everything is fine, and another where a "me" is involved that "has" the feeling. The latter comes with a sensation, so I wonder if Buddhism has a notion of this sort of feeling that there's an identification or self that is involved.

I am practicing Vipassana meditation and I want to know is it possible to practice samadhi/anapana and pragya/Vipassana without following Sila.

The Buddha advises that the middle way be taken. The discussion around the middle way sounds to me like a "it is not needed to be so krass" type view on asceticism. But is it still beneficial for enlightenment? Or does the Buddha actually mean to say that asceticism will hinder you from approaching stream entry?

Cartels in Mexico force people to join and if they try to escape they kill them. Why don't people who achieve Nirvana care to make everyone in the world like them?

I am going for minor operation. Should I ask for anesthesia or do without it(seeing the unpleasant sensation equanimously) ? And when I have orgasm or very tasty food it's very difficult to see the sensation equanimously. What to do? Any tips to remain in equanimity in orgasm ?(too difficult!) Isn't anesthesia same as alcohol ? (numb your consciousness )

Sometimes the meditation is good and sometimes it is chaos. I follow the eightfold path as much as I can. I feel the progress is solely dependent on 'samma samadhi'. I dont have ill will or anger or hatred or sorrow anymore. Still I think progress in meditation is measure of how much one has progressed on the path of dhamma. But this is frustrating as I am not able to reach the elusive jhanas. How do I comfort myself that I am making progress each day on the path of dhamma?

After a prolonged struggle with various eating disorders (atypical, anorexia, bulimia, BED) over nearly two years, as well as ongoing mood disorders and severe anxiety for the past three, I've found conventional self-guided Western CBT therapies, and even standalone meditation, largely ineffective for me. Significant barriers (financial, temporal, locational, cultural conditioning) limit my access to consistent professional therapy, and will likely remain in place for the foreseeable future. Believe me, I've tried. I'm looking for an alternative path, a fundamentally different framework than modern psychology, to address a deep-seated lack of purpose and unresolved trauma, ultimately seeking peace of mind. I've long been drawn to the exploration of Western neuroscience and cognitive science on Buddhism, specifically the tangible benefits of mindfulness meditation. My "hope" is to find a Buddhist school that aligns with, and ideally offers a practical experience similar to, approaches like MBSR, MBCT, and DBT, despite their fundamental differences from traditional Buddhism. This leads to my core questions: 1. **Influence of Buddhist Schools on Western Therapies:** How much influence do different Buddhist schools (e.g., Theravada, Zen, Pure Land, Tibetan) have on the development and practice of: * Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) * Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT) * Acceptance-Based Therapies (e.g., ACT) * Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) * Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) I understand that Western mindfulness, particularly MBSR/MBCT, is often linked to Theravada (Vipassanā, as seen in the Insight Meditation Society and "Mindfulness in Plain English"). However, I've also come across arguments for significant Zen Buddhist influence on Jon Kabat-Zinn's work, which resonates with the "non-dualistic" feel of modern mindfulness. 2. **Is it problematic to choose a Buddhist school based on these inspirations?** Given my past experiences and current limitations, is it a "wrong" approach to seek a Buddhist tradition that primarily contributed to, or feels practically similar to, these Western therapeutic modalities? My aim is not necessarily "enlightenment" in the traditional sense, but rather a path to alleviate suffering and cultivate inner peace, perhaps building positive karma for future lives (as a layperson, taking a stoic approach to the ultimate goal). 3. **Navigating Availability and Personal Preference:** I'm personally more attracted to Theravada's "down-to-earth" step-by-step Eightfold Path and emphasis on mindfulness, along with the sense of certainty from practices like one meal a day and abstinence from alcohol. However, in both my current city and home city, Mahayana denominations are more readily available (authentic Chan, Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village, and a modernized immigrant Pure Land school). I've visited the immigrant Pure Land and authentic Chan centers, but they simply don't "click" with me; they feel "weird" and I don't like them. I haven't had the opportunity to visit a Theravada temple for comparison. If I choose Theravada, I'd likely need to rely on online sanghas, which may not accommodate my timezone. Given my intention to remain a layperson and focus on personal practice for peace of mind and perhaps future karmic benefit, I'm unsure how crucial an in-person or online sangha is for my goals. Any insights on these points, particularly regarding the historical influences and the appropriateness of my approach to choosing a path, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

As i was told pinpotha is a traditional book used by sri lankan lay people. It is used to keep a track of all the good things they do. I made a digital version of pinpotha (epinpotha.lk ). Can someone explain me the real concept behind this.

If I remember rightly the Buddha is quoted as saying something along the lines of: > Do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself In what text(s) of the Buddhist cannon is this quoted?

In *Cracking The Walnut: Understanding the Dialectics of Nagarjuna*, Thich Nhat Hanh explains how in the four conditions out of which a phenomenon arises (seed condition, continuity condition, object of cognition as condition, supportive condition) we can not find the self-nature of the phenomenon itself. The text which he is explaining, The Verses on the Middle Way by Nagarjuna, conclude this about the matter: > 3. The self-nature of phenomena \ is not found in the conditions. \ Since there is no self-nature, \ how could there be an other-nature? To illustrate this point Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire. > For example, we may look for the self-nature of a flame in a box of matches. In the box are matches made of wood and sulfur. Outside the box is oxygen. When we search inside the wood, sulfur, and oxygen can we find the self-nature of the flame? Whether the match has already been lit or not, we cannot find this self-nature. What we call the self-nature of something cannot be found in its conditions at all. My question is, how can Nagarjuna make the leap that because self-nature is not found in the causes or grounds out of which a phenomenon arises that therefore said phenomenon does not possess self-nature? For instance, if we at first assume that objects possess a separate self-nature and we take the example of ice instead of fire, we see that the conditions out of which ice arises (freezing temperatures, water, air pressure) do seem to possess something resembling the self-nature of their product. This is why I am confused when Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire to illustrate the point -- surely there are other phenomena, like ice, which don't fit the rule?

My professor said that it is believed in Buddhism that to attain Buddhahood, you need to be a man, so a woman needs to become a man first. Then she added that Buddha on the contrary believed that addition of one woman into the Sangha would make the Sangha last thousand years more. Why this difference and what are the contexts behind them? What is the exact status of gender equality in Bhuddhism?

What is the exact number of original jataka tales? If we look around we see Jataka tales, panchatantra, Esop's fables and many others are all mixed up. Where can I read original Jataka tales online?

Outside world is there without mind?outside world create only by mind. Actually there is no materialistic world. Is this correct?

I would like to know what is defined as "Patigha" (Skt. "Pratigha"), and how it varies from "Dosa" (Skt. "Dvesha"). Thank you.

Mahamaya is the birth mother of Siddhartha. After her death, after giving birth, she is said to have gone to the God Realm of the 33 where later she received teachings from the Buddha. She is also said to have grieved his parinirvana in a sutra I cannot find and visited him on earth at that time. Did she become an Arhat or attain other realizations after receiving teahings as was the case with other disciples of the Buddha?