I was just meditating, and as I tried to see the breath more clearly, I noticed that there is this resistance again to doing that. When I tried to see that, it seemed to me that there was great pleasure above feeling and a comfortable feeling in the mind remaining as it is and not exerting itself to know the object in the present moment. The pleasurable feeling was very similar to the joy of laziness and comfort, or, for example, the comfort of a warm interior after coming in from the cold outside. I also noticed a tinge of sleepiness in it, although I just had eight hours of uninterrupted sleep. Have you noticed this previously? If yes, can you give details on what this is? This feeling is completely new to me, and I think it is an impediment in developing the mind. Thank you.

Quick question. How do we hear the sound of our own thought? I assume ear-consciousness but without the contact of internal-external bases ? Is this right?

I read the following on the internet: > Vipassana, the tranquil mind, is the core. > > When emotions arise, the tranquil mind observes and assesses before > the conscious is involved. > >The tranquil mind will recognise the burning heart and dualise > the self. When the self becomes two, the emotions don't rule the mind > and the mind doesn't rule the emotions. Is vipassana the tranquil mind? Does the tranquil mind observe before the arising of consciousness? What is meant by dualizing the self? How does the tranquil mind dualize the self? How does the dualized self stop emotions not ruling the mind?

So I was reading about jhana and nimitta in a book by Pa-Auk tawya sayadaw here page 41 if anyone wants to read. Where I come across this: > To balance faith with wisdom, and concentration with effort, is > praised by the wise. If, for instance, faith is strong and wisdom is > weak, a person will develop faith in, and respect for objects without > use and essence. For instance, he will develop faith in, and reverence > for objects revered and respected by religions outside orthodox > Buddhism, such as guardian spirits or protective deities. **If, on the > other hand, wisdom is strong and faith is weak, a person can become > quite crafty. Without meditating, he will spend his time simply > passing judgements. This is as difficult to cure as to cure a diseas > caused by an overdose of medicine.** If faith and wisdom are balanced, > however, a person will have faith in objects he should have faith in: > the Triple Gem, kamma, and its effects. He will believe that if he > meditates in accordance with The Buddha's instructions, he will be > able to attain the pañibhàga-nimitta, and jhàna Now I do experience with the latter, too much wisdom, not enough faith. I did and must have had some faith at the beginning of my study into Buddhism, though at that time I still had faith (believed) in god (creation/christian god) but now I "know" things that I no longer have faith in, because I know and understand them I have conformation rather than faith. Even kind of complicated concepts like "faith in" karma, I no longer have faith in because I understand and can see first hand karma manifest through cause and effect. Even the Buddhas enlightenment I have "seen" so to speak as I have seen the fruits of the path so my faith in these things have waned or dissipated. There has not been any sort of scepticism about the actual Buddhas teachings for a long time, I at least intellectually understand even the most complex concepts. I remember hearing a sutta about Buddha asking a student if they have faith in the Buddha and the student replied "no I do no longer have faith in the Buddha", to which the other members of the sangha were shocked, but the meaning of the sutta was that this person had gone beyond faith and understood the dhamma so no longer had any faith in what the Buddha taught, as he had seen himself. I cannot remember if this is a mahayana or theravada sutta, and I think the student was an arhant, meaning after arthantship one no longer has faith. Still the question is before arthantship, as I myself am not an arthant. **So the questions are:** how do we then gain or renew faith in order to balance wisdom? Is there a point where faith is no longer able to manifest in ones mind before arhantship so there is no way to balance wisdom with faith? and if so, how would we [then] actually be able to balance wisdom without faith?

Before I asked 'how can I hear my thinking? ' Now I'm wondering if I'm forced to hear my thinking? AN6.63 says: > And what is the result of perceptions? > > *Katamo ca, bhikkhave, saññānaṁ vipāko?* > > Communication is the result of perception, I say. > > *Vohāravepakkaṁ, bhikkhave, saññaṁ vadāmi. Variant: Vohāravepakkaṁ → vohāravepakkāhaṁ (bj, sya-all, pts1ed) | saññaṁ → saññā (sya-all, > pts1ed)* > > You communicate something in whatever manner you perceive it, saying > ‘That’s what I perceived.’ > > *Yathā yathā naṁ sañjānāti tathā tathā voharati, evaṁ saññī ahosinti. Variant: ahosinti → ahosīti (mr)* > > This is called the result of perceptions. > > *Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, saññānaṁ vipāko.* Is the result of perception *vaci-sankara*?

In SN3:8 ([Mallikā Sutta](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN3_8.html)) , when asked by King Pasenadi if there is anyone dearer to her than herself, Queen Mallika answered: > “No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?” Likewise, the King answered that he saw himself to be of utmost importance. When the Buddha was informed of this conversation, he affirmed that such is the case with *all beings*. In our modern society, self-centredness (hereby termed as selfishness) has gotten a bad reputation while altruism (selfless concern for others) is widely celebrated. Therefore, I find it interesting and strange that the Buddha did not disapprove of the selfishness as expressed in the above sutra but only stressed that we should restrain from hurting others just as we would not want ourselves to be hurt i.e. [norm of reciprocity](https://www.thebehavioralscientist.com/glossary/reciprocity) . Seeing that selfishness has a tendency to result in [self-obsession as evident in this definition](https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/selfishness.html) : > the state of being very focused on one’s own needs and well-being with a correspondingly decreased focus on the needs and well-being of others Thus, my questions as below. 1. Why didn’t the Buddha disapprove of selfishness? 2. Isn’t selfishness a cause for people to hurt/harm others either intentionally/consciously or unintentionally/unconsciously. 3. Why didn’t the Buddha encourage his followers to “love thy neighbour as thyself”? Wouldn’t it help reduce self-obsession and potential problems in relationship due to selfish behaviour? 4. Could this be one possible cause for the philosophical difference between Theravada and Mahayana? Whereas the former is neutral on selfishness, the latter encourages compassion and pursuing enlightenment for the benefit of all beings.

When we see with an eye of Dhamma , we realise that that which has a beginning must have an end because birth is conditional. (I am using Bhikkhu Sujata’s translation of SN 35.74 ) If we reverse the Truth then is it true that that which has an end must have had a beginning? PS: To clarify , I share an example, suppose a candle light is put off then can we conclude that sometime in the past the candle was lit? It was not always burning.

Equivalently, is there any Buddhism with room for accepting a person who subsequently chooses to return to material drives as having, in any valid sense, "been enlightened"?

Is doing 10 min meditation 6 times same as doing 1 hour meditation? Or is doing 30 mins 4 times same as 2 hour meditation ? Thanks for answer can i go more than 1 hr say 90 mins?

> "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" > > "No, lord." > > "What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than > feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In > fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... > Elsewhere than consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without > consciousness?" > > "No, lord." > > "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to > declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative > man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is > described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata > exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not > exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > > "No, lord." > > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only suffering that I describe, and the cessation of suffering." Based on the above, who is it that is really suffering? And who is I?

I am long time student of Chogyam Trungpa. Unfortunately, the current situation at the sangha (now Shambhala International) is in a state of chaos. I am interested in becoming B. Alan Wallace's student. I'm wondering if his path is similar to Vajradhatu, in other words, start with shamatha/vipassana, then ngondro, and then abhiseka. Thank you

What Buddhist distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"? I view "mindfulness" as a purposeful application of awareness. However, I am at a loss for a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness.

1. Was Pali the language spoken during the time of the Buddha, and would he have spoken this language? 2. Are the suttas contained in the Pali Canon verbatim what the Buddha said, or would things have been changed due to centuries of oral transmission?

Some part of my mind always watches/is aware of breath whether I am studying, playing, eating, watching movies, etc. Is it ok? Any long detailed answer?

Here is another non-essential question born from a dead thing. Is Pali the native language of Buddha's birth town? Apparently the Shakyas are bilingual (according to wiki), and they derived from a **Munda** people (according to wiki). Was Pali spoken by Munda people? It makes me wonder if Buddha uttered, muttered the Pali b/c he was unfamiliar with it, or b/c maybe the language was a spontaneous birth? Instead, was Pali native to Magadha - according to wiki Buddha was born north of Magadha - where Buddha enlightened? wiki (unreliable source) says : > Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, lived much of his life in the > kingdom of Magadha. He attained enlightenment in Bodh Gaya,

In the Jewish tradition of Hassidut Chabad, there's a well-known story about the need to be ready to abandon practice towards enlightenment in favor of compassionate action which is the manifestation of enlightenment itself. Here's the story ([source](https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/1973508/jewish/Heeding-the-Cry-of-a-Child.htm)) : >The Alter Rebbe shared his house with his oldest married son, Rabbi Dov Ber (who later succeeded him as the Mitteler Rebbe). Rabbi Dov Ber was known for his unusual power of concentration. Once, when Rabbi Dov Ber was engrossed in learning, his baby, sleeping in its cradle nearby, fell out and began to cry. The infant’s father did not hear the baby’s cries. But the infant’s grandfather, the Alter Rebbe, also engrossed in his studies in his room on the upper floor at the time, most certainly did. He interrupted his studies, went downstairs, picked the baby up, soothed it and replaced it in its cradle. Through all this Rabbi Dov Ber remained quite oblivious. > >Subsequently, the Alter Rebbe admonished his son: “No matter how engrossed one may be in the loftiest occupation, one must never remain insensitive to the cry of a child.” Is there a similar story in the Buddhism tradition, with a similar message?

This may be an unusual question but I'm wondering if any monk or scholar has written work or made lectures about the spiritual obstacles of Capitalism. Namely the atomization, alienation, crippling entertainments, omnipresent advertising, the uncertainty of holding jobs and fluctuating markets, the need to wage wars to reduce the overall wealth of the society and obtain resources. We are not living in the time of Shakyamuni, Padmasambhava or Athisha. This is a spiritually confused, decadent world. Our spiritual obstacles are more complicated and strange than the obstacles of previous times. Any ideas? Sadhu.

Wikipedia mentions the following translation of Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20 without mentioning a source: > There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana. There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara. (That?) is the limit which is the limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara; Even a very subtle interval is not found of (between) them.[citation needed] Where does that translation originate from?

The concept of cuti patisandhi cittas- i.e. generation of patisandhi citta conditioned by cuti citta in a minute fraction of a second- is a very important concept mentioned in Abhidhammaththa Sangaha. This is so important that only by describing the mechanism of cuti-patisandhi in this way the main teaching of Buddhism that there is no soul or ego (anatta) can be justified. Can I find any reference in Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Does a sotapanna still experience afflictive thoughts and or engage in unwholesome activities etc or have they transcended such things?