The sutta quoted below has a riddle about the six. What are the six? And why? What is the message of the sutta? SN 1.70 translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > “In what has the world arisen? > In what does it form intimacy? > By clinging to what is the world > Harassed in regard to what?” > > “In six has the world arisen; > In six it forms intimacy; > By clinging to six the world > Is harassed in regard to six.”

From what I understand, different schools of Buddhism teach different subsets of meditation techniques, or different variations of the same techniques. However, many meditation resources don't specify which technique is meant to achieve what goal, nor the source of the particular technique. There seems to be overlap and combination of techniques, e.g. observing and counting the breath in Zazen, vs. simply observing in Anapana. Some insist that you must sit a certain way, others say to just "sit comfortably." Some you must practice for two hours, morning and evening, others say 20 minutes is sufficient. Furthermore, some sources say that their meditation techniques are not compatible with others, e.g. S.N. Goenka says if you practice Vipassana, you must not practice any other technique (but, even more confusingly, he also teaches Anapana and Metta) **Could you help me understand the difference between these various techniques (how it's performed, what its goal is, advantages/disadvantages), their relationship to each other, and their origins?** **Are there any important ones I'm missing from this list?** - Mindfulness meditation - Zazen - Vipassana / insight meditation - Anapana - Metta / loving-kindness meditation - Tantric meditation - Walking meditation - Mind clearing (not sure the right name for this - instead of picking an object of meditation like the breath, the goal is to achieve a state of complete thoughtlessness) - Samatha - Transcendental meditation (I think some of these might be special cases of others, but it's not clear to me)

In ven. Nyanaponika Thera's compilation, *The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest *, some aspects seem to recur: - One should attend to hindrances -- sloth included -- with wise attention and not unwise attention. What is meant by this? - For sloth, one should contemplate the drawbacks of sloth (e.g. meditate on death, on suffering) and on inspiring topics (e.g. sympathetic joy, spiritual journey, master's greatness). Are inspiring topics of contemplation natural remedies against sloth? If so, would *being moved* and *experiencing awe* counter sloth as well? Such states as awe or being moved have been studied and valued in psychology, but I have never seen them opposed to laziness or lack of motivation. It just seems to me that the topics of contemplation mentioned in the *Five Hindrances* text most likely elicit elevation and a sense of meaning in their practitioner.

I noticed that at key moments, such as when I am using social media in a passive way, or when I am between tasks in daily life, I tend to enter a kind of 'habitual' mode of being. On social media I click aimlessly around, almost compulsively. In my house, I just walk around without much planning or purpose. **What could cause such mindless behaviour?** I am also wondering whether *merely* paying close attention to lapses in attentiveness and to distracted moments can ultimately lead to the elimination of such habitual behaviours.

When it is said that one is "mindful of the arising and passing away of the body" -- what is meant with "being mindful of the arising and passing away of the body"? The body is here all the time, solid, and I am not understanding how it is "arising and passing away"? How can I see the impermanence of the body -- it is not the same as thoughts that can arise and pass, because the body is present here all the time.

I have recently started reading about Buddhism and I wonder what the world view of Buddhism is -- is it the world view that there is not one world as we think, and instead we each have our own world? When it is said in Buddhism, let's say the sense organ of the eye and its sense object: does the "sense object" here refer to the *object* seen (for instance a *chair* that is seen), or is what is meant with "sense object" the *picture* that I see? Same with tactile objects: is it for instance the *bed* I am laying on, or is it the *sensation* of touching the bed? Also one question that I have regarding the sense organ of mind. It is said that the "external" sense object of mind is thoughts -- how can they be external if thoughts is happening inside the mind, or am I missing something? The view of 6 sense organs and 6 sense objects: is it meaning that there is nothing outside them, in other words there is only our experience not a world outside?

I read that after careful mental noting of experience in mindfulness .One reaches a state of effortless effort and choiceless awareness .So I want clear out if awareness can direct itself without deciding or should it always be consciously directed ?. For example what decides that now awareness has to be shifted from the breath to the body ?.If this decision is unconscious then it isn't wise .And if it's based only on information coming from the breath, then its not a well educated decision. So shouldn't awareness be directed on "**where should it be directed**"?.

I am confused why in many versions of the 5 precepts I have encountered that the 5th precept is seemingly beneficial about "refraining from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness." but compared to this the 3rd precept is seemingly only about "refraining from sexual misconduct" or "refraining from sensual misconduct". It seems to me one is to refrain from the use of intoxicating substances but sexual activity of some sort is permitted? Why is some sexual activity permitted? I've been confused about the 5 precepts because to me it seems possible that in **some** instances one can cause oneself more suffering through engaging in sexual activity than through using intoxicating substances e.g. a) if I engaged in an all day oral-sex marathon compared to b) if I for pleasure went into the garden and picked 2 leaves of Melissa officinalis and made cold-brewed tea with those 2 leaves using rainwater that I had collected (brewing time 2 minutes) and had a sip of that tea. To my knowledge option b) would be less suffering for me but wouldn't I be breaking the 5th precept ("refraining from intoxicants") if I did option b)? but if I chose option a) then according to some interpretations I would be keeping the 3rd precept ("refraining from sexual misconduct") but to me it seems I would be suffering more? So why would it according to some interpretations of the 5 precepts seemingly be possible to keep the 5 precepts but seemingly cause myself more suffering than breaking that interpretation of the 5 precepts and choosing option b) and seemingly suffering less? If the 3rd precept is interpreted as meaning "refraining from sensual misconduct" then what does that mean one is to refrain from besides the "prohibited sexual acts" mentioned in the suttas? It seems that there would still be the "irrational prioritization" I described with option a) and option b) if "sensual misconduct" is defined only as the sexual acts that are explicitly prohibited as written in the suttas. If "sensual misconduct" means something more than the sexual acts that are explicitly prohibited in the suttas then what does it mean? It seems vague (?). If the 3rd of the 5 precepts is interpreted as meaning only "sexual misconduct" then is anything else prohibited besides what is listed as "sexual misconduct" in the suttas I know of. Why isn't the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts "I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity."?

I like the walking meditation more than doing sitting Zazen. I want to ask if satori is possible while walking?

Leading on from this question - are there any examples of the Buddha showing a sense of humour or a certain lightness in his teachings within the Pali Canon? I was once told that it is possible to find examples where he perhaps approaches teaching with a gentler approach depending on his audience. Certainly the Buddha gives the lions roar but does he sometimes give the cheeky wink too?

Is there any reference/citation saying that Buddhism or Buddha's teachings will last only 5,000 years after Buddha's Mahaparinirvana? How can this be possible if more people like to learn more about Buddha's teachings and Buddhism? Is there any weak point in Buddhism or Buddha's teachings that it is going to cease to accept and learn any more by people because that particular point is no longer adaptable by current/future generation? It could be related to moral principles, rules, disciplines, as well as concepts and ideas.

Is broth and vegetable juice allowable? I am preferably looking for an answer by an experienced monk.

How can I tell the difference between joy bourne of karma that will expire and joy bourne of karma which has turned the irreversible wheel of the dharma?

I have just asked a question about computer use, and it spurred another question in my mind: **How does attachment towards objects and places occur?** I'm specifically wondering if *all* pleasurable activities and experiences reinforce attachment to their corresponding objects and places. For example, if a person watches *different* shows on television, and each are pleasurable, does this -- in addition to creating attachment to the different shows -- produce attachment to television overall aside from these shows? In other words, I'm asking whether attachment transfers from activities to their related elements, the objects involved. Another example might be a person watching a theatre play which gives them pleasure; would such a person develop attachment to the theatre and the actors? Finally, it seems relevant to include the example of someone engaging in casual sex for the sake of it but who then develops attachment towards the other person. Is this yet another case of strong pleasure forming at attachment via attribution?

I have had an experience with a top teacher, Regional Assistant Teacher, and Center Manager acting in ways very disturbing to the path. Later I saw clearly that they were controlled by Mara or had energy in the Mara realm, may be interested in making very difficult Sankhara. How can a serious student navigate these dangers to reach liberation? If the Sangha has lies, killing beings, Traps students and Practitioner s in a the type of life a student of Buddha seeks to be free from? Are these dangers in monks? Can we admit and face what influence we have acting upon us or act out ourselves or will this lead to more ego I am, I am not... Etc. More confusion and controversy.

The quote below defines Vitarka-vicara as: - Ardency (atappa) + mindfulness (sati) => combines to make vitakka - Ardency (atappa) + alertness (sampajañña) => combines to make vicara > As Ajaan Lee, my teacher’s teacher, once noted, mindfulness combined with ardency turns into the concentration factor called vitakka, or directed thought, where you keep your thoughts consistently focused on one object, such as the breath. Alertness combined with ardency turns into another concentration factor: vicāra, or evaluation Head & Heart Together, by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, Chapter: Mindfulness Defined No citation from the cannon have been given in this discussion. What are the Tipitaka, commentary, sub commentary sources, including primary, secondary or tertiary source with citations, which defines Vitarka-vicara as such? Are there other definitions of Vitarka-vicara from Tipitaka, commentaries, sub commentaries, including primary, secondary or tertiary source with citations?

I read the following on the internet: > Yet there were still a few who could not forget that Angulimala the > bandit, with his superior prowess, had shown them in their weakness > and thus had humiliated them. Out of that resentment, as an act of > revenge, they were mean enough to injure the venerable Angulimala by > throwing stones and sticks which struck him when he had gone for alms. > They must have done so from a safe distance. > > Then with blood running from his injured head, with his bowl broken, > and with his patchwork robe torn, the venerable Angulimala went to the > Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming, and he told him: "Bear > it, brahmana, bear it, brahmana! You have experienced here and now the > ripening of kamma whose ripening you might have experienced in hell > over many a year, many a century, many a millennium." > > Being a saint, his mind and heart were firm and invulnerable. **But the > body, the product of former craving, the symbol and fruit of previous > kamma, was still there in present existence and was still exposed to > the effects of former evil deeds.** Even to the Buddha himself it > happened that, as a result of former deeds, Devadatta was able to > cause him a slight injury. Also his two chief disciples had to > experience bodily violence. The venerable Sariputta had been hit on > the head by a mischievous demon, and the venerable Maha-Moggallana was > even cruelly murdered. If this occurred in the case of these three > Great Ones, how could Angulimala have fully avoided bodily harm — he > who in his present life had committed so much evil! Yet, it was only > his body that received these blows, but not his mind. That remained in > invulnerable equipoise. In the sutta about Angulimala, King Pasenadi forgave Angulimala of his evil deeds. The sutta says: > "Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard > shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home > life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings, > refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling > lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine > character: what would you do to him?" > > "We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him > a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal > requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard, > protection, & defense. But how could there be such virtue & restraint > in an unvirtuous, evil character?" > > Now at that time Ven. Angulimala was sitting not far from the Blessed > One. So the Blessed One, pointing with his right arm, said to King > Pasenadi Kosala, "That, great king, is Angulimala." Then King Pasenadi > Kosala was frightened, terrified, his hair standing on end. So the > Blessed One, sensing the king's fear & hair-raising awe, said to him, > "Don't be afraid, great king. Don't be afraid. He poses no danger to > you." > > So King Pasenadi Kosala went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having > bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the > Blessed One, "It's amazing, lord. It's astounding, how the Blessed One > has tamed the untamed, pacified the unpeaceful, and brought to > Unbinding those who were not unbound. For what we could not tame even > with blunt or bladed weapons, the Blessed One has tamed without blunt > or bladed weapons. Now, lord, we must go. Many are our duties, many > our responsibilities." Was the forgiveness of King Pasenadi Kosala towards Angulimala a fruit or product of the old evil kamma of Angulimala? Since the suttas say "kamma is intention", did Angulimala "will" the forgiveness from King Pasenadi Kosala; similar to how a sexy lady may intentionally seduce a man?

Similarly to psychotherapy counselling/consulting service, is there an equivalent form in Buddhism, in that the counselor is trained in Buddhism instead of clinical psychology? I haven't heard of such a professional service, but I guess this doesn't go against Buddhist teachings? There are short meditation courses, which can be seen as equivalent forms of short training courses in therapy I think. Or does Buddhism not advocate for this, because in its nature it doesn't advocate conceptualization? I think if it exists, then the customers will have the mindset of psychotherapy service anyway, so it's just psychotherapy in Buddhism form. This is not a mean to be disrespectful – there are psychologists who have very solid knowledge in Buddhism, such as Jung. But I'm talking about those who once or still practice Buddhism as "professional" monks.
Related: [Is there a kind of "pop Buddhism"?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/30959/13525)

I mused that clearly, certain efforts are necessary for the path. But, I can easily imagine a person exerting lots of efforts towards a detrimental goal, or a person exerting a bit of effort towards a *wholesome* goal. So, effort *in itself* seems not directly related to good qualities. Another example is a proficient meditator for whom meditation might be easier, but more potent and pleasant; this contrasts with the beginner who struggles and must apply effort. The experienced meditator might generate more effect with less effort. **What is the relationship in Buddhism of effort to its resulting benefit? Is it indirect?** Thank you

What are the canonical definitions of the following words (sati, sampajañña, appamada, atappa, manasikara, satipaṭṭhāna) from the Tipitaka, commentaries, sub commentaries, including primary, secondary or tertiary source with citations: Image source: Sati (Buddhism)