I've been meditating for about 4 months without (seemingly) getting somewhere up till about 2 weeks ago when something clicked for me after watching some interviews and talks from Gary Weber and thinking carefully about what was preventing me from really meditating. I became pretty obsessed with really seeing things clearly with the over two consecutive weekends with the "goal" of reaching the first samatha jhana (of which I already had a previous encounter). In the first weekend I really tried to calm down the whole day and medidate the most I could take. Reaching high concentration was easier that day but still not sufficient for full blown jhana. In the second weekend I began working on it more and reaching something like 60% there. The next day I tried to reach it again and failed because of the attachment to reach there. After learning about the practice that Gary Weber and Ramana Maharshi reccomend (who is thinking? Who is hearing? Etc..) I tried it and immidietly found it extremely potent, much more potent than regular vipassana. I soaked myself in this kind of meditation all remaining day until I got to sleep. After I fell asleep I had a visualization of me seeing thoughts come in and physically putting them on the shelf, one by one. Also focusing on the feeling of 'I' there. After about an hour of sleep, I suddenly found myself in the middle of switching pillows bu my whole perception completely changed. I noticed the following things: 1. The sense of an 'I' was gone. I continued to search for it but it was no longer there. 2. Experience seemed to flow one moment after another by itself without any intervention or will. Each moment kind of forces the next to nesserally, logically happen. 3. There was a sense of complete detachment, no will to be in this state nor to not be in it. There was just an analytic curiosity about what happens in the moment. I knew at that moment that there could not be any suffering. So I guess I had a glipse of how it is to be awakened. And what is called "the arising and passing away" or "dependent origination". But that's just empty language. Since then I find it much easier to slip into mindfulness, sense an attachment, automatically see the suffering in it and let it go. When mindfulness is present the world seems to be completely neutral and analytic. There's no suffering but no joy either. I can see the benefit of removing suffering, but I dont see the joy of this analytic neutral state. I think there's something I'm missing or failing to notice. What is the joy or bliss that supposedly arises by being mindful and present?

https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-does-pari-mukha-mean-exactly-in-16.html excerpt: Translation (from pali) I've chosen the literal translation of near-the-mouth. In Theravada Pali Vinaya, pari-mukha is used in the context of facial hair or chest hair being in front of you. But what does it actually mean? To have 'sati' established 'near the mouth', or 'in front of you'? Three logical possibilities 1) spatial coordinates only (in front of you, near mouth, face, chest) 2) figurative only, not a literal interpretation of spatial coordinates, like "focusing on task at hand" 3) both one and two (it's possible the Buddha meant both, just like if you're using a cel phone, you're literally and figuratively focusing on the task in your hand)

I was wondering, in the case of a beginner in meditation, **how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality?** Also, I wonder what else -- in terms of states altering the mind like tiredness or sexual arousal -- might affect meditation quality. **What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?**

Breaking of five precept would generate bad consequences from the evil deeds or from being not able to keep the precepts itself? The so called breaking of the body of precepts? some traditions say that if one break the 5 precepts one observes, one will not only has to face the evil consequences of bad deeds, but has to suffer even more severe from breaking of the body of sila. He suffers doubles?

I understand and have understood what in Buddhism is linked to right effort, which involves aspiring to what is skillful and abandoning what is unskillful. Yet, I wonder: **How do practitioners proceed in terms of order or in terms of determining what to do next? How does one determine what is most important?** Thank you

I would be happy if someone could clear up a doubt for me. When Advaita talk about consciousness without boundaries it is said to be the "Self". It is described as combining being and knowing in one thing. This being and knowing divides itself in two, and becomes the knower (subject) and the known (object), which creates the duality. Now when the knower-and-the-known duality has been eradicated, it is said that what remains is this knowing-being self. Now I am confused because I heard that somewhere in the Canon the Buddha talked about the conciousness vinjana without boundaries that the Arahat have. Is he talking about the knowing-being self that the Advaita is talking about? And what exactly is this consciousness that the Buddha talks about: is it the same as knowing-being that Advaita talks about, when the duality of self and not-self has been removed? I read somewhere that Buddhism says that knowing-being is not true: because consciousness always consciousness-of-something, in other words it cannot be conscious-of-itself, and therefore consciousness-of-itself or knowing-being as one thing is not possible. Please clarify this for me so that I understand, thanks.

Althought as most not desired existence sometimes quoted, there seems to be less information about the cause why one gains the existence of an "not-perceiving-being", Unconscious beings (asaññasatta). [explained as "only body 'no' mind" often] What is the cause, what is the required tendency to gain a asaññasatta-existence, state? Which kind of training should one go after to gain this long lasting state (which causes one to become a "fortuitous-arising-ists" ([DN1](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.than_en.html)) , or a materialist, when falling from there) Maybe some experts or googlyanika (those living dependency of teacher google) here are willing to elaborate about the being and coming into being of such beings. *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining, but as a tiny emergency-question for a timely exit from this wheel nourishing on delusion)*

Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times? Do Buddhists really talk about "my" future past and present? If so, what are the nature of those times? Specifically: will "my" present always be "my" past? ---------- I'm just asking because I'm trying to work out if there's any reason to believe that, if this will be "my" past, will "I" then exist in the future. ---------- It's often said that impermanence is the Buddha self. Could that be one answer: and why believe it?

As the title indicates, I'm not sure how to classify 'avijja' in Dependent Co-arising: Is it a volitional formation which produces a certain kind of vipaka, or is it a vipaka in itself? In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Samyutta Nikaya,in the preface, there's a section dedicated to explain some words and their specific translations. In there, sankhara (as a nidana) is defined as one of the kammically active factors, alongside with ignorance and craving. Do you agree with this interpretation? Thanks in advance, and kind regards!

I've noticed that in many teachings, books etc it is emphasised that something enters a sense door, sensation arises,then vedana then thought proliferates and I can understand this so far as a sound or smell etc but what I notice in my practice a lot is not that. What I notice is that thought arises followed by sensation for example a thought of a lost loved one followed by sadness or a sexual thought followed by particular physical sensations. Can someone please explain this. what ive read must only be talking about one aspect right? I don't feel a sexual sensation then think about it. Its the opposite.

Are we sure that the search for credit and for approval does not infect the ego of the users of this site?

I personally start looking at the speed of the breath and then it slows down. In the Tripitaka are there recommended methods to accomplish this? What do different teachers and commentaries say about it? One meditation teacher I found who emphasizes calming of the bodily is Bhante Vimalaramsi in 6Rs . But exact mechanics is not really covered on how the relaxation happens. Does this also lead to or linked to calming of the bodily fabrications? Are there more explicit instructions, especially those we can source from the Tripitaka?

Would using YouTube or other social media, where one is exposed to music or forced advertising/entertainment, be breaking the rules for monks? > "the watching of entertainments are stumbling blocks" This makes watching any of YouTube (Number 7 of the eight precepts) an area of concern.

One hears of Buddhist monks and of priests. What is the difference?

In the vinaya of the Theravāda, it is an offense for a monk to insult or be abusive to another monk (pacittiya 2). But I don’t see any reference to a prohibition from yelling at a lay person (and I know of some instances when some bhikkhus have behaved disgracefully in this regard). For that matter, there seems to be no prohibition in the vinaya on beating the hell out of a lay person either without the use of a weapon (short of killing them). Is that right or am I just missing the rule where this is prohibited? **Notes**: 1. Please don’t reply with references to what is implied and what is common sense etc. I know that. The question is specific to whether there is a prohibition in the letter of the monastic code. 2. While the 5 lay precepts do guide against harsh speech, no prohibition on a lay person silently beating someone either. This is also not lost on me, so it’s not really useful to point out that “what about the lay precepts?” . The question is regarding the Vinaya in its role as community rules, not as guidelines for wholesome personal behaviour.

I posted the identikit question to Christianity stackexchange, and was met with dumb silence. Which, really, I was shocked by. E.g. the parable of the good samaratin: > Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to > Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat > him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest > was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other > side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and > saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he > travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with > compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and > wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and > took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two > denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of > him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' > Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him > who fell among the robbers?" > > He said, "He who showed mercy on him." > > Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." 'Mercy' can be defined as - compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm. Which is very, very close to exactly what I mean: compassion towards someone who you have punished or harmed. Because it seems to me to be *the bedrock* of intelligent ethics, I was very interested in if the Buddha ever discussed this. 1. Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to those we have injured?

If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago today, 21July2015, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now? I want to assume that the kindness and generosity perhaps trumped the ignorance about samsara, resulting in a new individual array of aggregates and store consciousness inclined toward learning about Buddhism and Nibana. I wonder this basis Theravada approach to rebirth.

How much discussion of *refuge* is there in the modern vipassanā movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana_movement) ? If there is significant emphasis, what is its character? I am particularly interested in Western vipassanā circles such as IMS and Spirit Rock, but also their Eastern progenitors. I am not speaking here of the formal ceremony or commitment of taking refuge as much as the concept and ongoing practice of refuge.

Not "clinging to rites and rituals" is one of the three requirements to become a Sotapanna. But in creating a Sangha with strict rules (especially given the extensive permutations within the Tripitaka), the recitation of the Patimokkha etc, do followers of the Dhamma and Vinaya inadvertently accept the usefulness of ritual? Was the Buddha's warning more specifically against any practice that is not grounded in empirical experience? And given that the Noble Eightfold Path establishes a concrete method and practice for the attainment of the goal, did the Buddha embrace [Ṛta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%9Ata) - the natural order of the Universe or Truth - if only in its most stripped down, empirical form?

What contentment and modesty, what persistence and grasping, toward what, craving, craving holding on what leads to liberation? Doing, acting, content toward what is skilful, toward what unskilful in relation of path and fruit? Doing, acting, persist toward what is skilful, toward what unskilful in relation of path and fruit? *(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)*