### Background Hi all, i have been practicing Metta and self-compassion meditation for a while but have just switched (back) to following the first couple of exercises in the Anapanasati Sutta (translations: [Thich Nhat Hanh](https://plumvillage.org/sutra/discourse-on-the-full-awareness-of-breathing/) , [Thanissaro Bhikkhu](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html)) I can successfully practice exercises 1-4, but when i come to 5 and 6 i have a hard time to feel joy and happiness (i have a low-grade depression and also anxiety and maybe this is interfering with my practice) ### Question **Can we (is it recommended to) integrate Metta practices in the 5th and 6th exercises of the Anapanasati Sutta?** (And how can this be integrated? We may not want to switch the phrases since these are already provided in the Sutta, but thoughts can still be filled with Metta and help us that way) I'd like to find a way to successfully practice these two exercises so i can continue in my spiritual development and practice of the Sutta Please provide references if you have! *** Grateful for help! Kind Regards, Tord

1. Does metta mean that we should not ignore people? 2. Is it possible to forcefully and assertively tell people their wrong doings? What about scolding? 3. My reservation: If one always remains kind it's likely that people will do whatever they want with you which will result in more problems or not stating one's concerns sufficiently

If I recall correctly, karma is constituted of two parts - action and intention. Which means if one wishes to "gain" positive karma, one would have to conduct a positive action AND do so with a positive mind. With that being said, if I were to help an old lady to cross the street for the sole purpose of obtaining good karma, am I going to get good karma?

Venerables, Upasaka, Upasika Valued readers and engaged Buddhabodhisattas here, - In how far might it count as a break of the precept, abstaining from telling what is not true, if one changes the circumstances? For example here: - There might be a question, receiving answers. Afterwards are changes of the questions, sometime seemingly slight, does a change counts as a break? - If not having the intention to missinterpret the answerer, does such anyhow possible give ground that they accure missinterpreted? To include Abhidhamma aspects: - What are ones reasons willing to change answers, questions, delete parts, modify... afterwards if it is unskillful? Why and how could one modify, delete, change in a skilfulway that would harm in this or that way? - How to go beyound such problems, what whould be a secure solution? - What are the consequences of missinterpreting and changing the true or circumstances to display a differnt picture for ones benefit, harm of others or out of not-knowing and fear (e.g. the four roots of akusala, greed, aversion, delution, fear)? - How do you practice that, or exerianced the matter in you practice in forums and blogs? Note that it is a general question, but also a very urged matter of all editors and edits here, yet so importand and on topic of practicing Dhamma, that it should not be taken as meta. *(This question is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.)* >*Side note in regard of Bu-meta*: it might be good if the moderators engage on this maater in regard of: 1. Make use of "on hold" and possible protection of question and or notification of answerers in cases of question changes. My person can not engage there, just with hints in comments, not sure if the old question there still exists.

According to this comment : > "Form is like a lump of foam ... And consciousness like an illusion" (SN 22.95 ) > means something more subtle and interesting, much more deep than just > "empty of self". It means that these things are "virtual" (in the > original sense of the word) - they emerge from interaction and only > exist as interaction, they only seem solid "from inside" but in > actuality they are like sleight of hand. I guess this comes from one of the Mahayana schools' interpretation of Madhyamaka shunyata (emptiness). What does this really mean? Let's say I have a piece of apple in my hand. I see that it's an apple. I feel that it's an apple when I touch it. I can smell it as an apple. It also tastes like an apple when I bite into it. How does the apple emerge only from interaction? How does the apple exist only as interaction? How is the apple like a sleight of hand that only appears solid, although it's virtual? I originally thought this is related to physics, where things that we can experience are made of atoms which are mostly empty space. However, Buddhism is almost always related to the mind. So, how does this apply to the mind? Does this interpretation come from Yogachara?

I think the interesting part is to first classify archaic humans, as a manussa or a tiracchāna? Is there any explanation about this? Since as far as I know, Buddhism supports the theory of evolution.

And what is the main differences between them? Is it like Christianity where there seems to be a couple of main ones and then dozens of smaller ones doing their own thing?

Coming accoss such: Would such, on even normal sociaty level, be contuctive for western people who desire odination? Is such in line with good conducts, monks would have to keep?

During uposatha days, I'm getting a little confused with the interpretation of the seventh precept of eight precepts. Is it possible for me to listen to nature sounds without any musical instruments' sounds? Even if they’re considered as 'music'? Also, is there any text (from aṭṭhakathā or ṭīkā) explaining this precept? It would be great and very helpful. Thank you in advance.

I have seen this a few times in various places, although I haven't read it in any suttas, but I am guessing there might be some that talk about this.

What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating? I know that cannabis has been used for pain relief but if the use of the cannabis is intoxicating then what is the right view of what is appropriate regarding the use of the cannabis as a medicine? Are there any suttas which seem like they might be helpful in answering this question?

The earlier aspects that now seem less relevant imo: > *---How can it be known that ignorance won't return/re-arise and why won't it return/re-arise if there is no consciousness after death? > ---From what I remember seeing according to the linear view of the links of dependent origination ignorance is the cause of fabrications > and fabrications are the cause of consciousness. > ---It seems to me that consciousness is required for this type of knowledge, so when an arahant dies how can there be knowing and thus > certainty that ignorance won't reform/re-arise after death if there > isn't even consciousness?* **The aspects below that I currently think are more relevant:** Is it considered as being abhiññā i.e "direct knowledge" that occurs before the arahant dies? How does one know that this abhiññā is completely true? It seems to me that omniscience is required. "Logically-speaking" doesn't truly knowing something like that require omniscience to verify that one isn't deceiving oneself?

Are my painful feelings, that I feel now, result of my past kamma (I have for a long period felt extremely painful feelings which I couldn't stop and therefore I am helpless and trapped by them)? Or is it something I am generating by doing something with free will in the present moment, that I am still not aware of that I can stop? Because it seems like I have no way chance against painful feelings and they are controlling me. It seems like it's something there whether I like it or not, it is there autonomous. I am confused, and I am not in control over my feelings, and feeling trapped and helpless to them, because I can't solve them, they feel like a must for me with no way out. Is this kamma what Buddhism talks about, and does this mean I can't solve this? I read that Sankhara are subconscious tendencies. Is that the same as my feelings that keep me trapped? I really want clear understanding what my situation is, and what is my possibility. Will I have to experience this painful feeling the rest of my life? Also is kamma and Sankhara the same thing that keeps me trapped? If not what is the difference? I really need to understand that. Thank you for reading this post.

I.e Mr A and Mr B are virtually identical (only their names, positions in space etc. are different). Mr A intends (x) and does x Mr A receives y Mr B intends (x) and does x Mr B receives z (I imagine that y and z are similar.)

Would you say that it is appropriate for a monk to give advice to the laity in how to live life/dealing with obstacles? Now don't get me wrong, but monks certainly have "safer" environments. They are much less exposed to stimulating sensory input as well as life problems. I am by nature quite skeptical and cannot really take a monk serious if he gives tips and at the same time does not follow these tips (or rather that lifestyle). How can a monk give relationship advice? Sure, the Dhamma gives such, but then it's just intellectual knowledge given by a monk, but that advice has not been practised by him. I think the whole "problem" starts with titles like "venerable" or the admiration of monks/nuns. Again, don't get me wrong, seeing in them a role model and paying homage to them because they delivered proper dhamma is appropriate, but one should always keep in mind that they are UNIQUE, COMPLEX (in that they think, feel and do good, bad and neutral things) and FALLIBLE. Anyone made same experiences? Advice? Opinions?

Would a wise person avoide situations where other could perform lot of demerits? Or different asked: Would a wise person go out only if meritorious reactions are suspected? What do you think, or know about the Buddhas view on such? *(Note that this has been not asked for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment that binds here in this world, but as means of release)*

Whenever there is a problem we socialize. When we are sick we go to a doctor. When we are hungry we go to a cook. When we want to laugh we go to a movie. My question is : are these social interactions always helpful in solving our problems ? Is "if problem then socialize with right people" formula always helpful ?

I often hear people make use of the defence “that’s not my problem”. Is this a delusion in the form of rejecting no-self and denying or not seeing interdependence? Or are these people right and should we remain equanimous about other people’s problems? Should we be careful not to assume other people want the best for us so we take more responsibility in solving our own problems?

Suppose I tell a lie in order to protect others or to protect myself; is it still considered to be 'unwholesome'? Or let's take the common example of a person who isn't really moral; is it okay to inform friends/colleagues of this aspects, or is it unkind to the person?

Since the mapping of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS) began about ten years ago, around 500 new subsatances has been discovered. This is a somewhat different situation than what was the case 2500 years ago. Some NPS are not illegal, and even it they are defined as pshychoactive they're not intoxicating but more like caffein ("upper") or melatonin (for sleep) or valerian (calming). What defines - in the different traditions - whether taking an NPS is against the five precepts or not? Is it the intention with which you take the substance? Is it the effect? Neurobiological damage? Physical damage? Frequency? Does legal status come in to the picture? Is this something one should take directly with the teacher? Or something you can define according to your own conscience?