In Zen the key practice is sitting meditation (Zazen or 座禅). Is monks' experience in Zazen like the LSD effect (i.e. "ego is dead")? Does Zazen give at least approximately some experience similar to LSD -- perhaps including, for example, "tears, laughter, and then everything becoming clear"? Are there any scientific experiments, books, interviews with scientists about this? I'm looking for, but can't find, any scientific information about it.

In the Visuddhimagga (but not in the suttas) and possibly other commentaries, we can find the triple round model, which can be used to explain dependent origination (*paticcasamuppada*) . The first round is called the round of defilement (*kilesa-vaṭṭa*) which includes ignorance (*avijjā*), craving (*tanha*) and clinging (*upādāna*). The second round is called the round of action (*kamma-vaṭṭa*) which includes mental formations (*saṅkhāra*) and becoming (*bhava*). The third round is called the round of results (*vipāka-vaṭṭa*) which includes consciousness (*viññāṇa*), name-form (*nāmarūpa*), sixfold sense base (*saḷāyatana*), contact (*phassa*) and feeling (*vedanā*). Sometimes, it also includes birth (*jāti*), death and the rest of suffering (*jarāmaraṇa*). The meaning of *vaṭṭa* according to wisdomlib is: > Vaṭṭa, 1 (adj. -nt.) (pp. of vṛt, Sk. vṛtta in meaning of “round” as > well as “happened, become” etc. The two meanings have become > differentiated in Pāli: vaṭṭa is not found in meaning of “happened. ” > All three Pāli meanings are specialized, just as the pres. vaṭṭati is > specialized in meaning “behoves”) 1. round, circular; (nt.) circle > PvA. 185 (āyata+); KhA 50 (°nāli). See cpd. °aṅguli.—2. (fig.) > “rolling on, ” the “round” of existences, cycle of transmigrations, > saṃsāra, evolution (=involution) (as forward or ascending circle of > existences, without implying a teleological idea, in contrast to > vivaṭṭa “rolling back” or devolution, i.e. a new (descending) cycle of > existence in a new aeon with inverted (vi-) motion, so to speak) Question 1: How can we use the triple round model to understand dependent origination, **especially within this lifetime**? What is the correct interpretation of the triple round model? Question 2: How can we understand the link from the triple round to the Wheel of Becoming (*bhavachakra*)? (statement below from here ): > So this Wheel of Becoming, having a triple round with these three > rounds, should be understood to spin, revolving again and > again, forever, for the conditions are not cut off as long as the > round of defilements is not cut off. Question 3: Is it true that ignorance is always the starting point to get the perpetual wheel-turning started? Perspectives from different traditions are welcomed.

MN 19 says: > And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued > with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with > sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to > the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs > discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Nibbana.' While I gain the impression the macho blokey male Buddhist internet scene appears to have men hoping to score jhana or Nibbana, which they imagine is a higher form of pornographic sexual orgasm, in this respect, it seems MN 19 is clear when it says sensuality is harmful to "oneself", in that sensual & sexual thoughts hinder jhana & Nibbana. But why are sensual or sexual thoughts & intentions harmful to "others", as stated on MN 19?

In Vipassana meditation ,it is emphasized that one should not force the mind to concentrate on certain object or force anything to happen in particular.Its kind of letting things unfold and just watching them as they unfold .But for an untrained mind isn't watching by itself a kind of doing and if it shouldn't be a doing and is the natural state of restful alertness ,how can it be initiated without the mind feeling forced to do it.If one is driven by conditioning in a non doing state. Ardency as I understand is an important aspect of the practice ,but doing it on the razor's edge of not falling into forcing the mind,is tricky.What is the best way to initiate it so it becomes right mindfulness?.

Is it forbidden in Thailand and Buddhist religion for a Thai adult female living in the western world to perform consensual oral sex on someone?

In the Diamond Sutra Buddha said : > Subhuti, if a person collected treasures as high as 3,000 of the highest mountains, and gave them all to others, their merit would be less than what would accrue to another person who simply observed and studied this Sutra and, out of kindness, explained it to others. The latter person would accumulate hundreds of times the merit, hundreds of thousands of millions of times the merit. There is no conceivable comparison. I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term and it doesn't solve any fundamental problems in the human world. So I'd like to follow Buddha's words but of course I'm not skillful enough to do it myself. What do you think will be the best way to help the Dharma reach more people if you have spare $100 a month? Or $1,000? Or $100,000 at once?

As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication. What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences? Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible? Thanks in advance for your time!

I've read that the Dalai Lama tends not to disclose his own spiritual experiences. Is it bad to disclose meditative or spiritual experiences as visions and such? Is there a difference between monks and lay practitioners in this respect? Again for monks and lay holders: what occurs if someone is lying or inauthentic about a spiritual experience? Also, how does one know if a spiritual experience is a genuine one? Thank you

Buddhists, from children to monks, chant the following homage to the Buddha: > *Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa* > >*Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa* > >*Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa* What does the term '*sammasambuddhasa*' mean?

As suggested in this answer , it is a good idea to investigate this further. What is wise reflection (yoniso manasikāra) and unwise reflection (ayoniso manasikāra)? Yoniso manasikāra is also translated as wise attention, appropriate attention. Why is yoniso manasikāra important? What is it used for? How does one practise it?

What lasts longer: the Cheesburger or a perception of it? What's more real? Where to put into de-veloping?

I can not focus in upper lip: my focus goes in to nostril. I can now watch breath in nostril, but can not stay focussed on upper lip and watch breath. I focus on entire nose and not on upper lip, and watch breath in nasal passage -- is this right ? I doubt is it controlled breathing ? Secondly I want to learn to stay focussed on upper lip and watch breath -- please guide.

I have a questions and I hope someone could help. Regarding time and space, I have seen different views: do they exist independently of our mind perceiving them, or is that all mind (inside mind)? I would love to hear both views Mahayana and Theravada. I really want to understand what they say, about time both existing subjectively in the mind or outside in the World -- and same about space, is it inside our mind or does it exist outside our mind independently? I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space -- I may be wrong, hope somebody could clarify it, I want to be clear. But isn't it important to understand what kind of relation time have to impermanence? In the Mahayana tradition Nagarjuna's theory seems to say that time is dependently arisen just as any phenomena and therefore doesn't exist. Does he mean that time doesn't exist subjectively in our mind, or does he mean that time doesn't exist for the universe? In my opinion, Mahayana's view of reality is that subject-object inter-are -- while Theravada does not talk about the nature of the universe, but instead focuses on what the cause and cessation of suffering is, without saying anything about time -- but isn't that important to understand for liberation? If there is nothing about in the scriptures then I will accept it and no problem, but I just want to know.

I am attached to my parents, children and other close family members quite heavily. Me alone escaping the suffering is not enough. I want to make sure they are on track to escape suffering as well. What are my options?

Buddhists have a new year ,But it is not January 1st.What is the reason they celebrate the new year of January 1st.It is based on a religious basis or something else...

Mahayana claims that the realisation of Nirvana in Theravada is dual while Mahayana is non dual. I have read that Advaita (the universal consciousness theory) is the same as Mahayana. - Does that mean that Mahayana claims that the universe is unreal, and that Everything is consciousness -- which means that the universe (and the time and space existing in it) is illusory, and exists only from the Point of view of the separate self but not in reality? - Or are they not as extreme as Advaita, but instead only claims that time do not exist (except) in our minds -- but Everything is consciousness -- or is there difference between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta? I want to learn both paths and then use both for my benefit. From what I have read the realisations are not the same and I would really like to understand the both realisations. Thank you for your patience and your energy

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all. Advaita says that there is only the universal conciousness and all the objects and people are ilusions what is the Buddhist view here?. Advaita says that in deep sleep conciousness do not stop what is the buddhist view here?. In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let conciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that conciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do buddhist explain that experience of our true nature. Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality conciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was conciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here? What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana?. What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which impliyes that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a ilusion that we are not. Hopefully someone will be able to answer my questions I would really be thankful. Thank you for Everything. Kind Regards

I'd like to look more on Candrakirti, and have a few questions about him. What was/is Candrakirtis most important contribution to Buddhist philosophy? - If you were to start reading Candrakirtis own works, where would you start? - Can anyone give me a good tip for a comprehensive introduction to Candrakirti?

At least one of the "introductions to Buddhism" that I read included elements from, some biography of, the life of the Buddha, including: - Early life - Searching for enlightenment - Sermon at Benares (a.k.a. "Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion") - Death (i.e. "Behold etc. ... Work out your end with diligence"). Is the Tipitaka arranged in useful sequence? I feel like I'm walking into a library, looking at the [Dewey Decimal Classification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification) and wondering which I should read first. I take it that the Tipitaka is not chronological! Am I right in think that the Dhammacakkappavattana is the first and most important sutta? If so is it sensible that, there, it is "SN 56.11" (i.e. not the first sutta)? What other "important" suttas should I read "first"? Is more known about the sequence in which the Buddha himself delivered them (e.g. if the Sermon at Benares was the first, was the Fire Sermon the second, and which then was the third, etc.)? Please answer any or all questions above. Or you could answer this question by commenting on what it says at [Which suttas should I read?](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/befriending.html#which) Do you agree with what it says there, do you have anything to add to what it says there, or to take away?

Is nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara possible? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?