I have like an electric current passing through my body during meditation. It is like in the whole body or maybe not just in the body like in my sphere. It is a fine-tuned electric current that comes for a couple of seconds. It stops for a fraction of a second and there is nothing and then it starts again. It feels like it is changing direction. It is not unpleasant it just is. What is this? What can I do with it?

An argument why [a question "mind vs. matter"](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/33424/mind-vs-matter-what-lasts-longer) will not be given free points on: >That’s why, when it comes to this mind, an uneducated ordinary person is unable to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed. Given that certain "Buddhist" say that matter is more secure, lasting and higher, why do they at the same time not get disillusioned about the mind? Or what does the Buddha here say, when praising the abounding of the "more lasting" first: >But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind. Why is that? This body made up of the four primary elements **is seen** (perceived) to last for a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer. May there be not-uninstucted and masters of Vipassana, who could enlighten the topic a little, for those who had abound "the longer lasting" already. *(Note that this pixles here will by far not last as long as your mental imprints beyound it, so be quick in penetrating)*

I’m very new to Buddhism and am wanting to find an accurate source to show me the word-for-word interpretations of terms and words. Right now I’m trying to learn the meaning of each word of the “Ethan santhan ethan paneethan..” chant and although I have the English explanation of the whole thing, I want to know what each word translates to in order to gain the best personal understanding of how this mantra is said and also how Pali works. I’d appreciate any help on this. Thank you.

This question can seem contradictory but form my understanding ,duality is inherent in reality and accepting reality in all its dualities leads to more conscious actions. But if the person as a result acquires ONLY positive qualities then isn't this dual and not in accord with nature? Buddhism lays emphasis that qualities like ,jealosy ,hate,pride and anger are unskillful and qualities like love,peace,contenmtent and compassion are. Don't we kill animals and plants to eat ,don't we fight in wars in self defense, these are negative but right actions to take and underlie negative qualities of brutality . Can we cry consciously can we kill consciously ?

A pure, almost metaphysical but from the inside of me: How would it sound that there is an afterlife of the more that 00 billion people that ever lived on earth since the begging of our species (as calculated). And more specifically those who have lost their lives in vein or with an unjust way, through war or crime or even physical disaster. How much JUSTICE could be embodied in our Universe and could these lost lives have a second chance as energy (a soul) in another parallel universe, or in other case, just be re-incarnated in our Earth?

It seems to be a strong affinity in media for monks to be beggars. There doesn't seem to be anything in Buddhism that effectively correlates to being poor, or even using begging for livelihood. The Noble Eightfold Path even has occupations in one of the folds, and doesn't recommend too much of a constrain to the point of driving people poor. Specifically, I would put the book Buddha Boy by Kathe Koja on display, where a Buddhist boy moving into a rather bad neighborhood is picked on at school for his actions, one of which is begging for food during his lunch period. In this example, "Buddha Boy" begs for food, however, that doesn't seem like anything I've seen in Buddhist culture. Is this a common misconception, or am I misinformed?

There are many, considering themselves even as "Buddhist" who would not give much toward Monks and Priests, yet reminded by the [Sublime Buddha talk](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than_en.html) : >"There is the case where a woman or man is not a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to brahmans or contemplatives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, he/she is poor wherever reborn. This is the way leading to poverty: not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to brahmans or contemplatives. Is there any valid way to get around such a future, if holding on such carry out further? Whould the only way out here be claiming that it was not taught, not even such as rebirth? He says "I give the poor, the animals, those i like...", would he nevertheless face such future if not actually already in such situation? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment binding here but for liberation of such)*

What does one here think: Is a person, having reached the path, able, would he, reject a request of something material, incl. strength and effort in material spheres, if he could share? In what cases, if he could reject, would he? *(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment that binds here in this wheel, but as a tiny door out)*

Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood **forever**, but *not* for all sentient beings? I do not, I suppose, mean because the "bodhisattva" enjoys life. I am trying to ask about "compassion " for some group or even individual, if that is possible? I don't mind if the answer ignores the alledged universality of Buddha-nature, but would prefer if it was from that perspective.

Let's take 2 examples: 1. A Buddhist notices a crying girl. After asking it turns out that she lost her mother, and don't know where to find her 2. Alice and Bob has a complicated relationship. Bob wants to communicate with Alice, but due to her misunderstandings and prejudices, she doesn't accept his words. Helplessly, he turns to a Buddhist that is an important friend with Alice, hoping that he will help him to tell Alice that she needs to listen to Bob carefully Would the Buddhist helps them? - Yes, because explicit sufferings (losing mother, being unable to communicate, having prejudice) are more suffering than implicit ones (staying in the attachments)? - No, because ultimately it's still helping them staying in the attachments, while the Buddhist goal is aiming at the ultimate freedom? Or is that because helping others also a kind of attachment?
Related: [Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33370/13525)

There are many good answers in the question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33361/13525 . I'll summarize some of the points here: - Buddhism only teaches that things don't last, not stop doing them. Love people knowing that someday we lose them; use things knowing they break; earn money to survive not out of greed; eat food only to be healthy not because taste good. Even if the girl is attaching to her mother, helping them or not will not make them less attaching anyhow. ([ashen25's answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33365/13525)) - [Dhammadhatu's answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33367/13525) even cites the suttas: >Buddhism has two levels of teaching: (i) moral, which includes attachment; and (ii) non-attachment (MN 117). The Buddha said his teaching of non-attachment was only for a minority of people (MN 26). >Therefore, a Buddhist would help ordinary people maintain their important social relationships. In fact, this is a duty of a monk (DN 31). The duty of a monk & of a Buddhist is not to "strip" ordinary people of their attachments & identities. The consensus in there is clear: helping them, not converting them. However, psychologically speaking, I think helping people necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship, or requires the helpers involves/attaches in other people's emotional dramas. Or when they are helping them, they need to have expectations on the outcomes. These are things a Buddhist would like to avoid. They can simply say "sorry, my goal is not to get attached with relationships. I'm not a suitable person to help you. I hope you get well with your life." Not only this is an acceptable manner, this would also conveniently help the helpees understand the value of non-attachment without the need to teach them anything. I think the solution is simple: as long as the helpers acknowledge that after the problem has been solved they can detach to it, then it would be fine. However, are there any sources discussing this?

Some people, althought saying that following the Buddhas teaching, but maybe do not have much trust or understandig into cause and effect, kamma, saying that richness and success comes from no fear to do evil. If that is the case, why are not all people who have no virtues, no Sila, rich, following their arguments pattern? Isn't it not merely because still having some merits that the downfall does not arises accurate, if one conducts wrong, thinking it will not fall to me? What's the effect of Sila, virtue, on wealth and success? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment but for release from this wheel)*

Even if out of "compassion", what's the effect of association with [outcasts](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.07.piya_en.html) , even appear as "family-member" of such? What's the effect of being related to those who are actually turned over the bowl? Associate with thieves, slander, people who speak in dispraise of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, gratitude, generosity, virtue... those who use generosity to offend the giver... with no regard for hospitality, training, teacher, faith... Do they risk to be avoided likewise by the wise and good? How are people adviced to act in regard of outcasts? To bear such, or to avoid any association or ways that look like as if? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining but as a tiny door to exit this wheel)*

Does Buddhist psychology view the concept of "fake it 'til you make it" as an acceptable social behavior (eg, cheerful behavior rather than stressed behavior, or calm behavior rather than emotional behavior)? For example, I recently attended my first meditation retreat (a weekend event). I was overcome with emotion a couple of times during meditation practice and teaching sessions, with quiet tearfulness. Also, during the sharing time, at the end of the retreat on the final day, I wept as I finished my expressions of gratitude to the teacher and group. Should I have restrained that last public display of emotion? Was that display of emotion an ill-timed expression of ego/self, and, therefore, according to Buddhism, best to be avoided?

I've seen in a lot of discussions that there are two kinds of meditation methods with different but complementary goals: meditation for establishing tranquility (samatha) and meditation for establishing insight or clear vision (vipassana). But in a few places, some authors and practitioners say that both are not different styles, but two quatities and aspects that are developed during Samma Samadhi (Right Inmersion), and that in the Pali Canon there are no mentions of those two aspects being reached through different methods. So, what do the Pali Canon tell us about this? Are these two different methods, or just two different aspects that are eventually developed hand-in-hand? Thanks in advance for your time, wisdom and patience. Kind regards!

Beings are act-ually stingy because they think or argue, that when giving this, it will hurt be, be of disadvantage for me. Now, what does the Buddha mean by advicing to give when it does not harm oneself? Does he even promote stinginess, or what's the game of defilements here? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment keeping in this wheel, but for an escape)*

Last year ,I lent a friend alot of money ,he convinced me that he lost his wallet and needed money for certain payment,promising that he will return it after 3 month,he payed some of it then delayed it to the next year and now he tells me to forget about it till he can return it. Now there is a feeling of regret not only because of the money which ,I Lent in expectation of getting it back but also because the friendship got affected . Feeling that he is a liar made me think , I should've been mindful of the deception.As well as not having any compassion for him. What should be done right now according to Buddhism?.

So first I'd like to say I have permission from a therapist to ask this question, so this is not "asking for medical advice". So I have OCD. It affects me all the time, I feel this constant stress, discomfort. Thoughts and stressors bother me a lot, and tons of things cause this emotional pain. My therapist has suggested a long meditation is the way to do it. Sitting for several hours every day until it's dead. So this is what I'm doing and want to continue to do, but I'd like some help doing it more effectively. So I've been studying Buddhism and meditation and very unsystematic way. I think I'm starting to understand alot of it now. But ultimatelly I dont fully understand what exactly I'm supposed to be doing/not doing in meditation. I've been doing some guided mediation on vedananupassana and so far I've been feeling better. But once again, I don't exactly know how to do it... Im supposed to look at the feelings but I dont know what im supposed to do? If I wasnt so sick right now (fatigue, acid reflux) Id probably just study buddhism formally and just practice meditation until I start feeling better. But thats not feasible right now. So what would your advice be for me to go about this? Are there any good online courses or something? Also an important note: Several times now, in the midst of all this stress and discomfort all over my whole body I suddenly get these pretty short lived moments of bliss. My body glows with comfort and bliss and then after a while kind of fades out. This has happened several times now and it's pretty interesting. This is what fascinates me. What do you think is causing this? My guess is I must be doing something in those moments correctly, letting go and not resisting the pain or something Thanks.

What do you know about the **Nirvana**? Most of this community people are from all around the world, and may have different teachers, and level of knowledge may vary. A brief explanation, with reference to the Tripitaka, is much appreciated. --- And, can someone please translate this: It's from the _Abhidhamma Margaya_ ("Way of Abidhamma") by Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala Thero.

I've been practising meditation with the breath as an object. While meditating, I am mindful of whatever arises. I feel that such awareness gives insight into the mind. However, I am wondering whether one should investigate the mind this way, or try and increase focus by narrowing onto the breath. **Would narrowing onto the breath provide more benefit?** Hence, I wonder **how close to the breath one should be in meditation? Should *all* thinking be ideally diminished?**