Why do you have sadness in the first Jhana? It appears you still have the sadness in first Jhana. What sort of sadness it is? The Vitakka and Vicara in First Jhana are wholesome. That is loving kindness thoughts and renunciation thoughts which cannot be leading to sadness. ====== While a mendicant is meditating—diligent, keen, and resolute—the faculty of sadness arises. They understand: ‘The faculty of sadness has arisen in me. And that has a foundation, a source, a condition, and a reason. It’s not possible for the faculty of sadness to arise without a foundation, a source, a condition, or a reason.’ They understand the faculty of sadness, its origin, its cessation, and where that faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. And where does that faculty of sadness that’s arisen cease without anything left over? It’s when, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s where the faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. They’re called a mendicant who understands the cessation of the faculty of sadness, and who applies their mind to that end. https://suttacentral.net/sn48.40/en/sujato

A very short summary of the Vipassanā technique taught by S.N. Goenka would be: "observe your bodily sensations with equanimity". The role of physical bodily sensations is the key aspect of the technique and other traditions do not attach such a great importance to them. It is said that Goenka's technique of scanning the body to feel increasingly subtle sensations was passed on though several lay teachers and that it goes back to the Burmese monk [Ledi Sayadaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledi_Sayadaw) . Ledi Sayadaw left a large quantity of writings; some of them are available [here](http://www.aimwell.org/ledi.html) and/or [here](http://www.aimwell.org/LediSayadaw/) . I looked through some of them, and in no place did I see any passage that would present observing bodily sensations as the technique to be followed. If he really taught this, it is hard to imagine he would not mention that this is the key aspect of the technique. **Can anyone provide a relevant quote from Ledi Sayadaw's texts?** **Update:** The question is whether Ledi-style Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations/body scanning. Mindfulness of the body in Ānāpāna Dīpanī is presented as something distinct from Vipassanā, so it doesn't answer my question. Moreover, it looks like Ledi Sayadaw understood "mindfulness of the body" to mean "mindfulness of the breath", not body scanning. See [Ānāpāna Dīpanī, part XIV](http://www.aimwell.org/A%20Manual%20of%20Respiration.pdf) : > [...] establishing mindfulness of the body (kāyānupassana satipaṭṭhāna). The out-breath and in-breath, being part of the aggregate of materiality (rūpakkhandha) are called body (kāya).

If we consider person(Arthma) as a consciousness. When undergoing an operation, we are temporarily unconscious. Then what happens to that person while unconscious? Some related discussion are here: I want to understand the technicality of rebirth and what happens to conditioned self . If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth? . Is rebirth a delusional belief? . What are examples of identity-view? 1. If we say these things are temporary illusions then how it is continued? 2. What are the similes use to explain this phenomena in any tradition?

Since most of you have neither much chances to practicing generosity toward the Sangha and aside probably not easy finding individual people worthy of gifts, how do you, living in outer lands, try to practice such to have a basement for further training toward path?

My question is two-fold. First, I believe that *metta* is classified as a meditation object involving concentration. Yet, in this study, researchers suggest it is a mixture of focused attention (e.g. *shamatha*) and open monitoring (e.g. *vipassana*). **Does Buddhism suggest in certain passages or teachings that compassion is dual in this way?** More so, from my experience, compassion meditations deepens insight. Theravada involves a mixture of *shamatha* and *vipassana*, and the Mahayana involves (more so) a union of compassion and wisdom recognizing *sunyata*. I feel the depth of *metta* might occur from its union of concentration and insight (as suggested in the previous paragraph) and from *metta* itself and the realization of *sunyata* (implied by their merging promoted by the Mahayana). I feel all these things occur with *metta* in my experience. When talking about *metta* a researcher described the occurrence of gamma waves: > Davidson found their brainwaves showed never-before-seen levels of gamma, one of the strongest types of brain waves, theorized to appear when the different regions of the brain harmonize. **In Buddhism teachings and texts, is metta said to unite a variety of mental factors together?** Thank you

The Abhidhamma seems to talk only in terms of eradications. According to the Abhidhamma the following defilements are eradicated (different list than the fetters): - by Sotāpanna: wrong view, avarice, envy, doubt; - by Sakadāgāmi: nothing; He 'just' eliminates grosser forms of lust, hatered and delusion; - by Anāgāmi: sensual greed; hatred and worry; - by Arahant: delusion, shamelessness, fearlessness of wrong, restlessness, greed (other), conceit, sloth and torpor. With other words: once eradicated those emotions will never ever show up in ones mind. So far, so good. I'm interested now in the following: What doe the sutta's say about the characteristics of the Noble Ones? The Abhidhamma, for instance, tells me that a Sotāpanna can't break the 5 precepts anymore. This is one characteristic one could look for then. Are there more? What are noticeable characteristics of the other stages? So, what does this all mean practically? Okay, a Sotāpanna doesn't break the precepts. What about a Sakadāgāmi? Does this elimination of grosser forms mean (s)he never has sex? Does an Arahant not yawn, because (s)he has eradicated sleepiness? So, I'm not really interested in the list of the fetters. But more in the characteristics by which Noble Ones could be recognised. Like the not breaking of the 5 precepts by the Sotāpanna. This answer , for instance, is not what I'm looking for. Edit: In case I wasn't clear, I'm looking for characteristics noticeable by others. So, not internal ones only noticeable for the person in question. Thanks. :)

If a Buddhist noticed someone trying to severely harm their temple, for example trying to start a fire, how would one expect them to respond? I could imagine a range of responses from completely ignoring it and continuing about their meditation to compassionately talking with the person to getting themselves and bystanders to safety and planning to rebuild later to carrying the person out of the temple. I know spitting on the statue of Buddha is an example used in teachings but I am wondering about scenarios of lasting harm on the facilities that would make them unusable. Are there any instructive historical examples where something like this happened?

I've read a few answers and concluded that for most of these answers, concentration in meditation often implies unawareness of peripheral stimuli. This confuses me. I usually have wisps as thoughts rather than full blown thinking in meditation, but I don't particularly become unaware of my environment. **Is such an experience very advanced? More so, does unawareness imply literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by such distractions?** Finally, I'm wondering whether the diminution of thoughts *in itself* means little. **Is attention placed upon the object consistently more important than thought reduction?** For example, I can imagine attention being close to the object but thoughts (e.g. about the object) arising, but I can also imagine a thoughtless person's attention being fragmented, directed without focus. **Is any of these more important?** Thank you

I have on occasion seen commenters here and elsewhere who declare their achievements, such as being a sotāpanna. These comments are downvoted, so they do not appear to be appreciated. If comments like these show up on public forums then casual visitors may themselves see that the path can be followed, that people living today have found that the teachings work, and may themselves be inspired to study the Dhamma. That would be a good possible outcome from such comments. So is it considered wrong to write such declarations publically (at least if one is not a monk) and when would be the appropriate time and place to make declarations of achievements?

>Worth keeping in mind is that an arahant needs to learn from a Buddha to become enlightened, so if the story in question means the prince became an Arahant (*epic for one awakened*) before meeting the Buddha, that is impossible. Was said by monk [yuttadhammo](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31976) My person would reject such a categorical statement but is of course open to give it a prove. No doubt that an awakened would seek out for the Sangha, but especially this days, although the Dhamma might be traceable, such as the Sangha is not sure. So what is actually told about the appearances of a Paccecabuddha and Awakened, (such a person) being told as even someone who may be in the position to rebuke the monks? *(Note that this is not given for entertaining, stacks, exchange and trade but as a tiny door out of the wheel of householding)*

I have recently started meditation . I'm just doing normal breathing techniques and concentration techniques. Though, while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?Is it normal?how can we control this?

There is a sutta where a man kept asking the Buddha about forecasting destinations or future lives or something similar and the Buddha said to the man: "Enough!" and exhorted the purpose or goal of the holy life is to be dispassionate. Can someone help me locate this sutta? Thanks

There are probably a lot of ways to prepare for death. I myself can't come up with more than: - Reflecting on ones own death on a daily basis; - Don't buy stuff that's useless so that it's easier for loved ones to clean up after you. Are there more things one could do? And what do you yourself to prepare? Looking for inspiration. So, I'm not so much interested in the process of dying, but what you do on a daily basis in the years and decades before.

Today I stumbled upon [a thread on Reddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/aegs1z/insight_emptiness_and_the_awakened_heart/) . Deep down in the comments, I saw someone make the following claim: > My personal opinion is probably they [lay arahants] will run away from society and die in a forest, which is what happened in the suttas to a prince who ran away from society when he attained Arahantship in his sleep, and woke up. The Buddha telepathically communicated with him to come to the Sangha, aka The Refuge, it's called a Refuge because it is a refuge for Enlightened people who escape the lay life. When asked by another user where in the suttas this story was found, he replied that he didn't remember where he read it but that it was probably in the Khuddaka Nikaya. Of course I don't have time now to read the entire Khuddaka Nikaya, so I want to ask if anyone here is familiar with the story. On the one hand it sounds pretty improbable to me (if it were in the Canon, why have I never seen it being mentioned in debates about whether lay arahants exist?), but on the other hand I don't think the person who posted it has made it up all by himself. Thanks in advance for your answers!

Upon (re)-reading this answer, I conjectured perhaps there *are* techniques unsuitable for some. It does seem to be the case with the breath for me, in my experience, despite the popularity and near universality of the breath as meditative object. In context, I'm extremely sensitive to what people call *experiential avoidance ,* and focusing on the breathing to the exclusion of all else seems to trigger this. More so, I read here that in some cases of dissociative people the breath may be difficult to focus on. My question is mainly: **Given these conditions, could *even* the breath (or any object of meditation) be truly unsuitable for some? Is it possible that other objects would be much more suitable? How would one actually *know/discover* this?** I'm particularly tempted to conclude compassion (which has a visual and affective component) might be a better alternative. Yet, I'm always brought back to the breath because I keep concluding that its a *universal* object that *should* work for everyone. **Am I wrong?** Thank you

Whenever I do mindfulness with breathing I get ear pains whenever I do longer breaths. The breath is also hearable. Wherein lies the problem?

In [this Buddhadasa Bhikkhu Dhamma Talk](https://soundcloud.com/buddhadasa/9112-3-dhamma-questions-answers) , Ajahn Buddhadasa and Santikaro Bhikkhhu explained at around minute 51:30 - 54:00 that the four Satipatthanas are always investigated. As far as I understood, the four tetrads are done in a sequence, without choosing. After rapture arises in Kayanupassana, rapture becomes the object of meditation, and the transition from kaya to vedana happens. May one clarify their statement given in that recording? How is it done in daily life in whatever posture, if the arising of rapture etc. require deep meditation?

I'm wondering if pali has a specifically designated word for the view that the outer world is a reflection of one's own life state, not the other way around. Additionally, I am wondering if there are any good recources that people know of online that acts as a pali dictionary for buddhist philosophical concepts.

I wondered today whether compassion is an antidote to a kind of lack of motivation, given that it remedies fear in the suttas, and often approach and avoidance are seen as opposite (e.g. fight or flight), and that in psychology compassion is linked with the reward system: > They [the researchers of the study] point out that a heightened sensitivity to suffering causes people to avoid that suffering because it doesn’t feel good; however, because the compassion training also seemed to strengthen the brain’s ability to regulate emotions, people may have been able to sense suffering without feeling overwhelmed by it. Instead, the care for others emphasized by the compassion training may have caused them to see suffering not as a threat to their own well-being but as an opportunity to reap the psychic rewards from achieving an important goal—namely, connecting with someone else and making him feel better. > > “When your goal is to help another person, then your reward system will be activated when you’re meeting that goal,” says Weng. > > By contrast, the reappraisal group’s goal was to decrease their own negative emotions, making them less inclined to be altruistic when confronted with someone else’s pain. “When you’re focused on decreasing your own negative emotions,” she says, “I think that makes you less focused on other people.” > > [How to Train the Compassionate Brain](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_train_the_compassionate_brain) I thus wonder whether compassion is said in the Buddhist tradition to increase motivation *in general*. I feel the Mahayana,which emphasizes compassion as primary quality with emptiness, appeals to householders historically in part *because* of this worldly quality of compassion. **Is there any evidence for compassion -- in the suttas or Buddhist tradition -- increasing motivation and energy aside from towards compassionate aims? In other words, does compassion increase drive in general?**

How is "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent Co-arising? If there is craving, will that craving always result in "becoming"? Is there something like craving without "becoming"? Thanks for your time and patience! EDIT: as I made the mistake of asking more than one question in the same post, I have two different answer (1231546 and Dhammadhatu's) which dissipated my doubts. Thanks!