Did Dignaga argue against real relations? I gather that his student, Dharmakirti, did. I'm asking only because I'd disagree, but am skeptical about universals.

What would one, certain wise but not free, ask/request if there is just one chance left?

A few days ago I started reading books about Paticcasamuppada because I realized how little and shallow was my understanding on this capital matter. Despite getting the gist of it, I still have problems understanding the exact details. For instance, I understand that dukkha arises from the 3 kinds of craving (kama, bhava, vibhava), and that craving is the condition for the arising of sustenance/clinging/fuel. I've been reading a book based on Dhamma Talks given by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Under the Bodhi Tree) on the topic of Dependent Co-arising. There it is said that all kinds of suffering are born from clinging to "I" and "mine". Is that always the case? If attachment and obsession is developed towards some kind of feeling, is always the idea of a self involved in that process? Couldn't be the case of some obsession to, for example, a pleasent feeling without thinking about it as "mine" or "me"? Couldn't we just attached to a past feeling on itself? Or to put it in other words... Is the arising of the idea/perception of self always necessary for the arising of dukkha? I'm not sure if I'm expressing my doubts correctly. Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

In meditation, I seem to have great difficulty with the breath. Having some stability and mindfulness, but very little concentration, vividness and sharpness. However, loving-kindness works for me in deep ways. **Is compassion meditation a kind of concentrative practice? How far could it bring me along the concentrative path?** Also, would interspacing anapanasati and metta (e.g. doing one one day, and the other another day) beneficial, or **should one try sticking to one type?**

I've heard a few pieces of advice the Buddha gave to arahants, but not much. What are some teachings the Buddha gave to arahants to guide them towards further growth? (Edit) I want to clarify a bit what I mean for I feel I didn't do an adequate job of explaining my question. After enlightenment, there is nothing more to be done, but a phenomena seems to occur. The self is known to be illusory. The bodymind (the forms within experience that was previously identified with) continue to appear and slowly seems to embody the enlightened perspective. This is outlined in this quote from [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/20103/254) which was posted here on this forum in the past. > A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. He has achieved abiding nirvana. Therefore, although they are free from the conception of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there. So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions). > > A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings). Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). He wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is the attainment of a buddha. > >A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an unmistaken way, etc. He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities are uninterrupted. This is apparently a quote from a zen master that illustrates the same thing. > A zen monk was once asked, “How’s your enlightenment going?” And he replied, “Fine. My body is having a hard time keeping up with it though.” I am hoping to find content of this nature that describes how this process of going from an arahant to a Buddha unfolds.

This morning I read many posts on this site. I felt like topics on Buddhist doctrine were somewhat clear to me, but those on meditation seemed complex, difficult to me. I wondered: **Does meditation *practice* increase knowledge about meditation? Is this what is meant by direct experience?** I feel this may seem as a naive question; I'm mainly wondering how something experienced (i.e. meditation) might affect cognition / knowledge about the *topic* of meditation. For example, I'm unsure whether a person hammering nails all day would necessarily *understand* their task conceptually. **Does meditation necessarily give one conceptual knowledge of meditation?**

Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, in a video, describes how some beginners exert themselves too much at once and then skip sessions. That is precisely my situation. Upon meditating for much longer than usual in one sitting, I skip subsequent days. Yet, recently I found myself wishing to meditate more, but not doing so because I feared that phenomenon would happen again. **How can this limitation (exertion then skipping) be overcome?** Would for example taking longer breaks between short sessions (15 min of meditation) inhibit overexertion? What would be the ideal length of such a break?

I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon is that he needed to teach it for those who were not ready to accept the Mahayana. But do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths, etc., as they appear in Theravada? Or will / have some Buddhas taught only (their own) enlightenment? ---------- I'm asking because I'm *confused*: whether or not it's logical to be! How can there be a Buddha without Arhants? If some or all Buddhas teach an enlightenment without Arhants, who in turn teach an enlightenment without Arhants, ***how this is any different to Arhantship***, just under a different name?

As seen in the title of this question, I'm not sure whether everyone is able to attain enlightenment. As far as my study and introspective analysis have shown to me, it seems that in order to uproot ignorance permanently, one has to be able to correct the distortions of the mind (perceptions, thoughts and views). And the only way to do that effectively is through right understanding about reality (dukkha, the illusion of the self, impermanence, and the Dhamma in general). But what happens when one is factually limited to exert that right understanding? What happens when one cannot exert self-control, or when one is handicapped to use logic, language, cognition or the capacity for thinking abstract thoughts properly? (I'm really sorry if I'm using some words in a rude fashion; english is not my first language) I'm talking about biological or physical limitations that may impede a normal use of mental abilities (lack of cerebral structures, disease or anatomical abnormalities, lack of development of faculties, etc.). What do the suttas tell us about this? What is your personal experience in with this topic? What does scientific research tell us about this? I'd appreciate any kind of answer. Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

I have heard in the past a kind of argument to show that there is no self along the lines of: are you your body? No, your cells regenerate all the time. Are you your emotions? No, they come and go. Are you ... ? The questioning goes on and on like that till there is nothing left. Is that argument actually found in the sutras? If yes, in which one?

I often see promotion of the positive benefits of meditation in the media and even in school and government settings. However, there is evidence meditation is not always beneficial. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-behind-behavior/201604/the-little-known-downsides-mindfulness-practice Is there much discussion of the possible negative aspects of meditation in Buddism? For instance, could it leave one susceptible to malicious spirits?

I tend to contemplate beneficial topics throughout the day, shirking meditation at times. I conjecture such a daily contemplation is not highly concentrated. **Is there any information in Buddhism on mundane mental contemplation (if any)?** For example, how does reflecting on compassion throughout the day compare with compassion meditation? How does analysis or compassion fare when done with merely day-to-day concentration? **Is there a benefit for un-concentrated contemplation on a virtuous topic? How would a Buddhist fare without formal meditative skills?**

I've realized that that I don't feel much friendliness for a person which I considered my friend previously. At the level of friendship, things are not the same. Yet, this person has done nothing wrong against me. I know they care deeply for me, they value me, and they have a hard time making friends. Their life situation is also difficult. I would describe them as a virtuous person, extremely caring, curious spiritually. For me, it is only the fact I don't *feel* the friendship to be there anymore that detracts me. **In Buddhism, is friendship linked with compassion? Should I disregard the fact this person may suffer because sustaining the friendship would be untrue? Or, should I perhaps try to see things differently, and more compassionately?** Thank you

I've read Walpola Rahula on this, and so I think I already understand that the frequently held view that the Bodhisattva concept is far less a part of Theravada than Mahayana, etc. is at best an over-simplification and at worst simply wrong. But I'd really like to hear it from the horse's mouth -- i.e. a knowledgeable, practicing Theravadin (hint hint, calling Canada, calling Canada). The simple fact is, even a slightly more than superficial reading of Tibetan practices (for example) places the Bodhisattva way front and center of all practice. Developing compassion for all beings isn't just a practice off to the side; it seems to permeate everything they do. With Theravada, OTOH, it really does seem to have a different (i.e. lower) emphasis. It's not *unimportant*, it just seems to be something that tags along, alongside the core meditation practice. I'm pretty sure that is *incorrect*, but how? How exactly, if at all, is the daily life of a Theravada practitioner influenced by compassion for others and, again if at all, by the Bodhisattva way as exemplified by, for example, Shantideva in the *Bodhicaryavatara*.

I saw there was one post about mindfulness on public transport. However, I felt these posts dealt with being mindful on public transport rather than *meditation*. I wonder: 1. **Is meditation itself possible/recommended on public transport?** 2. **Would the quality of such meditation, if lesser, diminish the quality of general meditative practice?**

I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason. ONLY meditation is the way. Why is that so? thanks in advance.

I have a lot of experience with addiction, both personal and professionally. In my job, I am in contact with many drug and alcohol addiction treatment workers. And I've been thinking about recommending integrating buddhist ideas and, perhaps more importantly, buddhist practice in drug and alcohol treatment programs. I think that introducing buddhism, both on a philosophical level and as practice could be a great help for a lot of addicts. This has to be done properly, with competent teachers and it has to be voluntary. Compare buddhism to AA/NA ideology (just a few examples): AA/NA etc: externalized power... Buddhism: internalized power AA/NA etc: dogmatic... Buddhism: non dogmatic AA/NA etc: "you can get sober, but you won't get rid of the disease"... Buddhism: "you can be free/get rid of the disease of suffering" Does anybody heard of addiction treatment facilities trying to incorporate buddhism in their treatment?

This [Zen Buddhism](http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/zen_1.shtml) article starts with, > Zen often seems paradoxical - it requires an intense discipline which, when practised properly, results in total spontaneity and ultimate freedom. This natural spontaneity should not be confused with impulsiveness. What would they mean by "intense discipline" there, for example ... is it the routine in a monastery? More centrally, to this question, what is the role of "spontaneity"? Is it a goal? A means to the goal? A side-effect or symptom of having reached "the goal"? Is spontaneity *practised* somehow, or is that a paradox? Is there famous (written and translated) Zen doctrine on the subject ... an explanation by someone? Does it (or something like it) exist, as a value or as a goal or whatever it is, in other schools of Buddhism (e.g. Theravada, or ...)? Is it spontaneity but within some limits? For example, within the limits of "ethical rules" ... or within the limits of, I don't know, calligraphic and/or other arts, for example? Assuming it's a well-known concept, is "spontaneity" the right word, the right translation for it? What could be other translations? What's the original (pre-translated) word or words?

After taking refuge within the Karma Kagyu tradition, I got "blessing pills". I have no idea, by which occasion I should take them, how they are manufactured and in which historical, cultural and ritualistic context they are embed. The answer I got where not helpful.

If we refer to Buddhist literature there are several versions of the same story. It differs between the branches Theravada and Mahayana and even within one branch the interpretation varies. Recently I read about quite a controversial notion of Prince Rahula's (Prince Siddhartha and Princess Yashodhara's son) that was said to be a belief in Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. The story says that > "Princess Yashodhara had an affair with Prince Siddhartha's charioteer > Channa and Prince Rahula is the son of Channa" I googled about this and could not find any references. Can someone clarify this and if it's an accepted belief can you please provide a reference?