As a practical observation, if one were staying below arhat for the initial aeons, could monastic living limit the efficacy of a bodhisattva? Since that goal heavily rests on seclusion, and both the wandering and monastic models were developed to enhance seclusion, shouldn't a different, more open model of monkhood exist? They should be able to have kids at least for example, since it would help them to help more beings.

I posted yesterday here for my first time and received many very helpful answers. I'm so grateful for having found this site because I always have questions. In continuing with yesterday's question regarding the Buddha's path to enlightenment, during his 6 years of searching he practiced extreme fasting, which I've heard of. But there's one mention that I've come across that states the following: "Another way of torturing his body was to hold his breath for a long time until he felt violent pains in his ears, head and whole body. He would then fall senseless to the ground." (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/14lbud.htm) Does anyone have any thoughts on the holding of the breath practice? Not that I'm interested in trying it myself or anything, that is, I'm aware that the Buddha eventually found these extremes to be unskillful, thus the middle way became his goal. I'm just curious as to its roots and the thought behind it. Thanks! Kevin

Is it possible for states/beings of that of hungry ghosts to gain path? Is it possible to help them? Or is providing food, in the case they had done merits before, all what one could do for them in their state? For context and understanding, see also: [Escape possible for internets “hungry ghost”?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/31148/escape-possible-for-internets-hungry-ghost) and [What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22380/14871)

I'm in a strange situation right now (weird for me, at least). These past few days have been intense days of reflection on the Dhamma, which generated two effects at the same time in my overall life: 1) I feel like I'm seeing things clearer than ever before. Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha are no more just simple intellectual statements, but they are the filter of most of my experiences. This is not a declaration of attainments nor anything alike, but rather an oportunity to share how true is the Dhamma and how much freedom can it bring to our lives. I feel more at peace than ever before, and people around seem to be benefiting from these changes (or so it seems from the outside). But... 2) I feel more isolated than ever before, which is not a bad thing in itself. It is rather a kind of peaceful loneliness, but loneliness nonetheless. I feel like quite a few people could understand these feelings, and that I have few people around me to get advice from. And so it seems be noticed by some close friends and acquantances. Some of them seem to think that I'm becoming something like a robot. I don't think that's the case. Maybe "equanimous" is the word I'd use to describe such state. One of my friends asked me if I talk to her just out of compassion instead of out of real feelings of friendship. That question really freaked me out, especially because it seems to be pointing to some truth, but I cannot put my finger on it; I don't know if there's a real difference between those two motivations. One part of me wants to keep going along this Path, because all of the peace it has brought to me. The other part is not so sure if it's ready to lose its bonds, relationships and wordly goals and ties, feelings which can be ascribed to still being in love with Samsara, and still having ignorant tendencies. I feel in a kind of crossroad right now. Have you experienced something like this? Is it possible to balance these two goals? I'd really appreaciate any piece of advice, whether from personal experience or from suttas. Thanks in advance for your patience and understanding!

There is a pithy saying for keeping fit that goes > The 'best exercise you do' is the exercise you do i.e. the most important thing is to find something you enjoy and you can stick with rather that do the scientifically proven 'more effective exercise' that you maybe don't enjoy as much. So I was wondering is the same true of meditation i.e. > The 'best meditation you do' the meditation you do So to fill it out - is it more important to find the meditation that suits you personally and perhaps adapt and tweak it until it really suits or is it better to pick a tradition and follow their methods to the letter and force your way through it?

I have found a page in which a sravaka seems to object to a mahayanist that, if those that aren't ordinary people have no cognition, then it's ultimately correct to have sexual relations with a forbidden woman > If he says: Madhyamikas make statements such as the following: > "[Cognition] is not in the eye, it is not in form, and it is not > between them or in both of them. Wherever it might be present, it > neither exists nor does not exist". So no cognition is apprehended. The footnote says that the source of the quote is unclear, and not from MMK or Aryadeva. Bhavaviveka then seems to explain that the sravaka's conclusion, that forbidden women would then be ultimately correct to have sex with, is not proven, because it is no different to saying that all women can relieve desire: both are examples of improperly denying all things. Bhavaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents p129 So, I *think* the general argument is that ultimate reality does not deny conventional reality. Even if distinctions do not ultimately exist, but do conventionally, that does not mean ultimate reality denies the truth of conventional distinctions. The difference is about being and not truth. It may be worth noting that "non conceptual cognition" crops up a lot in the book, I think as the goal of Buddhist practice. ---------- I'm not sure if I've misinterpreted the argument: did any Indian Mahayana Buddhists, such as Bhavaviveka, have non-cognition as a goal? And, would that mean they do not seek knowledge, or just that cognition is empty of svabhava?

It's well documented in psychology that the cessation of any type of addictive behaviour causes a period of withdrawal. During this period, less pleasure is experienced overall as well as mental difficulties. **Does Buddhist have any advice about such periods and way to help the recovery process?**

As a duty of children, how to transfer merits to parents after their death?

In SN 12.65 , we read about the cyclic relationship between consciousness and name-and-form, which has been asked in this question . However, this sutta also has the curious phrase in bold below. What does this phrase mean? "*This consciousness turns back; it does not go further than name-and-form.*" How does it fit with the rest of sutta? As translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does birth come > to be?… existence?… clinging?… craving?… feeling?… contact?… the six > sense bases?… name-and-form? By what is name-and-form conditioned?’ > Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a > breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is consciousness, name-and-form > comes to be; name-and-form has consciousness as its condition.’ > > “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does > consciousness come to be? By what is consciousness conditioned? ’ > Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a > breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is name-and-form, consciousness > comes to be; consciousness has name-and-form as its condition.’ > > “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘**This consciousness turns back; it > does not go further than name-and-form.** It is to this extent that one > may be born and age and die, pass away and be reborn, that is, when > there is consciousness with name-and-form as its condition, and > name-and-form with consciousness as its condition. With name-and-form > as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as > condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of > suffering.’ As translated by Bhikkhu Sujato with Pali version included (from here ): > This consciousness turns back from name-and-form, and doesn’t go > beyond that. > > *paccudāvattati kho idaṃ viññāṇaṃ nāmarūpamhā na paraṃ gacchati.*

I heard a talk by Ajahn Amaro that says that wherever I encounter dukkha, it is a sign that there is an attachment involved, that I can let go of and this way free myself from the dukkha. https://youtu.be/-h_O_SuKOKE?t=2823 But this way, what prevents me from laying down and dying from hunger or thirst - if I feel hunger, it may be dukkha from my attachment to food, or to survival... What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs? Thanks for answering a noob question.

I have tried meditating on public transport. There, I find I meditate as sharply as when sitting formally. Yet, I find this suspect. **Is it possible to *believe* one is concentrated and meditating efficiently, but actually not? In other words, should I trust my experience that meditating on public transport is equally efficient as formal sitting?** Thank you.

What can you say to someone whose loved one (e.g. spouse or parent) is dying? Assume if you can that in the West, e.g. Europe and America, although people (strangers) might have heard the first thing about Buddhism, but they **haven't formally** practised it nor intentionally studied its doctrines in any detail (what if they've just seen some "fake Buddha quotes" for example). So, although a simple catchphrase (perhaps just a few words of Dhamma) might help a Buddhist as a "reminder", someone else (a non-Buddhist) might not recognise/understand that. Or I would ask, what you could you even say to a layperson who does know some Buddhism -- except that most of the people who I'm likely to contact don't, and I doubt it's a moment to begin to lecture them (uninvited). For example a simple statement like, "Don't be attached", might sound like, "Don't be ill" -- or, "abandon that person" -- which might seem impractical, too academic, or even cruel if you don't understand the context (and might need more explanation than is possible in the context). Or for example, saying, "Buddhist doctrine says that..." sounds like they're being lectured, and at a moment when they're concerned about something other than Buddhism (so maybe that too is not the right way to frame or to open a conversion). I don't want to talk too much about what I think the difficulties are, so I'll try to stop; if you have questions (about this question), you can a comment to ask. But as well as being **reluctant to lecture** someone unasked, I'm generally not sure what to say if someone tells me that they're suffering somehow. For example if someone is mentally ill and tells you something about (or something based on) their delusions or hallucinations, I think I've read that maybe people shouldn't encourage (nor perpetuate nor even argue against) those fantasies (e.g. "yes" and "tell me more about that" or "that's untrue"), and instead you're supposed to talk about consensual (maybe conventional) realities. So I worry that "tell me about your suffering" (or even "yes that's sad" or "I'm so sorry") might only reinforce the suffering, especially if I've nothing to add, nor even understand how to steer their thinking (steer the topic) by asking questions -- possibly (at the risk of being prejudiced) it might be good for them to experience "brahmaviharas", or "recollection of virtue", or even just some "calm" etc., but I'm not sure how someone might get there by my asking them questions -- so maybe that (asking questions) is not the right approach either, or is it? I quote [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31451/254) as an ideal -- slightly out of context, because that was posted as an antithesis of "fear" or aversion -- but perhaps this is an example of an ideal: > ... basically leave all Dharma-Theory home and dive into the world, while learning to be authentic and helpful. The end result of this is an image of someone very warm, strong, and open, who has enough inner power and confidence that he or she can be very down-to-earth, very real, without formalities and artificial boundaries that come from fear. This is very different from the aloof ascetic image cultivated on the previous stage. It is someone very warm and very *real*. The absence of overt Dharma-Theory (in relating to others) might be appropriate (though perhaps you're informed by theory, or practice, even if you're not teaching it formally/explicitly). I guess I'm looking for answers from personal experience (your own or someone else's) -- what kind of thing can you say that actually works in the circumstance, is helpful? When I've tried to do this in the past, it was by trying to share (recollect, recount) what might have been helpful in retrospect from my own experience (of a relationship with a dying loved one). My doing that might depend on making assumptions about the people I'm talking to, so, and I've only limited experience -- perhaps you can tell me more experience or even generalise from experience ... or not? It happens and will happen a lot (that I meet people in this situation), it would be good to be better prepared for that if possible. --- At the risk of being off-topic (maybe delete it if it is), here's a story -- as an example of what seems to be a beneficial effect of a kind word (i.e. it "kept me unexpectedly calm"). Someone posted a question on Twitter -- *What is the kindest thing a stranger has done or said to you?* -- which has thousands of replies. And one of the answers to that question, which I thought was remarkable, was [this one](https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/status/1102754618562564098) (quoted here): > One of my twins was born with multiple heart and esophageal defects. Had open-heart surgery at 47 hours old, weighing only 4.5 lbs. When the surgeon described the procedure, it sounded impossible. But the surgery went well. He has more to go, but we let our guard down. > > 24 hours later, get a call that he's failing (he was at one hospital, my wife and his twin at the other, and I'm running back and forth). It looks grim; Plan A is an untested long-shot, and there's no Plan B. I race out of Hospital 1 to grab a cab to Hospital 2. > > Get in cab, driver asks me how I want to get there. Exhausted and angry, I snarl "my son is dying at Hospital 2, so whatever way you think is faster." > > We drive in silence for a very long time. > > As we get near, he starts to ask me what is wrong, and I tell him. He replies, as we pull into the hospital, "I am Muslim, and tomorrow is Friday. I will pray for him all five times tomorrow." And as I hop out of the cab, I hear him start to pray, "bismallah ar-rahman...." > > As I raced thru the hospital, that one small act of kindness, after I had been so surly to him at the start, stuck with me, and for some reason kept me unexpectedly calm during a night of staring at the Plan A machine, hoping it would defy expectations and work. > > (It worked.) > > It wasn't some huge thing. But that small act of compassion made such a huge difference as I spent the night alone w this insanely strong but insanely sick little boy--and who is now quite healthy. > > It's one of the few things that still chokes me up when I think abt those days. I suppose the bits of Islamic doctrine which a non-Muslim might know are "[Inshallah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshallah) " (something to do with awareness that things happen according to God's will i.e. not always our will) -- and "[bismallah ar-rahman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmala) " (which the OP quoted and remembered) i.e., "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" -- maybe any outcome is "a mercy". Please don't answer that that's not Buddhist doctrine, that isn't what I'm asking -- I quote this as an example, because I'm impressed with the effect[s] it had on the person to whom it was said. My question might be, what could a Buddhist (instead of a Muslim) possibly say in that situation? It might be difficult if the person you're talking to knows even less about Buddhism than about Islam -- so they might not "recognise" what you say. But Dhamma is "evident", isn't it, so maybe there's always some common ground already, whether they've ever studied Buddhism or not. What might you say that could help a stranger? Or help a friend who you're not going to see again, maybe someone who lives far away? What if it's just a short conversation, in person -- or, what if you're writing a personal letter to distant family or an old friend in another country (or maybe a phonecall would be better)? One other thing I see in the story above is that a person who is suffering will make things worse -- "Exhausted and angry, I snarl" and "after I had been so surly to him". So it might be important to help, it affects everyone, even including those they're trying to care for; but it can also be difficult, a time when they might be more troubled, less tolerant and less outgoing or communicative themselves -- i.e. more "surly" (or if not surly, more guarded).

What is the difference between *sati* (mindfulness) and *sampajañña* (awareness, clear comprehension)? Please provide examples.

My limited understanding of Buddhism has already helped me in many ways and I am very glad to have found it. With that said, I have always wondered about this title question. If there is no 'I', then why do 'I' do anything? If we can consider ourselves to be just part of everything else, where does the motivation to do anything come from? Surely we admit that there is a self whenever we perform an action (and thus reveal a motivation that must have originated from a self). If there truly is no self, surely we would all just freeze motionless, die and return to nothingness. Apologies if this is an ignorant question. I am still feeling my way around this whole concept.

After attaining Nibbana, did the Buddha still have intention (*cetanā*)? In SN 12.2 , intention is part of name in name-and-form. In SN 12.38 (quoted below), it sounds like intention is removed in an arahant. For example, in the Udana 6.1 quote below, did the Buddha have the intention (*cetanā*) to go and sit at the Pavala shrine on a sitting cloth with Ananda for the day's abiding? How does the Buddha's apparent intention in Udana 6.1, not conflict with the quote from SN 12.38? From Udana 6.1 : > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near > Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the > morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes — > went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after > the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda, > **"Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the > day's abiding."** > > Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda > followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth. > Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat > down on the seat laid out. > > Seated, the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, "Vesālī is refreshing, > Ānanda. Refreshing, too, are the Udena shrine, the Gotamaka shrine, > the Sattamba shrine, the ManySon shrine, the Sāranda shrine, the > Pāvāla shrine. From SN 12.38 : > “Bhikkhus, **what one intends, and what one plans and whatever one has > a tendency towards (yañca ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti)**: this **becomes a basis for the maintenance of > consciousness**. When there is a basis there is a support for the > establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and > has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed > existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, > future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, > and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of > suffering.

What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar?

Can anyone follow a Buddhist life-style or philosophy even If the person has been violent or ate non-veg in the past or has drank wine. If yes then what are the beginner steps?

Today, I sat for a 30-minute meditation session, and towards the end of the 30- minutes (since I heard the timer bell ring a few minutes after the start of the experience), I started to feel an intense acceleration in the mind, and just after that, everything else clearing out of my mind. At the same time, I felt my heart beating faster and I am making heavy breaths. I could really pay attention to the heavy breaths and I was keeping my mind there. And then, I saw some soft, satisfying light, lighting up from beneath my eyes (like lighting a torch from below when your eyes are closed). I got really scared of the entire thing, I tried to continue, but I couldn't because I felt I was going to blow up and ended the session. The whole thing was not a calm experience. It was like a free fall. Is this something normal or something that I should be worried about?

I have recently tried meditating for 15 min at a time, at least once per day. I'm wondering, however, if long sits have a *qualitative* benefit. In other words, I'm wondering **whether longer sits have a benefit other than *more* of those of shorter sits, perhaps uniquely different benefit/s?** (Here, longer sits would mean about 1h-1h30).

Read page 295 here . Also refer to the editorial note on p.289 “*this is the well known island of Ceylon, both direction and distance are extremely correct*”. **A Summary.** Until 1890 the world knew Buddha was from Sri Lanka. In addition to Marco Polo, Pre-1890 historical references from Robert Knox, a Bible commentary and Sir, Henry Charles are provided. More here -> https://jambudipa.quora.com How the history was allegedly distorted is mentioned here . Does this sound credible?