From a perspective to hindrances to meditation this may fall under remorse and regrets, but not very apt in that sense. Using Buddhist philosophy to get over and respond, how do you handle when someone tries to instil guilt in you, like trying to make you feel like you have done something wrong, you are a bad person, I am a victim, you are a perpetrator. How to respond to such a person? Sutta references are appreciated but otherwise, any workable answer adhering to keeping Buddhist precepts and practise is welcome.

I'm intrigued by this concept. Can a Buddhist marry a person from a faith who believe in a God that created the universe? I've got varying answers from Buddhists, some have advised that religion does not matter as it's personal, others have said it does. However I was also thinking as a marriage it 2 people, and then ramifications from that, be it extended family, children etc. Would it be recommended if the other partner's faith dictated that the Buddhist partner would not go to heaven and so creating a deep seated question of faith and tension between the 2 people. Also what would anyone learn from a couple who have disbanded their own faiths for mortal desires rather then an actual spiritual journey?

What is the Best , online Sanskrit-English dictionary. I want to do research on the early root meanings and usage of certain Buddhist words in early India. Say 5,000 years ago, or at least, 3,000 years ago.

When practicing mindfulness and labelling for example if I'm making my bed can I note "making bed" or of I'm driving note "driving" or is it meant to be more specific? Because a lot of the time I can't think what it is I'm doing. Seems to be too many things at once so I end up thinking too hard about what I'm doing kind of thing.

I met my family who has already died in my dream. He told me something bad about my partner. Should I believe him?

This might seem a silly question, but unfortunately I am extremely oversensitive to human noises. I don't mind meditation with the noise of traffic, or a thunderstorm, or the monotonous drone of a ventilator. But when I am trying to do za-zen in a dojo with other people and I hear other people breathing loudly through their noses, it drives me nuts and puts me in an extremely bad mood. Basically, I stop the meditation and just start thinking about my work or something, to stop noticing the noise. I know this is wrong, and somehow I should make the noise, the other person's breathing and my own irritation part of the meditation: observe my irritation and meanwhile keep getting back to my own respiration, but I wonder whether there is some advice, some trick, to make this easier. I know I am my own biggest enemy here, but it's a problem that keeps on occurring and it's hard for me to get out of this trap.

The Dokkaebi are legendary creatures present in Korean mythology. Notably described as having supernatural abilities used to interact with humans. They often play tricks on or help humans and are described to be "impish" or goblin-like. They possess an "awe-inspiring" or "fearful" appearance as well as the ownership of indescribably magical objects. Are there any parallels of creatures that fit these descriptions in Buddhism?

Should I do reflection before eating if I don't plan to keep it? There is an issue I'm aware of that you shouldn't say stuff you won't be able to do - I mean sometimes you can but that its better not to promise stuff you probably will fail doing (I don't want to give examples but it is a thing in Buddhism I hope some will know what I'm talking about) So my question is should one say a reflection on food ("I use this almsfood not for beautification but for supporting the holy life etc etc...") when he knows he probably isn't going to keep it? What about when he thinks there's a tiny chance he will? What about most likely will keep it?

When you don't do akusla actions you do kusala actions? And I'm aware of the middle way - harming yourself is not. And another question (you can answer whatever you like or both) When you don't do stuff for fun do you do good things? .... of course with 2 important exceptions: you have right view and you don't avoid fun stuff (meaning not to do on purpose stuff cause they are fun but you can do stuff that are fun if it serves you) And my main question is: if I avoid doing bad stuff (akusala) will I do only good stuff (kusala) or neutral ones? Because I'm pondering a way to advance in the path after trying many many ways as to just focus on avoiding doing bad and cause I have right view more or less I will be pushed to do good. Also many things for fun are akusala (bad) so it seems avoiding them I am pushed to do good. (And yes I know there are "levels" and you can look at actions in general or moment by moment - and I ask this on each level - also in the big picture of actions and also moment by moment) Sorry if it's a mess of a question - but I hope the smart people here can give their opinion on this line of thought nonetheless - you don't have to answer the question directly.

In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta. I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain? In particular, is SN 5.10 included: > “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’? Māra, > is this your theory? This is just a pile of conditions, you won’t > find a sentient being here. > > **When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘chariot’. So too, when > the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.** > > But it’s only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then > disappears. Naught but suffering comes to be, naught but suffering > ceases.” I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature. It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge of anatta. Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is merely a convention. So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta? How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King? Are there other Suttas which take precedence? What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?

What does Buddhism think about/or is it accepted in it that we influence everything with our (un)conscious thoughts and emotions and impressions (because these are also some form off thoughts right?) and can't not influence the universe we live in. Lately I have the fear that my thoughts influence everything around me and happening in my live. Last night I couldn't even watch a movie because I was paralyzed by the fear or thought of having a negative influence on it and making it worse. Then I came to the thought that maybe our universe is refreshing every millisecond and that everything we do or think generates another outcome. The thought is making me crazy because this would mean we have an immense responsibility on ourselves that everything we do does has an influence. I have this fear lately sometimes to watch the live news also fearing that I might in some way influence the newsspeaker with my nervousness. I can still imagine that this all is BS and not true. But there are so many weird impressions that I've had that my awareness like when watching a movie does have an effect on the scene. Or is this all an illusion and I'm I suffering from delusions? Also does Buddhism believe in different dimensions? And also Buddhism does accept consciousness is non-local right? So it's entirely possibly that my awareness does influence a news speaker?

Yesterday during my meditation I had a very persistent intense itch in my ear for what felt like the entire 40 minutes. I tried to just notice the itch and not react by scratching it. As soon as the bell went I had a good scratch. Afterwards I just really couldn't see what the point was of sitting doing this. The itch was just a distraction and I felt I would probably have been better off just scratching it to begin with instead of wasting 40 minutes resisting it. Can somebody please help me get some clarity about this. Meditation just feels so pointless a lot of the time for me.

I have been suffering with addictions. Addictions are complex. Both that I suffer from are in abatement. I am in recovery as they say. I am getting medical support. Besides the addiction I have bad habits in relation to being abusive to people when angry. Verbally abusive. Textually abusive. I realise the self is false but it's very hard to shake it off. Before I know it I'm operating from an ego state. Any advice?

Sutras says that there is nothing to attain: but is there a beginning to attaining nirvana? See e.g. the heart sutra > No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also > no attainment with nothing to attain.

How does a mindfulness practitioner use judgment? I don't know if that is clear about how to judge or not judge in the Eightfold Path. Is it not clear because different Buddhisms disagree?

I am looking forward to develop 7 factors of enlightenment. The 7 factors of enlightenment are factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy (viriya), rapture (piti), tranquility (passaddi), immersion (samadhi), and equanimity. I have understood how to develop factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles and equanimity. However I am not sure how to develop the following: 1. Energy (viriya) 2. Rapture (piti) 3. Tranquility(passaddi) 4. Immersion (samadhi) (I guess Tranquility can be developed by becoming independent. If the answer to samadhi is to enter the first Jhana then my question will be how to enter it?) So my question is: How to develop energy, rapture, tranquility and immersion? If you know answer to only one or few of the above factors then please post that as an answer. I will combine them.

Retired Oxford Professor Richard Gombrich is an indologist and, scholar of Pali, Sanskrit and Buddhist Studies. He also founded the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies . He wrote in this biography : > I begin with a brief historical account of my early life, because I > agree with the Buddha’s analysis that **we are a bundle of processes, > and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited > from our past.** If we should summarize the Buddha's teaching with respect to the nature of our reality as beings, would this make an accurate summary? If not, what would be a more accurate summary?

If you live in Australia and can be my teacher please get in touch. I feel I'm at a stage where I need one. Or perhaps you can recommend someone for me?

According to the suttas, the then Bodhisatta Gotama discovered by himself that ascetic practices of his contemporary India were not enough (or were even wrong) to attain complete enlightenment. Then, after trying his own methods and intuitions, he reached Nibbana. However, many so-called saint men from other religions and traditions are said to have reached enlightenment in their own terms and according to their own definitions of enlightenment. We even have people within Buddhism itself claiming to have awaken, but still showing signs of craving and unethical behavior. Considering what I've written, why should we deposit our trust, time and effort in the Buddhadhamma, when there are so many other practioners assuring that they have reached their ultimate goals following their own practices? The most common argument for following the teachings of the Buddha is that when put in practice by ourselves we'll see how effective and accurate the teachings, analyses and practices actually are. But the same can be said about most other religions. We have a lot of examples of men and women through history telling stories and personal experiences of feeling the supreme love of god, or attaining Moksha, or becoming one with the Universe, and so on. Can you help me to find new perspectives to solve this problem? Thanks for your time!

Can a person decide to do X action and be able to do it forever... from a mental point of view - if physically he can do that action? What I'm trying to say is many times I decided to not do anything for fun or to meditate Y time every day but even when it was 5 minutes every day I didn't do it. Every time either I didn't want to sit to meditate or even be mindful of actions - or I wanted to watch a YouTube video and pass the time with YouTube videos etc. Is it possible to decided to do something and not break it at all? I mean for example I keep the 5 precepts by default and will probably keep them at the future hard for me to see a situation I won't - but for example if I decide to keep the 8 precepts and never break them (again mentally) even if I never have to face something like a physical injury or even friend begging me to go to a movie etc but just in dealing with my own defilement - can I decide not do break it in advance and guarantee myself I won't break it in the future (again if physically it's possible to avoid it).