In dependent origination after sense-contact occured, craving is the next condition, which in turn forms attachment at its basis and so on... Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving? Similarly with unpleasant feelings; Suppose I have a bike accident and I fall down the ground and my immediate reaction is: "Arghhh", and no other cursing; Is this considered aversion to unpleasant feelings? Furthermore, if I go to toilett to take a pee is this good feeling connected with craving? It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving, pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically. no thoughts were coming. mind itself can be seen.is this anatta?

Would zen Buddhists agree with this quote from Chih-I? Quoted in T'ien-t'ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika p110 I've not read the original material, so am not sure where Chih-I makes these points (about the four alternatives) from. But they do seem to make sense to me, and (potentially) be what matters most about meditation etc.. But I have no means to really study tendai, only some local zen schools.

If all that has a beginning and an ending is impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory, then (with binary logic) that which has no beginning and no ending is permanent and satisfactory. Is this right or wrong? Why? And how does it change when applying catuskoti logic?

In the Salayatana Sutta in the last paragraph it says; > Not percipient of form internally, he/she sees forms externally. This is the second direction. What does this mean? Does it mean you do not react? OR Is related to reification, like look at things and don't try to make sense of them?

In an effort to understand the concept of lovingkindness it would help me to see how the Buddha explicitly described lovingkindness and specific acts of his unconditional compassion. I've [heard]( https://dharmaseed.org/teacher/334/talk/7816/) from secondary sources that he'd throw out his "net" of compassion to walk 200 miles to teach someone, but I'm looking for **references** to primary or well known secondary (e.g. Bhikku Bodhi, Analayo) sources, please.

What was the caste of Sujātā, the woman who offered the Buddha a bowl of rice milk? I am trying to check a reference to her as a Brahman. She is described as a milkmaid, daughter of a landowner.

Can a married person who does not have children ordain if he has the consent of his parents? Does his wife has to give permission? How much contact should he keep with his wife after he ordains?

I was reading some books containing an anthology of Ajahn Chah's Dhamma Talks to both laymen and monks. In the introduction of one of those books, the translator indicated that AC used to translate 'anicca' as 'uncertainty', mainly because, to his eyes, "impermanence" seems too abstract wjen compared to the former translation; we can all relate to the experience of uncertainty, which one can say is the manifestation of impermanence in our daily lives. While I agree that 'uncertainty' is an specially useful translation, even more when considering the target audience (laymen, unacquainted with buddhist terminology), I'm confused about the accuracy of such rendering when trying to stick to the canonical teachings. What did the Buddha told about the relation between impermanence and uncertainty? If we're to believe the texts literally, there are multiple occasions when the Buddha was able to see into future of some individuals. Does that tell us that life may seem uncertain only most people, to those who don't possess such gifts and abilities, but that in the end, reality is "fixed" and already determined? Is reality and future events actually uncertain? Thanks in advance for your time and patience!

I meditate daily for 5- 10 minutes with Breathing meditation. So, far I have curbed my Porn addiction. But, finding it difficult to keep away from masturbation. I keep telling myself, that I am wasting my time, water and every potential. But still I find it hard to keep away from the compulsion. It may be because I read in a medical book, that masturbation was normal. But, every time after doing the deed; I'd feel guilty and depleted of energy. The compulsion is strongest whenever I go to have a wash. If it arises when I am alone, I can keep myself away - through by strenuous exercise or playing rock music on my piano. But, I re-lapse every time I go on to take my wash. Now, it's hardly like I could keep from washing myself. What is the best medicine that the greatest way would recommend me to do?

I remember a sutta which uses the word "nationalism" in reference to a taint to be removed. It was the last in a certain sequence of taints. I think i read it on access to insight. However, when i search for the word i can't find any such sutta in either dhamma talks or access to insight. Or anywhere else for that matter. Can someone \*ahem* enlighten me?

I'm not really expecting a short summary, but I'd be happy to get one. This is a 1600 page sutra in English (and cost over $100 on Amazon). It gets reference a lot in the Brahma Net Sutra and Huayan Buddhism. Given that, what is the best way to dig into this... is there a Cliff Notes version? And what is the Avatamsaka Sutra prescribing its readers to do?

Each morning, I meditate for 30 minutes. Within 45 minutes to an hour after, I commute to my university. For the first hour or two that I am at university after meditating, I feel almost overwhelmed by the intensity of external stimuli (car noise, sights, sometimes even internal thoughts and physical feelings). Conversely, on days that I do not meditate, I feel relatively stable and at ease walking onto campus. Does meditation increase sensitivity to these stimuli? If so, how, and what is the purpose of this with regard to meditation practice?

I have heard that all consciousness arise in hadaya vatthu rupa (blood inside the heart) except the five doors perceiving consciousness (Cakku vinnana, Sota vinnana, Ghana vinnana, Jeevha vinnana, Kaya vinnana). There are some research articles on the internet about the impact on the heart due to brain damage. So one can argue that the brain is merely an organ which supports the functionality of other organs and hadaya vatthu rupa is the place where consciousness originate. Another one can argue the other way around. So my questions are: 1. Where does the consciousness (cittas) originate inside the body? Is it in the brain or hadaya vatthu rupa? 2. Consciousness is nāma (not material/formless). Then how can we talk about a place of origination of it?

A while ago I heard said phrase being interpreted as a warning toward people who only have knowledge from a single source (a single book, the oneself's perspective, a single author, a single teacher, etc.). Buddhism touches a lot of topic today divided into individual sciences and knowledges of their own. That's why the Dhamma is usually classified as a philosophy, a psychology, a religion, and so on. But in Buddha's time and considering the purpose of the Dhamma, those bounderies where useless and alien to the practice itself. The Buddha used elements from all sorts of areas and knowledges in order to eradicate Dukkha and to reach the other shore. In modern times, we know a lot more about the working of the brain, about human physiology, about philosophy and science in general, about the development of religions and cultures, and about the world in general. With that in mind: should we fear the men of one book? Should the ones following the Dhamma know and study these other areas in order to contrast and prove the reality of the Buddha's words? Or is it enough with just reading Dhamma books? If you lean on that second field, do you trust that the Buddha was inerrant and/or that the authors of the Suttas had the Buddha's words transcribed verbatim? I'm not sure if this kind of questions are appropiated for this site. If not, just ignore it and close it. EDIT: What motivated this question is that strange vibe that arises when I read discussion where people base their answers and arguments only on suttas and Dhamma books. While that's OK, specially on academic sites, it's pretty weird to me that such an experiential and pragmatic thing as the Dhamma is, is a lot of times covered by a dogmatic and scholar aura, which puts in motion endless debates about the nature of consciousness, the place where kammic seeds are stored, the time it passes before rebirth and that sort of things. But I always end with this question in my head: are people telling about X thing because they have experienced themselves such phenomena, or because the suttas said so, or both? EDIT 2: Wow! Such good answers! I cannot pick one over another. For these cases, I'd love to choose more than one. Thanks for those well thought and well put idea! Thanks for your time and patience!

In the Tibetan tradition, and as far as I understand, the Mahayana in general, there’s a lot of emphasis on compassion for all sentient beings. Compassion for all sentient beings sounds great. But I sometimes wonder about this all-encompassing compassion in practice. An example: I was attending a two day meditation and reflection session this weekend. We did meditation on compassion for all sentient beings. The teacher did not get tired of underlining how importance of no exceptions. It all sounds very nice. At the end of the first day we were discussing meditation on the skhanda’s and I asked if we could repeat this the next morning. Teacher said yes, but forgot it. I asked if he could send me a mil with some info I needed. He said yes but forgot. This made me wonder. You know, compassion for all – aren’t your students included in “all”? Is it a risk that you may slip in to a state where you meditate very “big” and think about you compassion for all the universe(s), but forget “thy neighbor”? Does the Buddha address this directly anywhere? This tendency to be compassionate when you’re on the cushion but when the chips are down in real life it isn’t that much mindful compassion left?

Can anyone enlighten me as why I feels like my body is tilted around 30 degrees to the right during meditation? This happens around 10-15 minutes after I've started. I don't do any breathing technique, I just sit still.

I used to meditate before a few years.During meditation I used to focus my attention by imagining a candle flame in front of the eyes.Now, one of my friends suggested that a better way is to focus on the breath.Should I switch the method? i.e is the second method better than the first one.

I am looking for a Buddhist story from scriptures or otherwise real life, from any tradition, where a person is mentally abused, in a sense insulted, humiliated, looked down upon, etc who achieves Nirvana or Sotapanna or anything substantial towards the direction of Nirvana. I found the story of Milarepa which fits my need but Milarepa apparently took revenge using black magic and did not forgive his wrong-doers, later on, he understood the uselessness of what he did and he followed Dhamma and got enlightened. Another story is from the Akkosa sutta but that happened with the Buddha Himself post-Nirvana. I want something with good moral of forgiveness for others, for the perpetrators.

Does Sotapanna have the fear of death? Recently I spoke to a monk about Sotapanna. He said the best test to understand whether someone is Sotapanna is to see whether he has fear of death.