This question is in context of practicing mindfulness in one's day-to-day activities (e.g. walking, talking, washing dishes etc.), where one is supposed to be "aware of" / "observe" / "be mindful of" these activities. But how does one be "mindful" during thinking, since the very act of "observing" thinking would interrupt the thought process? And, say, if the thought process is about solving a specific problem, the very act of "being aware of /observing" the thoughts would result in one being unable to effectively solve that problem - when compared to not observing/ not being mindful about those thoughts. Or, be unable to solve it all. The same question for when reading something very interesting, or studying, where one is fully engrossed? Wouldn't being mindful about these activities interrupt the reading/study? New to mindfulness here. Apologies if the question sounds foolish, or irrelevant due to my misunderstanding of mindfulness. Thanks in advance.

I have heard of sages being able to kill themselves with meditation. How do they do this?

My partner committed suicide 2 weeks ago. I have managed to visit him when I'm sleeping (dreaming) and when I see him everything is normal until I have to wake up and we are both saying how much we are going to miss each other because we know when I wake up he won't be there anymore. This isn't every night I have lucid dreams about a lot of places. I would really love to see him more and possibly just cross over if I can to be with him all the time.

In an election scenario, a Buddhist may face a dilemma when deciding whether to vote for leader X, who aligns with their values in most areas but contradicts them in one specific aspect. Conversely, the opposition leader Y is perceived by the Buddhist as being misaligned with Buddhist teachings across all areas. Given that these are effectively the only two choices for leadership, would it always be wise for the Buddhist to abstain from voting for leader X due to this one inconsistency, or does such a purist stance represent a loss of wisdom? What is the inconsistency? Being a moderate in the abortion issue but I wonder how this would work with other issues as the inconsistency.

From Reciting in Concert > Four kinds of reincarnation: There is a reincarnation where only one’s > own intention is effective, not that of others. There is a > reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not > one’s own. There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ > intentions are effective. There is a reincarnation where neither one’s > own nor others’ intentions are effective. Does it have something to do with the 31 planes of existence ?

Does the alayavijnana exist in the formless realms? --------------------------------------------------- Presuably, if we are reborn there. But there is no matter in the formless realms, so my crazy hypothesis for how my mental stream can reoccur outside my body (action at a distance, of gravity) seems to be disproven if the title question is yes (the alayavijnana does not necessarily include form and mass undergoing the gravitational constant). For what it's worth, I would think that supposing there is no rebirth without physical mass, then that would suffice to demonstrate that the strangeness of action at a distance (seemingly involved in post-mortem rebirth) ***itself does not preclude* the possibility of rebirth**, though of course if the identity of mind with body means this this brain is necessary for my mind, then - my mind cannot live without this living brain Currently, I do not see any other motivation for the claim that death is the end of the citta-santana, but I welcome any correction to that.

Is it possible to attain the first jhana, then remain in first jhana, while walking, talking, eating and performing other daily activities? Or does one remain in first jhana only while in sitting meditation, then he has to leave the jhana and meditation, before he is able to perform daily activities such as walking, talking and eating?

I may consider myself as a strong buddhist. But when I read about concept of quantum consciousness , it seems very realistic. And add to that, considering capabilities of current simple(chat GPT, etc) AI models, and considering how powerful an AI model(in DNA) would be powered by evolution through millions of years, it seems possible to believe ability to produce consciousness like behavior with 1) biological quantum consciousness and 2) AI model coded by DNA. So, my question is, what are the best **Buddhist answers** against this? Why may be these ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong? In other words, what information we can gather from buddhist philosophy and buddhist teachings regarding origin of the consciousness?

Does anyone know if becoming an anagarika in a Theravada monastery is only allowed temporarily or could one become a anagarika and stay in a monastery indefinitely? Also what concessions are given to anagarikas in a monastery life.

I read in this answer that if one wants to become a Bhikkhu then *"He must never have committed any grievous crimes"*. - What could examples of grievous crimes be? - What if crimes where committed many years ago. Does that have any value in the ordination procedure or does it automatically result in one not being able to become ordained in this life? Thank you for your time.

I have been wondering what the connection between the five aggregates and the four establishments are. Below i give the translations into English that i've found when reading Bhikkhu Bodhi (BB) and Thich Nhat Hanh (TNH) Five aggregates: * Form * Feelings * Perceptions * Volitional formations (BB); Mental Formations (TNH) * Consciousness Four establishments of mindfulness: * Body * Feelings * Mind, States of Mind (BB); Mind, Mental Formations (TNH) * Phenomena (BB); Objects of mind (TNH) **How can i think about the connection between these lists?** More specifically: * Why is "perceptions" not included in the establishments of mindfulness? * What's the difference between "form" and "body"? * Are "Volitional formations (BB); Mental Formations (TNH)" and "Mind, States of Mind (BB); Mind, Mental Formations (TNH)" the same thing? * What's the relation between "Consciousness" and "Phenomena (BB); Objects of mind (TNH)"?

What, exactly, is the notion of cause and effect at work in a causal series that includes the citta-santāna? I suppose the obvious answer is the 12 links of dependent origination, but I am confused ***how*** ignorance causes sankhara to arise. **Obviously, speculating where will be reborn is frowned upon, even if suggesting that rebirth may work even with some views (such as mind-brain identity) is not.** ---------- Suppose that it reduces to something physical, so that my *brain state* for my "death thought" must bring about a new brain state somewhere: is it very conceivable, in contemporary physics or biology, that the state of my brain right sufficiently for citta-santana with an existing (or just coming into existence) brain state that is not "my" brain?

> "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, > Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward." > AN 11.1 > It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous > person, one whose behavior is virtuous. > AN 10.2 What is the basis for defining skillful virtues, that would result in freedom from remorse? The Abrahamic religions depend on God to define what is right and wrong. The Buddhist suttas define skillful virtues based on "freedom from remorse". The precepts like killing, stealing, adultery and lying result in remorse. **Why do they result in remorse?** I've seen vague explanations based on laws of karma or kamma niyama (Dhp 127), natural laws or principles ("this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles") based on AN 3.136 or SN 12.20, the Golden Rule ("don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you") based on Ud 5.1, and linking to the three poisons. However, I have not seen suttas that definitively provide a cause for remorse. Please support with sutta references, as far as possible.

From what I can gather, kasina meditation involves staring at the kasina initially, and then attempting to generate/visaulize it as a mental image. I *believe* this is how the Visudhimagga describes it. Are there any other older meditation manuals, perhaps like the Vimutimagga, or Abhidhamma, which describe kasina meditation in detail? However, I have seen other sources which say one should focus on the retinal after-image. What is the more traditional approach? I am aware that kasina meditation is not described in detail in the suttas. I would also prefer not this question to be derailed by the discussion of whether or not they were a late invention. Thank you!

I read the following on the internet: > MN140 - "Having gone beyond all conceiving, one is called a sage at > peace. The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does > not die. They are not shaken, and do not yearn. For they have nothing > which would cause them to be reborn. Not being reborn, how could they > grow old? Not growing old, how could they die? Not dying, how could > they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they yearn?" Note that > "they do not die" is only because of rebirth has ended. Best not to > get that confused. Is the above translation accurate? If a person is already biologically dead, why would they be shaken & yearn? Does the term "Deathless" mean "rebirth" (reincarnation) has ended?

I have heard the following story, from a source I do not consider very reliable. Are there sources for this story? A Buddhist nun has killed a bandit deliberately (not in an act of self-defense, but to generally stop him from being a bandit and possibly killing people). She has told this to her spiritual teacher (possibly, the story of one of the previous lives of the Buddha in which he has killed a person deliberately, came to her mind). However, her spiritual master told her that she has committed a major offense, and that she is no longer a nun. He said that in contrast to the Buddha in his previous lives, she A) did not try to change that person for the better B) did not consider the possibility of lower rebirths, when killing. Note : The story is more probably to come from the Mahayana (due to the reference to the Bodhisattva killing a person)

I started practicing meditation (I am a beginner), and I struggle to understand what the exact goal of the session is. In case it helps: my current goal is mainly to remove some stress/anxiety (I am not doing it for spiritual purpose but mainly for the practical implications it can have on well-being). In the beginner books I am reading, it is explained two things: 1. You should focus on your body's sensation 2. Whenever a thought arrives, you should acknowledge it, but let it go away to focus again on your body. What I struggle with is that I don't differenciate what is the goal from the tools/tricks we can use to reach it. In particular: is focusing on your body's sensation the actual goal? Or is it a trick used to get to the goal? For instance, it could be that the goal is not to focus on the body's sensation, but rather to not let a thought occupy the mind. In this case, focusing on the body's sensation is a trick we use so that we avoid a thought to occupy the mind (because we focus on what we feel). Overall: what is the actual concrete goal of the session. If it exists, I would appreciate an answer based on scientific studies (if they exist) that explain how exactly the session should be done so that it provides the best benefits.

I started to learn and read Buddhist teachings, everything is very logical and compassionate. However, there is one thing that makes me wonder and confused: as far as I know, all evil karma can be repented and overcome, so why are there some particularly serious crimes that cannot be cured? For example, killing parents, causing Buddha to bleed, killing arahant, dividing the Sangha. Is there any way for them to repent to reduce their sins? In case they realize their mistakes, do they still have the opportunity to practice and attain liberation? - If the 5 major sins I just mentioned cannot be mitigated through repentance, then does it contradict [this sutra](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN42_8.html) ?: "There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him, 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell." There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell. - If someone accidentally creates the above evil karma without anger, will the result be different? I would be very grateful if someone could help me answer my question.

I have been in search of a higher truth as far as I remember, like a stargazer looking for the brighter one and dropping the dimmer. I started from Christianity or generally from the Abrahamic religions just because it was close at home, then progressed on to the early Greek philosophy when I found out that the theology of these religions is just a makeshift of Plato's Philosophy. The Greek thought kept me for a while, especially the Stoics which I still respect the most, but then I discovered the wisdom of the East mainly because of the proximity of the Taoist with the Cynics. I explored the Eastern thought and religions for many years Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I read, inquired and tried to practice some for longer and some for shorter years. There is an apparent similarity between these religions and it can be said that a common theme is repeated again and again That said, Ashtavakra Gita is very distinct and truly a higher teaching. I know it is a Hindu scripture, but it’s just by name, the Gita presents almost all Hinduism as a bluff of vanity. By my understanding none of the philosophy or religion of the world that i encountered, except perhaps the higher teaching of Buddhism, Laozi Tao and some few thoughts in the west, will stand its truth. So, I'm looking for a comparative study between Buddhism and this specific scripture Ashtavakra Gita.

I don't know where I am getting all these ideas; perhaps it's my failing memory, or whatever. But which sutta does it say something about, "...in-between worlds..."? I'm fairly certain I read this in the text...bummer i can't find it...what quality standard?