Knowing intellectually the three characteristics is one thing, experiencing them is another. As far as I understood, vipassana happens without will, since it is morality that leads to rapture and sukkha, which then helps to stabilize the mind, in order to facilitate clear seeing. My question then is: 1) Are most people both generically and wrongly coining in the term vipassana to point to a "new age" technique that has nothing to do with "clear seeing" according to Buddhism? 2) In how far needs meditation development? According to AN 10.1 it is moral purity that leads to consummate concentration necessary for seeing the three characteristics. > [Ananda:] "What, O Venerable One, is the reward and blessing of wholesome morality?" >[The Buddha:] "Freedom from remorse, Ananda." >"And of freedom from remorse?" >"Joy, Ananda" >"And of joy?" >"Rapture, Ananda" >"And of rapture?" >"Tranquillity, Ananda." >"And of tranquillity?" >"Happiness, Ananda." >"And of happiness?" >"**Concentration**, Ananda." >"And of concentration?" >"**Vision and knowledge according to reality.**" >"And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?" >"**Turning away and detachment**, Ananda." >"And of turning away and detachment?" >"The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda." >— AN 10.1 With regards

In the Theravada tradition, there is a list of 38 objects of meditation. In them, there are 3 colors: Blue-Green, Yellow, Red. This is not what I'd expect if these three colors are picked in a way which is based on a basic neurological phenomena. Can anyone point me to classical references detailing experiences and meditative observation on the nature of color observation?

Buddhism teaches us to practice harmlessness. Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature? Can consciousness, particularly the pure awareness aspect, reside in such parts of nature (e.g. non-animals), or why not?

Some of these jhanas are incredibly powerful but they have an opposite, that being emotional and mental upheaval and the dark nights. Essentially, I realise that there are valuable insights to learn from both their extremes but I find that delusion can arise as part of the mental upheaval (I thought I was in love with my teacher) now that I'm out of the delusion it seems so silly. Buddha had mentioned in a few suttas (I can't remember their names) that jhanas are the way to nibana but was this within the context of who he was giving the teaching to? As an example, the satipathanna sutta was taught to the kuru people because they already possessed a deep wisdom and an advanced ability to learn quickly thus, the teaching he gave was conducive to their ability to attain higher levels of realisation very quickly.

Is there any reason or any sutta tells why Buddha choose sacred fig for meditation and austerity?

If we take meditation objects like caganusati, silanusati, buddhanusati, maranasati etc. we can clearly see that all of them require active and sustained thought, however so does metta bhavana or asubha bhavana. Why then is there a distinction in name?

Does the concept of "Mara Devaputta" (The being called Mara) exist in all schools of Buddhism? What is mentioned about that concept?

In the Pali there are two terms, which are (generally) used contextually in two different ways: 1. uppajjati (and its past particle uppanna) 2. upapajjati (and its past particle upapanna) What do these terms actually mean and what is the distinction between them? Importantly, how are these terms constructed or derived in Pali to differentiate their meaning? Of note: the PTS dictionary makes the rather vague comment: > *doubtful whether a legitimate form as upa + pad or a diaeretic form of uppajjati = ud + pad. In this case all passages ought to go under > the latter. Trenckner however (Notes 77) defends upa˚ & considers in > many cases upp˚ a substitution for upa. The diaeresis may be due to > metre, as nearly all forms are found in poetry. The variant reading > upp˚ is apparently frequent; but it is almost impossible to > distinguish between upap˚ and upp˚ in the Sinhalese writing, and > either the scribe or the reader may mistake one for the other*

Are there any suttas where the Buddha gives advice how to change one's behaviours, like eating addiction, mindless eating, addiction to entertainment, laziness and all that? Basically giving in into worldy pleasures. Thanks

I can see the major to entering this path as being quite significant: the seeing through ones own imagination of their self. I also see that this four stage progression must be held onto quite loosely as one could become lost in defining their *selves* as sotapanna for instance and living out the identity of being someone who has seen through their identity. However, what practical use can one obtain from using the four stages?

More specifically, Buddha informs the Kurus thus: "Contemplating mind internally. Contemplating mind externally. Contemplating mind both internally and externally" How is one to contemplate the mind externally? Additionally, in chapter 1 of the Shurangama sutra, the Buddha skillfully guides Ananda into locating his own mind by searching not just within the body but outside of the body. This throws Ananda and the other monks into mental and emotional upheaval (quite fascinating actually). So, from the perspective of satipathanna sutta, is one to contemplate mind beyond the boundaries of the body?

Is there really any evidence that anything goes beyond death ? By that I mean our self awareness. That our awareness transcends death? I know there is absolutely no concrete evidence of reincarnation. I'm not denying its possible. Just denying there is any scientific evidence However i have read claims that the self aware part of us-the part thats aware we are thinking goes beyond death and was here before birth ? Is there any hard evidence for this ?

I have looked at a list of some wrong-views in Buddhism, and I'm somewhat confused about the meaning of the notion of 'view' [*ditthi*]. **In Buddhism, what does it mean to *hold* a view?** 1) I ask this because I'm unsure what the holding of a view means in this case. Does it mean merely believing the view? Does it mean believing and acting in relation to that view? 2) More so, I'm unsure whether the views listed as wrong are considered as definitive? Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples? 3) Finally, I wonder what views are in relation to emptiness. I can't help but feel wisdom linked with emptiness would dismantle views altogether. Wouldn't a view, in emptiness, exist only relatively and not in a definite manner? Wouldn't it be impossible to hold a view as true? I'm reminded of Nagarjuna who claims, for example, that those seeing emptiness as a *view* are misguided.

Is there a 'dead zone' in meditation and the effort applied? So to explain 1. Going from no meditation at all to meditating even a bit (10 mins every few days) - benefits felt quickly 2. Going up to intense meditation in a retreat situation (meditating many hours a day for several days to several weeks) - benefits felt and quite long lasting 3. Meditating for an intermediate amount -(meditating 30 mins a day 5-7 days a week over months / years) - meditator plateaus and feels stuck. Little benefit felt This is just my experience but I'm wondering is it a thing - has this been pointed out in any texts or by established teachers. Or is it just me? Many Thanks

I wondered recently whether the ideas of developing positive qualities and abandoning negative qualities are different. To me, it seems developing positive qualities requires an active effort, a type of striving. In contrast, abandoning negative qualities requires a relinquishing, a restraint. **Are these endeavours two different aspirations? Does achieving one ascertain the achievement of the other or not?** In other words, does one lead automatically to the other, or should one *intentionally* implement both?

Recently I got to know that there are 4 types of ways to protect the 5 precepts. Such as 1. You don't do it 2. You don't make others do it 3. You don't support others to do it 4. You don't praise and talk about it. Where can I find the sutta source? Please provide the sutta link kindly

According to this comment : > I think that monks and laypeople are meant to depend on each other > (e.g. as described in Iti 107 ) however monks must not sell their > dhamma talks for food. **So there are monastic rules about food and > dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a *quid pro quo* is > forbidden** -- having given a dhamma talk (i.e. after his speaking) the > Buddha was no longer willing to receive food, because that would > appear as if he were receiving food in exchange for or as payment for > talking. Please provide references from the Vinaya and/or Patimokkha for "there are monastic rules about food and dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a *quid pro quo* is forbidden".

Are there any living teachers who claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi? Apologies if *looking for a guru* questions are off-topic here. Is there any way to verify if they have done so, according to the sutras etc.?

I am suffering from mind disturb. I am living alone one city for job purpose and my husband living with his family also for his job. All time he prefer his family more than me. If I told very small thing , he angry on me. Most of week he had some work in office that why I go to home and spending time with family. When I want to get him alone. That's time I fill that he has not much happy with like with he spent with his family. Now he don't want talk me so much. If I call him more than 2 in morning ,he fill irritating for this. If I told more than 2 to 3 for same thing , he angry on me. Please do suggest me advice from Buddhist traditions.

Recently seeing questions on Buddhist stack exchange community I thought to ask this question. My understanding that we can choose anyone as life partner the way Buddha said all about is kind of qualities and so on. And Because of Buddhism is nothing but liberty that's why Buddha didn't impose this thing to followers just like in other religions. So if it was like we should marry to Buddhist only then it were Dhamma's sake and would helpful to spreading Dhamma. One another question is if both partners are from different religions then how they could lead their children? May other partner have influence of it's own religion and may this would worse everything partner's child's and own life. I seen in other religion they are super religious to choose a partner. Even my own experience my ex was a Muslim and she has great impact of religion on her since my thinking is being like that. See we Indian mostly choose Buddhist to marry but absence of practicing Dhamma. So I'd choose the one who is Buddhist and practicing Dhamma as well then we could spread it well. Finally since both are Buddhist then its kind of package we have got everything in it. All qualities and as Buddha's way to choose a life partner. So why Buddha speak about qualities instead advising people to find Buddhist partner that could one of the way to spread Dhamma? Thank you.