What is the meaning of the phrase "delineate a delineation" from MN 18 ? What is its message? Is it connecting papanca (objectification-classification or reification) with dependent origination? > "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is > eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. (Note1) When there is a delineation of contact, it > is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When > there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will > delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of > perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of > thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that > one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions > & categories of objectification. > > "When there is the ear... > > "When there is the nose... > > "When there is the tongue... > > "When there is the body... > > "When there is the intellect, when there are ideas, when there is > intellect-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is > possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there > is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, > it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When > there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will > delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & > categories of objectification. > > "Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no > eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is > impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When > there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will > delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of > perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of > thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible > that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the > perceptions & categories of objectification. > > "When there is no ear... > > "When there is no nose... > > "When there is no tongue... > > "When there is no body... > > "When there is no intellect, when there are no ideas, when there is no > intellect-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a > delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is > impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When > there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will > delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of > perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of > thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible > that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the > perceptions & categories of objectification. > > **Note1 (Thanissaro commentary):** > The artificiality of this phrase — "delineate a delineation" — seems > intentional. It underlines the artifice implicit in the process by > which the mind, in singling out events, turns them into discrete > things.

I know it is very common these days to associate Chakras with Buddhist meditation, but I couldn't find anything that supports that in the suttas. (I haven't read all suttas) Did the Buddha himself taught about Chakras or has it been incorporated later in some parts of the world?

From a chemical point of view, there has to be an after effect of the amount of joy and happiness one feels, right ? In a spiritual point of view, I know one should be aware of attachement to jhana. I am wondering because I experienced first jhana for the first time this week, and my natural tendency was to repeat this experience as much as I could in the following days. Is it advisable ?

Two premises presumed for my question: 1. The 14th Dalai Lama is an especially sincere spirit 2. Reincarnation, beyond the scientific eg recycling of atoms / culture / dna, is an incorrect idea. Is the 14h Dalai Lama's charisma created by being raised as a spiritual leader? Are all Tibetans especially sweet souls? Is it both or neither, but rather great luck? I am trying to tease out nature & nurture, and squeeze out the supernatural!

I know that there were rules for the Disciples to shave only on the New moon and the Full moon. Did the Buddha follow this practice , too? Or, did Buddha usually have a beard?'

There have been many questions about what love is, ranging from non-attachment and compassion. I am not looking for a clear definition of the opposite of love, i.e. what love isn't, but feel free to do so if you think it can help answer the question. Rather, I want to know if love can exist without suffering: in much the same way that happiness cannot exist without suffering. I don't mean to equate love with happiness but love does have an element of joy to it. So, to what extent is pain the opposite of love? Or, to what extent can pain be separated from love? Principle of non-duality answers this, but I want to hear other opinions.

I wonder simply what the difference is between walking and sitting meditation in terms of value on the path. I have been practicing walking meditation for some time without any seeming result. **Is it necessary to practice sitting meditation to see results, or for walking meditation to be truly effective? If formal sitting meditation is important, then why is that so?**

Upon asking questions previously, I wondered some things about my meditation. In meditation, I often experienced greatly reduced thoughts, almost no thoughts; but, the sensations at the tip of the nose are almost always lacking. **Is it possible that, despite the absence of thoughts, something other than arising cognitions pulls my attention away from the meditation object?** Just to be clear: I am asking what specifically are the type of possible distractions which may arise in meditation. I'm also wondering what is the relative strength of these distractions, for example: does a single thought break concentration? Does paying attention to some external object merely once break concentration?

I don't know If I should ask this here or not. But I am depressed enough and not able to find a way to get out of this situation to live life happily as I used to do before. In my office I met a girl who is so stunning and met my expection which I wanted to see in my life partner. I then and there fallen in love with her without knowing anything about her life. After getting known by each other, I felt she also likes me. But something in my mind always ran than she is hiding something from me. One day somehow I get to know she is resigning and going to a different city. I asked her why she is resigning and leaving the city. She didn't ever told me the reason. She became very close to me and one day I asked her that I seriously think you are hiding something from me which I want to know. After requesting quit a few times, she told me that she is engaged and getting married to a guy who lives in the city she is going. After that day, I can barely eat, drink and even breathe. I love her with everything I have, I saw all my life with her, now I am lost. I am not finding any ways to live life happily. I feel like I lost my purpose of life. Is there any Lord Buddha's way that can take me out of this situation so that I can live again.

Recently I heard from a group of commentators that the Bodhi tree, a tree species which Buddha choose to attain enlightenment under, was actually known to have medicinal properties. Has anyone ever heard this before? Apparently, this tree was what allowed Buddha to sit under the tree for long periods of time without developing pressure sores across his lower body. This particular sect of Buddhism believes Buddha sat under the tree for at least 7 years. Honestly I'm not surprised to find apologetical statements because of their position. Does anyone know if the Bodhi tree actually has these "medicinal" properties? Also, would you consider it's properties sufficient enough in explaining away the lack of pressure wounds we would expect to find on Buddha's body? To summarize my question: 1. Does the Bodhi tree actually have medicinal properties as some Buddhists claim? 2. Are the medicinal properties sufficient enough in explaining away the pressure sores we would expect to find on Shakyamuni's body through his prolonged meditation model (years)? 3. Please no short term models to undermine the question, thank you.

On this site there's a topic https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2655/tao-te-ching-and-buddhism where one of the answers says: > A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself, I forget his name now (I can look it up) once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite. And in an answer to the topic [Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11302/13525) : > Buddhism seeks to transcend suffering while Taoism seeks unity with nature So they don't necessary mutually exclusive each other, and of course one can combine it in zen. But **how** do practitioners do that exactly? How do they seek detachment and attachment at the same time?
FYI: [Detachment (philosophy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy))

I have practised previously with the breath, but I feel my eyes fall automatically when setting attention on the breath, and inversely, focusing on objects makes my mind alert. Is this sufficient to switch meditation object? **Q1: What are the best ways, or the best way, to determine proper meditation objects?** **Q2 : Is there any real drawbacks of meditation with a physical object or mental image as compared to the breath?**

I’m conducting research into the phenomena of Buddhist Jhanas/Dhyanas, and am looking for a good place to start. In addition to primary sources that discuss what this phenomena is, how would you describe what the Jhanas are to a person unfamiliar with any sort of meditation practice? How do they differ across different sects/schools? How are they viewed sociologically or philosophically from OUTSIDE the lens of a practitioner or one who believes in the concept of enlightenment to begin with? TL; DR seeking primary source information on Jhanas/Dhyanas. What is their history? How do they differ across schools/sects? How would an outsider or an academic understand them? Thank you for your time.

Consciousness is often used to describe Śūnyatā by some teachers but in Buddhism consciousness is one of the aggregates.

From [Mindfulness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness) : >Mindfulness is the psychological process of bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment, which one can develop through the practice of meditation and through other training. Followers of Buddhist teachings utilize mindfulness to develop self-knowledge and wisdom that gradually lead to what is described as enlightenment or the complete freedom from suffering. From [Detachment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_(philosophy)) : >Detachment, also expressed as non-attachment, is a state in which a person overcomes his or her attachment to desire for things, people or concepts of the world and thus attains a heightened perspective. It is considered a wise virtue and is promoted in various Eastern religions, such as Taoism and Buddhism. I see that the two terms are very related, but I'd like to understand more about the differences and the interactions between the two. As in my understanding, the answer to the question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12905/13525 is that as long as one is detached to the past and the future, one can mindfully examine them. Is that correct?

I experienced ego death today. Sorry if my terminology is wrong. But i saw the way. I just want to understand now

I was reading about mindfulness here . At the end I found this paragraph > Let alone seven years, anyone who develops these four kinds of > mindfulness meditation in this way for six years … five years … four > years … three years … two years … one year … seven months … six months > … five months … four months … three months … two months … one month … > a fortnight … **Let alone a fortnight, anyone who develops these four > kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for seven days can expect > one of two results: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s > something left over, non-return.** Here Tathagata saying one keeping that kind of mindfulness for 7 days can get enlightenment? Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or it's true?

I'm being very mindful and aware nowadays. My mind is now very much quite and I am able to watch handful of thoughts in day to day life. The problem is at a particular instant of quite mind, sexual thoughts come with full vigour. Don't know why. Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?

The concept of self is important in social psychology: self-concept, self-esteem, self-control, self-awareness, etc. As a *science*, these concepts are measured under scientific methods, and there are interesting results. For example, a positive self-esteem does not mean people only have positive self-evaluations, but about balancing positive and negative thoughts. I think these results don't necessarily refute the central idea of Buddhism that clinging on the self concept will lead to sufferings, but on the other hand, Buddhism also advocates scientific methods to evaluate itself. As there are strong evidences that the self exists, I think it's better to say "there is self, but we shouldn't think about it to avoid sufferings" rather than say "the self is an illusion". - What is the Buddhist view on this?
FYI: • [Buddhism and psychology: Perception and the self – Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_psychology#Perception_and_the_self) • [Social psychology: Self-concept – Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology#Self-concept) • [Mindfulness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness) is used to develop self-knowledge • https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/5662/13525 • [What is the relation between measures, constructs and concepts?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/9610/12937)

I have seen people beeing adviced to find a teacher countless time. I am interessed in the practicalities of finding a teacher, since I live in France and I have never met any buddhist in my entire life. I assume in other countries where buddhism is more widespread things are a lot different. Please excuse the naivety of my question. **What is a teacher ?** Is it the kind of person who owns of diploma or certification and teaches for a living, like one whould teach maths, history or biology in high school ? So finding a teacher would be like attenting a class ? Or is it more like finding a mentor, somebody who is more exerienced and who whould guide you along the path, like a friend. Perhaps it is a mixture of both, a person who provides advices for a living by having face to face chats with it's pupils. I can imagine the concept beeing more abstract. A teacher can be a book, or a community on the internet. **Knowing that, where do I need to go in order to find teachers ?** Are there places buddhist like to meet, like churchs for christians ? People often mention retreats or retreat centers, what are they ? Do I need to travel to India or Tibet ? Judging from what I've heard, it seems like a must. Please note that I am **not** intersted about the question of finding the right teacher, for now I just want to find teachers.