I have tried to meditate regularly, and closed my eyes. However, as I kept my eyes closed, not even a few minutes would pass until muscles of my eyelids and surrounding regions began to twitch/spasm. I guess it strains my muscles. How should I deal with this, as it makes concentration quite difficult?

What is the Tibetan term for describing the realm containing all of one individual mindstream's karma? I think it starts with the letter A. Thank you 🙏

After I sit for about 45 minutes my mind becomes very a lot more still and there is barely any wondering thought. If there is thought I notice it very quickly and it disappears. It feels like awareness becomes wider and I'm aware of everything at once without losing mindfulness of the breath. I then begin to wonder what to do next. I usually just enjoy the calm and serenity but after a while I open my eyes and get on with the day. Sometimes I feel bored which I note. Is there something else I can do next?

I've been practising meditation for many years now but I feel like instead of becoming more compassionate and understanding I hate people more than ever. I notice so much their selfishness and lack of awareness of those around them etc. In particular I cannot tolerate loud people who don't seem to care about the noise pollution they subject others to. Social media has made everything worse. Seeing people constantly staring at their phones and taking selfies for their instagram etc makes me cringe. Narcissism seems to have become normal behaviour. Much of the time when I'm at home I wear ear plugs so I cannot hear the children screaming their heads off, dogs barking, people laughing and shouting, cars with unnecessarily loud mufflers, doors banging etc etc. Nature sounds I find soothing but people sounds I absolutely hate and feel very triggered. Instead of practising metta I find myself wishing people would drop dead. So I know this is all not what Buddhism is about but it's how I feel and I feel conflicted about it. Is this common? Is there something I should do to try and change it. Metta practice feels useless to me. Its like pretending to feel kindness but underneath I feel nothing but hatred. Its just a glossing over.

the unborn , is described by Buddha: > The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, fabricated > of aging & death, a nest of illnesses, perishing, come-into-being > through nourishment and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for > delight. **The escape from that is calm, permanent, a sphere beyond > conjecture, unborn, unproduced, the sorrowless, stainless state, the > cessation of stressful qualities, stilling-of-fabrications bliss.** Doesn't this describe nirvna? Can the description infer us to a true-self (*atta*), not-self (*anatta*), or anything else other than what is listed? Can you infer emptiness? As I was saying to other, losing with a self is so bad, I couldn't justify calling this so-called unborn a self, and it wouldn't be me or mine unfortunately. Regardless, this text says permanent, and what is the harm in selfing this permanence? What is the harm? What was permanent is no longer mine? It doesn't say 'end of defilements', 'end of existence', but perhaps you can infer that. How do you infer it?

In examining the Buddhist doctrine of 'Nirvana,' a scholarly critique emerges. Does Nirvana, often portrayed as the ultimate goal, withstand rigorous scrutiny? Can it be dissected as a concrete destination, or is it a nebulous concept, resistant to precise definition? This critical inquiry prompts an exploration into the interpretive challenges, potential inconsistencies, and scholarly debates surrounding the elusive notion of Nirvana within Buddhist philosophy.

I'm looking to get a tattoo and have these word written in Pali. Can you help me with how to write this in Pali script?

When being mindful in Mahasi walking meditation, should the meditator walk very slowly in order to get time enough to fit the noting in? What should the meditator's attitude be if they skip a mantra note? Should one strain hard to get the prechosen mantra note right? How should one approach mistakes? What kind of concentration is needed? Is it enough to just be mindful with superficial concentration or must a high degree of concentration be developed? With momentary concentration, can the meditator get stuck to an object like with non-momentary concentration? What would right-concentration be with this kind of walking meditation practice?

In how far does one take part on skilfull or unskilfull undertaking? In how far does one receives the fruits of good or bad actions by means of getting involved by toughts, signs and deeds, by assosiation with tendencies and certain objectives and aims? Are there even disadvantages, benefits, for one if just seeming for others to be near of certain undertakings? And how should common-kamma here be understood? *(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)*

As a young Buddhist, I was taught to respect members of the order and venerate the Sangha. Recently, I was told that the word Sangha only refers to the Noble Sangha (i.e. Ariya-sangha not Sammuti-sangha) in a [comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51150/what-is-the-history-of-mindfulness#comment83988_51154) . > the word Sangha refers to the Noble Sangha My question is whether veneration should or should not be accorded by default to the Sangha (both conventional and Noble Sangha) or should it be reserved only to the Noble ones (i.e. [the eight noble beings](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50179/who-are-the-noble-ones-and-who-are-their-disciples/50187#50187)) . Why and why not? (A side note: I find [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/37194/should-any-monastic-be-considered-a-noble-one/37198#37198) by the ex-forumer @Yeshe Tenley to be a good read).

*Coming from a closed, probably ill-intended and insulting [question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23210/did-the-buddha-narcistically-judge-people-unfairly-with-self-conceit) , or not, but anyway it's root is actually good to investigate:* How comes that praising oneself is unskillful but the teacher of it does? There are many places in the teachings, where the Buddha speaks in "glorification" of the "Buddha". >`(Mv.I.6.7) Upaka the Ājīvaka saw the Blessed One traveling on the road between Gayā and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing him said to him, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?” >(Mv.I.6.8 ) When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses: >`“All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering.` >`All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [=Dhp 353]` >`I have no teacher, and one like me can’t be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart.` >`For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I,` >`To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of the Kasis. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.”` >(Mv.I.6.9) “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.” >`“Conquerors are those like me who have reached fermentations’ end. I’ve conquered evil qualities, and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”` >When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.` ([The Discussion of the Group of Five](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,8043.msg13286.html#msg13286)) As this sample shows, such can lead to not benefical situation for one, thinking "how arrogant". Lowering others, praising oneself... yet teaching that such is not good... Broad believe is that the Dhamma teaches generally not so speak about ones good qualities and skills, which seems to be paradox when facing such and lead possible to questions like: >Was his mind defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)? **So what is that all about with this paradox?** **How to explain that his disciples propably blame all others in certain ways and prais just the Buddha and his Dhamma, and his disciples with whole heart?** Just a "[Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quod_licet_Iovi,_non_licet_bovi) , or how should this statement be understood in a Dhammic way, so to posible do not react foolish like Upaka the Ājīvaka did? *[[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*

Bhikkhu Sujato's translation of AN 4.171 says: > Mendicants, there are four kinds of reincarnation. Cattārome, > bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābhā. > > What four? Katame cattāro? > > There is a reincarnation where one’s own intention is effective, not > that of others. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā. > > There is a **reincarnation where the intention of others is effective**, > not one’s own. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > **attabhāvapaṭilābhe parasañcetanā kamati**, no attasañcetanā. > > There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions > are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā ca kamati parasañcetanā ca. > > There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ > intentions are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ > attabhāvapaṭilābhe nevattasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā. > > These are the four kinds of reincarnation.” Ime kho, bhikkhave, > cattāro attabhāvapaṭilābhā”ti. What is "*reincarnation where the intention of others is effective*"?

The Abhidhamma says: > 2.4. The Mutuality Tetrad > >PTS cs 246 > >With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, also with a (volitional) process as condition there is ignorance, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, also with consciousness as condition: a (volitional) process, with consciousness as condition: mind and bodily form, also with mind and bodily form as condition: consciousness, with mind and bodily form as condition: the sixth sense sphere, also with the sixth sense sphere as condition: mind and bodily form, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, also with contact as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with contact as condition: feeling, also with feeling as condition: contact, with feeling as condition: craving, also with craving as condition: feeling, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: craving, **with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering**. > > https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs246 Why does Abhidhamma exclude continuation (becoming), birth & death from its 'mutuality' above?

Title. Five aggregates kind of thing, nature of conciousness, perception etc

What should you do about someone who cannot be reasoned with about their behaviour. I say "this is hurting me, please talk with me about it" but they keep doing the same amoral behaviour. It isn't an evil behaviour, but it is destructive and scary. What is skillful and compassionate, in this context, for the laity? There's nothing I can do about how they behave, and I cannot escape them, so do I just go with it, allow myself to be mistreated? Does anything in the Buddhist canon talk about advice for destructive friends, e.g. what sort of friends to keep and what to do if a friend slips up, etc.?

Mahasi Sayadaw's approach isn't valid because it attempts to fill in the gaps with commentary from monastics that are supposed to be highly attained? Are there no gaps or vagueness in the Buddha's Tipitaka teachings? If there are gaps or vagueness withing the Buddha's Tipitaka scriptures, can an attempt to fill the gaps in the Buddha's teaching ever be done mindfully, with humility and respect? Also, if a spiritual teaching has gaps or is vague, can there be some kind of a good reason for it being that way?

What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ? I heard this from philosopher, "*Nibbana is like a timeless space*".

So I've been thinking about how in scripture, Buddha often refers to certain views as the "extremes". A famous example is the eternalists (eternal soul and afterlife) vs the annihilationists (no soul, no afterlife, pure materialists). The Buddha taught both of these as the two extremes and promotes a Middle Way. But is Buddha's own approach not a form of extermism? Consider the following: one extreme that I will call eliminationists (suffering is intrinsically bad and is to be completely eradicated - this is Buddha) vs masochists (suffering is to be sought out and maximized as much as humanly possible). The Middle Way here would be "We do not like suffering (though that does not make it bad or evil by itself), but it has important functions and is in some ways, simply inevitable as long as one is actively "alive" in any conceivable way, so we should seek to reasonably reduce unnecessary suffering as judged by us, but re-orienting the entire society for the sole goal of eliminating suffering can lead to other negatives and extreme behaviour". Why should we eliminate rather than lessen suffering? Isn't that one extreme (other being actively seeking out as much suffering as possible)? I can list many ways in which obsession with harm reduction can lead to a highly dysfunctional society and worsen conditions of many people. So why does the Buddha actively promote the Middle Way for other positions, but does not apply it for his own?

I noticed some questioners on this site using the term "non-duality". What is non-duality in Buddhism? This is a well-known idea in Hinduism i.e. advaita. But does it exist in Buddhism? Is it an official term in Buddhism, or just a convenient Western philosophy terminology to describe a concept just like the terms "ontology" or "epistemology"? How is it used in Theravada and Mahayana? What are the Pali and Sanskrit terms for it? AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

> "In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. (Thanissaro) How should the fragment above be understood and practiced in detail, in particular, considering the last two alternatives: externally and internally/externally?