Namo Buddhaya. I strongly identify with body. I see myself in the mirror and I immediately recognize that that is me. Such a identification is against Dhamma. How can I disidentify with my body? Along what lines of thinking should I prove to myself that the person in mirror is not me or mine? Note:- Dhamma means teachings of Anatta. Question is related to practice of Dhamma.

Parmenides, a presocratic philosopher, said: > The only roads of inquiry there are to think of: one, that it is and > that it is not possible for it not to be, this is the path of > persuasion (for truth is its companion); the other, that it is not and > that it must not be — this I say to you is a path wholly unknowable. In short, we should bar our thought from an inquiry of what is not. Of course, we can say that "the apple is not red" there is nothing wrong with that, but unless a thing called an apple exist we can't say that "a thing is not an apple". In the same way, when we say " the aggregate is not self" unless there is a self our statement is a wrong inquiry because as Parmenides says "we can only speak about what is: what is not cannot be thought of, and what cannot be thought of cannot be."

If there is no self, no "mind" or "I" that can be found , then what does Buddhism call that faculty which exercises personal responsibility ?

> "in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, **he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts**. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it." > How does one pay no mind / no attention to thoughts? Diverting one's attention was the 1st method, but how is this meant to be?

Is something along those lines somewhere to be found in? I am aware of the drawbacks mentioned in MN.19 , but could this way of thinking, that is, the shortness of pleasure not lead to isolation/life rejection? The Buddha frequently used the word dispassion towards the world, but I HIGHLY DOUBT HE HAD AVERSION to worldly things. This is a common phenomenom that many monks also display ,that is, that they feel aversion to the world. How does one deal with such a (mind) problem to not to drift into negativity to wordly affairs?

Namo Buddhaya. This question is regarding Anatta. Form is not considered worth identifying as Self because Form is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering. But can we identify Form as non-self ?

Which sects or schools of Buddhism make the least reference to reincarnation and memories of past lives ?, also the least likely to talk about deities ? Which texts are the most accurate records of what the Buddha taught ? Thanks

I am looking for canonical passages regarding the 13 Dhutanga practices in particular Nesajjika dhutaṅga, the sitter's practice.

As part of my charity action I was going to donate to Against Malaria Foundation. But after reading that 100% of the money is going to buy long-lasting insecticidal nets for the prevention of malaria, I am not so sure if that conflicts with my buddhist practice. For those who don't know, insecticidal nets are mosquitoes nets that are sprayed with insecticide, which is said to be twice as effective as unsprayed nets. Against Malaria Foundation website: https://www.againstmalaria.com/ Wikipedia on Against Malaria Foundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Malaria_Foundation > The Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) is a United Kingdom-based charity that provides long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) to populations at high risk of malaria, primarily in Africa. As of July 2016, the foundation has raised $86.6 million and distributed or committed to fund 19.3 million LLINs since its founding in 2004. Wikipedia on insecticide-treated nets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide_treated_nets > Mosquito nets treated with insecticides—known as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) or bednets—were developed in the 1980s for malaria prevention. ITNs are estimated to be twice as effective as untreated nets, and offer greater than 70% protection compared with no net. These nets are dip-treated using a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide such as deltamethrin or permethrin which will double the protection over a non-treated net by killing and repelling mosquitoes.

My understanding is that Kamma depends on intention and as long as the three poisons aren't involved I'm "good to go". Does this mean that if someone did something reflexively, (without much reflection), but their action caused suffering, this person's Kamma would be neutral because there was no intent to cause harm? Does it follow that, if, sometime later, upon reflection, this person came to the realization that this action was the source of suffering (such as something unwholesome, or greedy), from then on their Kamma would be affected if they perpetrated the same act? Is this right? Does is apply to all cases? For example someone who chooses to be non-materialistic (in order to not be greedy) or vegetarian (for ethical reasons) but had for some time prior to this choice behaved differently. Would they have to change their behaviour after the realization, but not be affected by their prior behaviour?

The 10 perceptions in the sutta are meant to be meditated upon? Aniccasaññā is then not to be understood as empirical seeing the 3 characteristics, but contemplating on impermanence, right?

I have been experiencing energy flow on my head,especially at the tempels, even after meditation. I have only started on Breathing concentration. What is it? I have stopped meditation for fear of something wrong might have happened. Thank you.

I have a problem that I am currently facing. There is a certain person in the family that triggers me and due to their actions I feel very angry and generate negative mind-states. The strategy I have adopted is to avoid this person all together , to the point of not even seeing them. I find that this helps me to keep calm and avoid negative mind states. Is this a good way to go about this situation? Can we avoid all triggers that generate negative mind states. Does that help in spiritual development?

I am noticing some pattern in my recent practice. I find that mental exertion, as directing attention to the breath, is quite easy for me; yet, when it comes to devoting an amount of time to formal practice, or even sitting formally and upright, I have trouble. For example, I will tend to meditate in a slouched or even lying position. **EDIT**: There is no pain, or specific problem when I meditate upright, just a sensation of general discomfort, or an unpleasantness. But, I feel maybe it is more of an aversion towards sitting upright than an actual physical problem. My question is: **How can this resistance best be explained? What is the best way to counter it?** Thank you.

Namo Buddhaya. For my survival I work but I do not like the work. I am always thinking of escaping it. But if I escape from it then how will I eat ? It is my only source of income. My question is : Should I do what I don't want to do especially if it is required for survival ? Should I start clinging to my work ? Or Should I start loving my work? If I should start loving my work then will it not automatically create clinging to the work ? In other words will I not miss the work when the work is gone ?

I saw a comment in another post suggesting that these are two different things. Can anyone explain or refute?

I have noticed most of the time third precept is interpreted as sexual misconduct or adultery. But third precept emphasize all the misbehavior and misconduct using all six sensual spheres. "Kamesumichchara" in here kama means involvement of all six sensual spheres. E.g in this answer; One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind. My question is how fair or correct to narrow third precept to sexual misconduct or adultery? Does over-thinking violate third precept because its a misconduct of mind due to uncontrollable and misuse mind?

Namo Buddhaya. Yesterday a person came to me and said he was bit by a dog and then he asked for money to buy medicines as he had none as he was poor. I gave the money to him.But I wonder whether people fake suffering to win sympathy and/or money ? Should I compromise my pride in honesty to help these fake people ? How should I respond to people who fake suffering ?

American Buddhist teacher Joseph Goldstein says1 that in order to cut through identification with consciousness, or the knowing mind, that Zen traditions say that in looking for the mind, there is nothing to find. He gives the following Zen dialogue to further this point: > Huike said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.” To > which Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.” > Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.” Bodhidharma > then said, “There, I have pacified your mind.” I do not have faith in that saying, and in Buddhism, faith comes from clearly seeing, not blind belief. Can someone give a logical argument for why this Zen saying must be valid? And, if the body can be found, do we identify with it? 1 in his book, [_Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening_](https://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Practical-Awakening-Joseph-Goldstein/dp/1622036050)

> [Chakravartin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakravarti_(Sanskrit_term)) (Sanskrit cakravartin, Pali cakkavattin) is a Sanskrit > term used to refer to an ideal universal ruler who rules ethically and > benevolently over the entire world. Such a ruler's reign is called > sarvabhauma. How does one achieve such a venerable state ?