It appeared that most students learning Buddhism will automatically assume Vipassana Meditation taught by Mr. S. N. Goenka synonymous with Buddhist meditation, methods taught by the Buddha, is it so? ===== **Remark Added 15/03/2017** The knowledgeable Suminda (@Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena) pointed to an article which attempted to establish the *"U Ba Khin Vipassana method **told by** Mr. Goenka"* its connection with Mahayana (of the Chinese Lineage), this should definitely be refuted. Mr. Goenka himself with his entire Insight Movement is completely unrelated to the Mahayanist teaching. In the article Ven. Analayo wisely drew inspiration from the Mahayanist Sutra however, it's uncertain under what circumstance someone provided him an incorrectly translated work: > 念諸息遍身, 亦念息出入, 悉觀身中諸出息入息, 覺知遍至身中乃 至足指遍諸毛孔, 如水入沙, 息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔亦, 如水 入沙. Mindfulness [during] all breaths pervades the body, [while] being as well mindful of the out- and in-breaths. Completely contemplating the inside of the body [during] all out-breaths and in-breaths, awareness pervades and reaches inside the body up to the toes and the fingers and pervades every pore [on the surface of the body], just like water entering sand, aware from the feet to the hair [while] breathing out [and in], pervading every pore as well, just like water entering sand. This should read as (translation is mine): > Set the mind to all the breaths be aware of their permeating the whole > body (念諸息遍身). Also be mindful of the breath going-out and going-in > (亦念息出入). Thoroughly observe all the out-going and in-going breaths > inside the body (悉觀身中諸出息入息), be conscious of their permeating from > inside the body unto the toes and fingers even pervading all the > pores, as if water entering sands (覺知遍至身中乃至足指遍諸毛孔, 如水入沙). [When] > breath going-out, be conscious of it from feet unto the hairs > pervading all the pores, also as if water entering sands > (息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔, 亦如水入沙). It definitely has nothing to do with Mr. Goenka's "body-scanning" technique. Here *breath* *息* is not simply the air coming in-out the nose-mouth that we do in breathing. Ānāpānasmṛti (Pali: Ānāpānasati) meditation taught by most of the general media is incorrect. There are at least 3 stages: counting, following, stillness; progressed gradually.

For a layman who wants to overcome behavioral addictions (i.e. any "*addiction that involves a compulsion to engage in a rewarding non-drug-related behavior – sometimes called a natural reward*", such as food, sex, pornography, gambling, internet, video games, etc.): - Which meditation techniques are the most recommendable? - Additionally, given the fact that an average layman cannot afford going full-time monk, what would be a recommendable frequency (in terms of minutes/hours per day) to see palpable results in a reasonable time? Furthermore: - Is a single meditation technique enough to overcome behavioral addictions? Or would it better to practice multiple meditation techniques at the same time? Or maybe different meditation techniques for different situations? For instance, are there any special meditation techniques to handle strong, compulsive urges in the presence of addiction cues/triggers? Finally: - Is meditation as a whole enough, or would one need to complement it with other non-meditative practices or measures? For example, positive affirmations, hypnosis, or maybe going to a therapist, exercising, sleeping 8+ hours, etc. I'm just throwing some ideas around.

According to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople " by Bhikkhu Ariyesako: > The Buddha suggested that the basic source of food for bhikkhus was > that received on the morning alms round (pi.n.dapaata). This daily > dependence on alms food reminds both the bhikkhus and the lay devotees > of their interdependence and prevents the bhikkhu from becoming too > isolated from the lay community. He 'meets' them every day and eats > the food that they share with him. Several important rules are > concerned with this as well as a major section of the Sekhiya Training > rules. On this page , āraññika dhutaṅga refers to: > "the one who has the habit to dwell in a country side lodging remote > from villages", that is to say the one who lives remote from inhabited > areas. And the ukkaṭṭha āraññika, the noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is defined as: > The bhikkhu who is a noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is > resolved to dwell and dwell into a forest monastery (remote from > inhabited areas) a all the time, during the three seasons of the year > that are summer (from March to June), the monsoon (approximately from > July to October) and winter (approximately from November to February). The "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople " also states: > In the Buddha's time some ladies were ambushed and raped on their way > to give food to bhikkhus living in a dangerous jungle area. Their > family criticized the bhikkhus for not warning them of the hazards. If > lay people intend to give food to a bhikkhu(s) in such a danger zone > then they must announce that to the bhikkhu(s) beforehand so that the > bhikkhu(s) has a chance to warn them or reduce the threat. > > The rule can be summarized: "Eating an unannounced gift of staple or > non-staple food, after accepting it in a dangerous wilderness abode > when one is not ill is [an offence of Acknowledgement.]" > (Paatidesaniya 4; BMC p.488) So, how does an ukkaṭṭha āraññika get his food? Only from lay people who dare enter the potentially dangerous forest area to give them food or can they eat food that they can find in the forest like fruits? If they eat fruits etc. in the forest, wouldn't that be a violation of another rule requiring the monk to get his food from alms? Here, I assume that an ukkaṭṭha āraññika does not go to inhabited areas for alms, by the very definition of "ukkaṭṭha āraññika".

I would like to ask a question from a Theravada Buddhism perspective. In the Sutta it's said having sex with particular people is considered as sexual misconduct: He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls. My question is, why prostitute does not include in the prohibited person? Does it mean having sex with prostitute does not considered sexual misconduct? Second question is, from my understanding for married people having sex with their partner is not an offense but how about having oral sex or sodomy with your own wife or husband? Is it true that oral sex and sodomy will make you take rebirth as an animal?

After reading several articles and a book about Buddhism, I now feel a bit uncertain about what Buddhism actually is about. Am I not allowed to dance? To sing? To fall in love? Is the purpose of Buddhism to become a munk or nun? To meditate and never get a taste of life? Is it "bad" to want to travel? Is it "bad" to want to be happy and/or content? Is Buddhism about finding happiness in Nirvana? Is that really it? Is it not about being happy where we currently are? Are we not allowed to truly _live_ in the moment? I am quite new to everything about Buddhism, and I apologize if anything I've said in this question is insulting or rude. I don't know who else I can ask questions like these. I hope someone can explain to me.

I have practiced meditation for the better part of a decade now. I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, but that's immaterial. I've experienced and practiced many kinds of meditation (energy, dream, mindfulness), and all of the meditations I have practiced I have a logic for. I can understand the goal of the meditation and why the meditation works. One meditation that I've always been troubled by is visualization meditation. The type where repeatedly visualizing a very complex scene leads to certain goals. How is it that by visualizing a certain scene I enact unique changes in my psyche? Obviously there are many different flavors, but recently every path I turn to has resulted in some kind of visualization meditation and I quite honestly doubt the very fundamentals of such a meditation. When I have such a strong doubt I certainly won't be able to practice effectively. Are there any resources on this subject?

Namo Buddhaya. During various discourses , monks after hearing Buddha delighted or did not delight. This is one discourse in which Monks did not delight at the end. In almost all other discourses , monks delight at the end. There are various places in which Buddha has given directions to the monk on when to delight and when not to delight. For example: One should not delight in sensual pleasures,One should not delight in any form. etc. Modern day Gurus like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar say one should always delight or be always happy. Honestly I take delight in posting to this forum.But should I take delight? My question is : Is there any direction given to Monks by Buddha on when to delight and when not to delight ?

I just read somewhere by Dhammadhatu's posts that it is Mindfulness with Breathing. Can someone explain the difference? So I don't pay attention to the in-and-out breaths? I'm now quite confused. Sati means to keep something in mind and now in the case of Anapanasatti the breath is something which must be held in mind as well as the other three objects, correct?

What is the purpose or significance of devotion in Buddhism? Are there differences in acts of devotion in Mahayana and Theravada tradition?

What would be considered a religious experience in Buddhism in the same way,for example, Moses' experience with the burning bush of God? Would it be the Buddha's enlightenment itself or a bodhisattva's interaction with Buddha?

I'm referring to translations in accesstoinsight.org; what is the word in Pali that is translated as "being" by John D. Ireland and "becoming" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu? For example, in *Itivuttaka: The Group of Twos - 49. Held by Views.* links and sample translations are given below. John D. Ireland translation > "Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and human beings > hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see. > > "And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy **being**, > delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to > them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or > acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. > Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back. > Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation > > This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have > heard: "Overcome by two viewpoints, some human & divine beings adhere, > other human & divine beings slip right past, while those with vision > see. > > "And how do some adhere? Human & divine beings enjoy **becoming**, delight > in becoming, are satisfied with becoming. When the Dhamma is being > taught for the sake of the cessation of becoming, their minds do not > take to it, are not calmed by it, do not settle on it or become > resolved on it. This is how some adhere.

Namo Buddhaya.I have a habit of playing involuntary songs in my head which spoils my mood. I am a living library of songs. I have been hearing music since my childhood days. My question is : how can I cure the music influence on my mind ? Should I stop listening to songs ?

Continuous meditation will calm the mind, when eyes open there is a difference felt, this difference means the soul has change, is this change an incarnation ? Similarly when hungry, thoughts are different & when satisfied with food there is relief, so this change from hungry to being relieved can be called an incarnation or change of soul ?

I recently saw a remark that implied that Stephen Batchelor no longer meditates or at least not very regularly. If true, this seems important. Batchelor is prominent, even central, in the contemporary, so-called Secular Buddhism movement. He has a long history of different phases of belief and practice, from Tibetan, to Zen, to a form of agnostic/secular "Buddhism" that he has almost come to define on his own. Can anyone supply a pointer to that assertion or related material? I did not capture it at the time.

Namo Budhhaya (I would like to begin by paying homage to Buddha...I don't think that will violate the rules of the forum please). I oppose science for its wrong views on the origin of Universe , origin of consciousness and existence of God. However I everyday use science to make my life simpler. I am indebted to science for giving me all the comfort. But here arises the question of integrity. How can I use the services of science if I oppose its values ? Am I a man of integrity? Is Integrity Anatta too ?

when lay person attains enlightment he has to die that same day within 24 hours or else become monk if not there is destruction of life what is the future of such person ?

Namo Budhhaya. I had bookmarked many Suttas from SuttaCentral but most of them are showing page not found error. For example : This link and this link . I wonder why are many links on SuttaCentral showing page not found error?

I have completed 10-days Vipassana course and I would like to keep on practicing back home. Goenkaji's discourse tells us to practice Vipassana 1 hour each morning and evening every day.Is there a need to practice Anapana along with Vipassana if so how often?

I've completed 5 10-day Vipassana courses, one Sati, and I've served a 3-day and in various other smaller capacities. I'll be serving my first 10 day in about 6 weeks, and began regularly sitting 2 hours a day after completing my last course in early December 2017. I sat a total of 28 days in 2017, and hope to do a similar amount this year as well. So in short, I feel absolutely certain that this is the path; it's crystal clear to me. I also have a clear sense of my purpose in this life as a householder, as an aside, but sense that I'll spend large portions of my life sharing with others about my experience with Vipassana to try and help to make them aware of it. Recently, I've been noticing that my ability to feel the feelings of others, to see where they are, has become sharper and sharper. I can really feel their pain, and transmute it, and I also see what could be done to really help them. I feel love for them and want to help them, mostly, with occasional feelings of being negatively impacted by their pain creeping in, but that has lessened as my Vipassana practice has deepened. The challenge I'd like to understand has to do with learning how to communicate these notions to people in ways that are helpful to them, in ways that aren't perceived to be self-righteous on my part, of know-it-all-y, or whatever. I suppose this will come to be with more practice, eh? I feel like that was always Goenka's answer to every question and I understand more and more so what that was the case. That said, if anyone out there can relate to this and is open to sharing his/her thoughts and experiences, I'd love to hear them. I am interested in replies from people who have practiced Vipassana and can relate to my experience here. Thank you!

For example, in this answer , we find Buddhists insisting that the mind is not a "byproduct" of the brain, i.e. the mind does not arise neurologically in the brain. By neurology, I mean that according to that view, the mind arises by the electrical and chemical interactions happening in neuron cells of the physical brain. I have also seen Ajahn Brahm stating in a video that even a person with dementia would have a moment of clarity of mind, just before death, proving that the mind is not neurologically originated. My understanding is that Buddhists have this view, because without it, it does not seem sensible that the mind stream can be reborn into another life. Is this right? That's my first question. This answer is interesting: > Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are > magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each > conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither > exists independently. To me, it does not matter if the mind arose neurologically in the physical brain or not. My analogy is that software or data is composed of the bits of 1s and 0s on the physical media of a computer, for example, harddisk and RAM. So, it is electronically and chemically originated. However, software can be copied or transferred to other computers or other physical media over networks. So, while software depends on physical media, this does not impede it from moving to other physical media. So, my second question is, does it really matter (in terms of holding the Right View ) if the mind is neurologically originated or not? I think if the mind is neurologically originated, it does not matter and does not impede the notion of rebirth or continuity of the mind stream, just like in the case of software.