I just wonder why Buddha attain Parinibbana in fourth Jhana. Why not first or say second Jhana? [Maha-parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html)

I attended a dhamma talk last month by a Thai monk but English translation were also provided on site. There was this westerner who is giving English translation but may not look like a full time monk? Although he was in white shirt, partial shaved head, but doesn't seem like wearing a rope. Was wondering, how would they be addressed as in monastery? Or they are just layman working for the monastery? Thanks. Sadhu sadhu sadhu

* Helpful: Is an idea of being helpful, such an intent, a secure attribut of skilful action? * Can intention of being helpful be very unskilful? Thinking on mercy-killing, or taking away dirt, which in unknowenly actually the food of the person one thought to help. * What is helpful? What might be right resolve, intent, leading a helpful and skilful act? * Does a helpful act always benefits both, or just one of giver and receiver, or how should it be understood? An illustration might be helpful: [The compassioned monkey.](http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,806.msg2492.html#msg2492) *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]*

Kashmiri Shaivism is a sect of Hinduism that used to be popular in the Kashmir region of India. Now [this excerpt](http://gdurl.com/J2jZ) from the Paramarthasara Vivriti, a work by the 11th century Kashmiri Shaivite philosopher Yogaraja, discusses the delusion that arises from confusing that which is Self from that which is not Self: > Yogins, not being able to grasp the real Selfs nature as pure consciousness, remain immersed, as it were, in the cave of dreamless sleep, regarding the Selfs nature to be the void. They thereby bind their Self, whose nature is pure consciousness, by a web of insensibility, deluded by the identification of the Self with something dumb. One would think such delusion should be the cause for surprise or distress, which no individual could possibly wish to cause to himself. Citing an example from everyday experience, the author says that just as a spider binds its omnipresent Self in the form of a body with the cobwebs made by itself out of its guts and subsequently perishes therein, so the individual being, regarding his body to be his Self, binds himself by imaginary concepts (vikalpa) in the form of "I" and "mine." **This has been beautifully expressed by the Buddhists thus: "When one looks upon himself as the Self, he regards himself as a unique being due to the distinction between the Self and another being [i.e. the not-self]; this causes bondage and hostility [between the Self and the not-self]. All evils ensue from the assumption of such bondage."** The part in bold caught my attention because I found it interesting that a Hindu philosopher would praise Buddhist thought in this way. But my question is, what Buddhist text is this quote from? I don't have Yogaraja's Paramarthasara Vivriti in Sanskrit, so I can't give the exact Sanskrit quote. By the way, for the Hindus in the audience, I should mention that Yogaraja's work is a commentary on Abhinavagupta's Paramarthasara, which is in turn a reworking of Adisesha's Paramarthasara.

Forgive me if I write many questions in a single post, but these all deal with the thematic of attachment. I hope to quit my addictions to pleasures, **in major part social media**, by gaining insight through these. 1. What are Buddhist ways to deal with attachment to entertainment? (And in this context, aside from deleting the social media account). 2. Is it better to tackle this problem as - stemming mainly from attachment to pleasure in itself - or to tackle it as a question of a specific pleasure, i.e. social media? 3. How does diminution of the activity work best? Namely, should one - quit immediately - or quit in increments? If by increments, how does one proceed? 4. Does multitasking or combining sources of pleasure -- e.g. listening to music and chatting, or chatting and watching a movie -- intensify the detrimental effect? How so? 5. Would engaging in a single activity at a time, without multitasking or distractions, deter one from the pleasurable activities? In other words, does mindfulness diminish attachment? 6. Should one try to engage in replacement activities, or should one actively diminish the addiction? In other words, should one find substitute activities to engage in first, or is abstaining from media more important? Thank you.

This link mentions that there is an existence of uncreate state of self(opposite of created state of self..correct me if I am wrong..). > The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated, who has > severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil), > and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men. My questions are : What is the meaning of the word Uncreate? Is Uncreate state a noun or a verb?

Has anyone read Nagarjuna as claiming only that an effect can never be conceived of as its cause? I'm asking because it would neatly fit my own views on how to understand science, as well as I think rendering annihilation a conceptual impossibilty (for reasons other than that thesis assuming a person).

I have a simple question. Concentration occurs in the context of *samatha* meditation, but does the regular practice of *samatha* generate a trait-like concentration in daily life? In other words, is there such a thing as being always more concentrated, more focused, outside of *samadhi*? Or, is concentration mostly restricted to *samadhi* in formal meditation? Thank you.

I have noticed a certain phenomenon. When I am in a positive mood, I don't identify with the mood. I don't cling to it, I am aware of its impermanence. When a negative mood occurs -- as anger, or despair -- I completely and absolutely identify with it. I *am* this state, I believe it. I do not recognize its impermanence: I think about this mood as if it won't end. Seemingly, negative moods make me unaware of non-self and impermanence, based on what I said. My questions are: **(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?** **(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence *when they occur?*** **Basically, I know one ought to observe such states mindfully, but in their immediate occurrence I get caught up, I am motivated to act or speak in a negative way.** Thank you.

I mean I don't know if they do but apparently private buddhas don't put forth a teaching, so my question is why can't they just tell people what they did to attain enlightenment.

Is Yogacara Buddhism practiced today or is it an entirely dead school of Buddhist thought. If it is no longer in existence did it have any influence in Buddhist schools that are around today? For instance do any schools or traditions have a notion of storehouse consciousness or have a strain of mind only or even idealist type philosophy in their teachings?

I have noticed a definite tendency for Buddhists east of Great Britain to be very narrow-minded and conservative compared to those further west. The same effect is noticeable in the United States among the extreme Protestant affiliations of Christianity in the deep south and I wonder if the origins have similarities. Is this typical? Do all lineages share similar conservative and non-diverse views? I have seen a few Chinese Buddhists and they seem much more open minded. Wondering if this is a geographical thing or political or just a difference in Buddhist schools of thought. Please advise.

I realized that often, individuals provide insight which differs from typical Buddhist philosophy. For example, people either allude to a self in some way, or deny the dissatisfactory nature of phenomena. They might, in this last case, advise spiritual achievements leading to joy, but not equanimity and detachment. My question is : **what is the best way to recognize such non-Buddhist teachings?** I mean this especially in regards to (1) obviously non-Buddhist teachings (e.g. a person putting forwards an existing self) and (2) seemingly Buddhist teachings (e.g. deviating views on emptiness, compassion). So: **What is the best way to recognize authentic Buddhism?** I think this question is complex, and study and contemplation might be involved, but I am curious as to your answers. Thank you.

I'm wondering whether 'physical pliancy' and 'mental pliancy' -- found in many meditation texts on samatha -- refers to physical energy. Is this linked or equivalent to virya? Would samatha meditation, despite not being a physical exercise, give one more energy and fight fatigue?

I have a straightforwards question: does meditation decrease attachments -- e.g. to alcohol or social media -- by increasing willpower, or by other mechanisms? I would think shamatha increases willpower in the long-term, but does it produce some other effects that decrease attachments? Thank you.

I have a strong desire to be an actor but I don't possess such skills... So is it possible that after reincarnation I come back in a body/form with acting skills. (I know this is a childish question but please help me) I really want to know.

There is a sutta where the Buddha discusses four ways a debate can go between two people: a person could be hard to convince, causing either torment to the speaker but not the listener, torment to the listener but not the speaker etc.. the Buddha makes the final point that it is always worth undertaking the discussion so long as there is a possibility of coming to an understanding, if not, heed mindfulness. What is the reference please?

I am looking specifically for an easily accessible summary of Right View, and how it can be applied in a contemporary setting. For instance, how might Right View be used (or not) to approach daily work and lifestyle frustrations?

I noticed that when I am in a good mood, namely when I have enthusiasm, I am likely to practice meditation and avoid unwholesome behaviours. When I am in a bad mood, with low enthusiasm, I almost always succumb to some kind of unwholesome behaviour. How would Buddhism go about remedying such emotional volatility? It doesn't seem like these moods are actually *caused*, but merely arise in a fluctuating way. Thank you.

I have seen in many places the description of the phases of contact, feeling, perception, thinking and etc. upon this site. I have three questions: 1) What is the name of this chain? Is it distinct from the links of dependent origination? 2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained? 3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail? Thank you.