I have read some of the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh about mindfullness and anchoring oneself in the present by focussing on in-breath and out-breath. I am curious what teaching there may be about imagination, because imagination seems to take oneself away from the "here and now". How can mindfullness and imagination be reconciled? Is there any place for imagination? Thanks

>the Aṣṭā­daśa­sāhasrikā­prajñā­pāramitā: > >Furthermore, Subhūti, you should know that a sentient being is nonexistent because a self is nonexistent. You should know that a living being, a creature, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, and one who sees is nonexistent because a sentient being is nonexistent. You should know that the very limit of reality is nonexistent because … one who knows and one who sees is nonexistent. You should know that space is nonexistent because the very limit of reality is nonexistent. You should know that the Great Vehicle is nonexistent because space is nonexistent. You should know that the infinite, the countless, and that which is beyond measure [F.201.b] are nonexistent because the Great Vehicle is nonexistent, and you should know that all dharmas are nonexistent because that which is beyond measure is nonexistent. Therefore, Subhūti, the Great Vehicle has room for infinite, countless beings beyond measure. And why? Subhūti, it is because a self, up to one who knows and one who sees, the very limit of reality, space, the Great Vehicle, the infinite, the countless, that which is beyond measure, up to all dharmas all cannot be apprehended. And why? Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not see form; do not see feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness; do not see eyes; do not see ears, nose, tongue, body, or thinking mind; do not see a form, a sound, a smell, a taste, a feeling, or a dharma; do not see ignorance; do not see volitional factors, consciousness, name and form, the six sense fields, contact, feeling, craving, appropriation, existence, birth, or old age and death; do not see greed; do not see hatred or confusion; do not see a self; do not see a being, a living being, one who lives, an individual, a person, one born of Manu, a child of Manu, one who does, one who feels, one who knows, or one who sees; do not see the desire realm; do not see the form realm or formless realm; do not see śrāvakas and the śrāvaka dharmas; do not see pratyekabuddhas and the pratyekabuddha dharmas; do not see bodhisattvas and do not see bodhisattva dharmas; do not see buddhas [F.68.b] and do not see buddha dharmas; do not see awakening, up to do not see all dharmas. And while not seeing all dharmas they do not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified.” My question is : Are all sentient beings non existent as the sutra claims ?

> “Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.” This quote by the Buddha makes no sense to me. Firstly and perhaps tangentially, it speaks of an "eternal" rule, but anything related to humans and other living beings including transcendent (who are the only entities that can experience hatred - inanimate rocks can't) are not permanent according to the Buddha. But okay, leaving that aside, two questions arise: 1. Why is hatred something that one should strive to cease? Clearly it involves important psychological functions, and had an evolutionary benefit. 2. How can hatred cease by love? If I love someone from another group, and that group hates me and wants me dead including any particular person from what group, they will be stronger and more motivated to destroy me, and so there will actually be less love. Moreover, there are many cases in history where two tribes hated each other, and one exterminated the other one, and the result was no more hatred. So hatred ended up ceasing through hatred. If someone could help me on these two points, I'd appreciate it.

Is there a short discourse that says something like 'the dhama is not for the discontented, but for the content'. I am pretty certain there is. Can you post it?

I read the following on an internet site: > First of all, there are no men or women, no gender at all. Only > arising and vanishing causes and effects. Where are the notions above found in the Tipitaka? Otherwise, where are the above notions refuted in the Tipitaka?

Please provide sources from the original text or your own experiences and understandings of how to make progress in overcoming background negative feelings? For years I have been greatly harmed by harboring these feelings in the back of my mind which has not only created great suffering but altered the course of my life. Doing some mindfulness work made me realize that these feelings are there in my mind due to past experiences, and are harming me more than anything else in my life. How can I overcome, even slightly, this kind of mindset?

In the conventional sense, views on dukkha (stress/hardships/difficulties/suffering) are rather mixed. We have the saying, [“No pain, no gain”](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/no-pain-no-gain) that implies that suffering is needed to make progress. There is also the saying, [“Whatever doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger”](https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/what-doesnt-kill-you-makes-you-stronger/) , again implying how difficult experiences make a person more resilient. Yet, it is known today [many diseases are stress-related](https://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/features/10-fixable-stress-related-health-problems) . I have friends/acquaintances who suffered from diseases which I strongly suspect is a result of their stressful lifestyles. What is strange from my observations is that most of the time, they are either not aware or simply feel that everything is normal. I suspect that over the years and decades even though the stress had reached [chronic level](https://www.yalemedicine.org/conditions/stress-disorder) , their mind had grown used to it even though their bodies did not. In fact, one of them appeared nonchalant when I implied that there might be a link between her illness and stress. Sometimes, I wish doctors are just as good at curing the mind as they are with the body. 1. How should lay Buddhists view and make use of dukkha such that it is helpful not only spiritually but also allow them to make meaningful progress in the world? 2. Is there a way to strike a balance with stress in our personal and professional lives? 3. What advice would you give to non-Buddhist friends who are suffering from chronic stress?

Is it possible to connect with students of B. Alan Wallace through this forum? I have been desperate to get blessings/ initiation in his lineage. Thank you!

For those Buddhists who believe there is an intermediate state between death and our next rebirth (IIRC this can last anything upto 7 weeks), does the intermediate state *remember* what has happened to it in its last life or is it just spurred on by its traditional lusts/cravings? Suppose someone plotted my death, succeeded, and then laid waste to my orchards, could that (I'd probbaly be mad) be the motive for how I am reborn, rather than my habits? I understand that remembering past lives is not the norm, so I am reclutant to consider it a serious issue, if we believe in rebirth and religious soteriology, rather than the importance of our existential non-religious projects (and I would almost consider it a reductio ad absurdum for the latter).

The Vipassana as taught by Gautam Buddha in his Maha Sati Patthana Sutta talks about four different feilds of meditation : Body, Sensations,mind and mental contents. Goenka focuses solely on sensations - Isthis not an incorrect application of Buddhas teaching. If focussing on only one frame of reference could liberate the bhikku, why then would he have specifically mentioned four?

What are your thoughts about this following passage: > “And what is the path that leads to the unconditioned? Immersion with > placing the mind and keeping it connected. Immersion without placing > the mind, but just keeping it connected. Immersion without placing the > mind or keeping it connected. …” -Savitakkasavicārasutta

I have heard it stated that vipassana can be practiced without samatha. Since samatha leads us to the early jhana factors of vitarka and vicara, how is it possible to do vipassana with wandering undirected and unsteady mind? "The Buddhist commentarial tradition, as represented by the contemporary Theravada, interprets vitarka and vicara as the initial and sustainted application of attention to a meditational object, which culminates in the stilling of the mind." - wikipedia ----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitarka-vicara

I read this wikipage and it seems like 'reacting to stimuli' is being called perception (saññā). Is 'reacting to stimuli' perception, or is perception itself stimuli? To me, the article implies perception is the condition for expression, i.e. a reaction. Do you agree that for a plant the stimulus-response is a single unitary movement (no karmaphala) and there is no intermission (of perception)? Is it more likely a projection of human knowledge - the personification of a plant? A perception has a result (Karmaphala). The results are perception are explained as such: > "And what is the result of perception? Perception has communication by > speech as its result, I tell you. However a person per ceives > something, that is how he expresses it: 'I have this sort of > perception.' This is called the result of perception. Here is a quote for BSE: > "In the scriptures we have the word sañña. Sañña means distinguishing, > putting a label, telling difference, making distinction, > discriminating." Is labeling perception or the result of perception?

The Pali term "Arati" is defined in Sutta Central as https://suttacentral.net/define/arati >dislike, discontent, aversion Others translate it differently, however. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example, translates it as "resentment." What textual evidence is there from the Pali Suttas, as well as the parallels, that supports one or the other of these translations?

In Hinduism, as per Dharmashastras, Puranas and several other scriptures, charity should only be given to brahmanas learned in Vedas and nobody else. Every other person, no matter how poor they are, are 'apatreya' (unfit for getting charity). Does Buddhism also have such criteria for dana? Should charity only be given to monks or such?

Does Patiloma-(reverse order) start at #1. With ignorance ceasing/ no Volitonal formations etc. Or, is it at #12. starting with cessation of Death, Birth ceases. etc. (I see both used). Thank you.

What's the difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates? For e.g. is the aggregate of form referring to the physical body, but the clinging-aggregate of form is a tainted mental model of the physical body? From SN 22.48 (trans. Bodhi): > “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form > there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, > gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the > form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the > feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is > called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional > formations there are … these are called the volitional formations > aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, > future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or > superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate. > These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates. > > “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging? > Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far > or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the > form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is > … that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling > aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is … > that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception > aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations > there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called > the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind > of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal > or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that > is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness > aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five > aggregates subject to clinging.”

Is cetana AKA intention, another word for "karma" or close to it? If not what is it that makes karma different from cetana?

I am writing an essay on SN 12.15 (interested folks can read the first draft [here](https://www.scribd.com/document/731466625/Kacc%C4%81nagotta-Sutta-Existence-Non-Existence-in-the-Pali-Suttas) ; using a new laptop & don't know how to format the Word document to fit the PDF conversion) and was heaping praise on Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Chapter 15 however later came across the Dedicatory verse of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, as follows: > anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam | anekārtham anānārtham > anāgamam anirgamam || yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam | > deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam || > > I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught > the doctrine of dependent origination, according to which there is > neither cessation nor origination, neither annihilation nor the > eternal, neither singularity nor plurality, neither the coming nor the > going [of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvāṇa characterized by] the > auspicious cessation of hypostatization. I am supposed to accept this dedication literally? What is this supposed to mean, where the Buddha taught dependent origination to which there is no origination?

I am from India and can speak Hindi and English. I want to take ordination preferably in Theravada tradition, maybe the Thai traditions. When I do a Google search for monasteries in Bodh Gaya it gives a lot of search results but if I dig deeper they practise in Thai language. I cannot search for English-speaking monasteries as it retrieves the same search results. Is it necessary to know that or Cambodian or Tibetan to join those monasteries?