Schools that reject meditation entirely are excluded, for obvious reasons. Samatha/Vipassana, Calm/Insight, Stopping/Seeing are ubiquitous in all Sri Lankan, Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese Buddhism. Yet it becomes disfavored in the later dispensations of Pure Land Buddhism, even though the foundational teachers of Tien Tai cite it: > (Paul Swanson) "I recall that many years ago, at a time of youthful indiscretion, having a naïve and simplistic impression of the Mo-ho chih-kuan, a text which, from its title, implies that it is mainly about the meditational practice of “cessation and contemplation” (止 観, śamatha-vipaśyanā)." Why then is it later dropped? And why do most Buddhist teachers not know that everyone is doing it? So often it is insinuated that each school of practice has exclusivity, when it is literally inclusive to the extreme.

Recitals or chants such as Om Mani Padme Hum by monks have particular tones . Is there a difference in the ability or inability to chant in a same way for individuals that are not monastic?

I have a pair of antique statuettes which were made in Japan. I assume they are Buddhist saints or sages and I am hoping someone can identify who they represent:

It's said, someone wishing to become Lord Buddha, doesn't achieve Nirvana until he fulfill his Paramita and goes to last birth (in Theravada tradition). So, while he fulfill his Paramita, - does he consciously do that (avoiding the Nirvana)? (like stopping meditation mid session thinking I should stop now). or - it happens automatically (like, he loses the ability to achieve Nirvana while fulfilling Paramita)? (if, this is the method, that implies that he loses the ability to achieve Nirvana midway, because of a past life decision). or - the midway decision occur randomly and from like 100 beings who fulfil Paramita to achieve state of Lord Buddha, some give up or randomly achieve Nirvana as an Arahant and some give up or randomly achieve Nirvana as a Pacceka Buddha. And, others achieve state of Lord Buddha. So, **what is the process here?** Thanks 🙏.

I have wanted to ask someone who is not familiar with a Buddhist culture how they might interpret this street art, which is generating controversy in a predominantly Buddhist country.

I have two questions. First, I grew up Roman Catholic, but now in my mid twenties, I am beginning to notice that a lot of my beliefs and actions don't align with Christianity so I started reading other religious and way of life books, and for some reason, Buddhism or the way of life of the Buddha was calling my name. First question, if I am beginning on this path, which books would you recommend I read? That is, a book which has all the teachings of the Buddha / philosophies. Does Buddhism mean being aware of our consciousness, is life only present in our minds, is it a way for us to be truly happy by being one with the universe, or just be at peace with oneself? Secondly, I recently picked up a book called "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle and I am getting confused. It is asking us to observe our thoughts or be ever present in order to achieve consciousness. Is that even possible? Can our minds ever be so still to the point where no thought will arise for blocks at a time in order to be fully present? I mean I am always thinking even when I try to meditate which makes it hard for me to see that happening. How do you watch your thoughts by not thinking? Also by saying the power of now, does it mean when I go out, I should marvel at all the trees, smell the leaves, I don't know maybe talk to people as opposed to what? What does it mean to be truly present?

This question is in context of practicing mindfulness in one's day-to-day activities (e.g. walking, talking, washing dishes etc.), where one is supposed to be "aware of" / "observe" / "be mindful of" these activities. But how does one be "mindful" during thinking, since the very act of "observing" thinking would interrupt the thought process? And, say, if the thought process is about solving a specific problem, the very act of "being aware of /observing" the thoughts would result in one being unable to effectively solve that problem - when compared to not observing/ not being mindful about those thoughts. Or, be unable to solve it all. The same question for when reading something very interesting, or studying, where one is fully engrossed? Wouldn't being mindful about these activities interrupt the reading/study? New to mindfulness here. Apologies if the question sounds foolish, or irrelevant due to my misunderstanding of mindfulness. Thanks in advance.

I have heard of sages being able to kill themselves with meditation. How do they do this?

My partner committed suicide 2 weeks ago. I have managed to visit him when I'm sleeping (dreaming) and when I see him everything is normal until I have to wake up and we are both saying how much we are going to miss each other because we know when I wake up he won't be there anymore. This isn't every night I have lucid dreams about a lot of places. I would really love to see him more and possibly just cross over if I can to be with him all the time.

In an election scenario, a Buddhist may face a dilemma when deciding whether to vote for leader X, who aligns with their values in most areas but contradicts them in one specific aspect. Conversely, the opposition leader Y is perceived by the Buddhist as being misaligned with Buddhist teachings across all areas. Given that these are effectively the only two choices for leadership, would it always be wise for the Buddhist to abstain from voting for leader X due to this one inconsistency, or does such a purist stance represent a loss of wisdom? What is the inconsistency? Being a moderate in the abortion issue but I wonder how this would work with other issues as the inconsistency.

From Reciting in Concert > Four kinds of reincarnation: There is a reincarnation where only one’s > own intention is effective, not that of others. There is a > reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not > one’s own. There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ > intentions are effective. There is a reincarnation where neither one’s > own nor others’ intentions are effective. Does it have something to do with the 31 planes of existence ?

Does the alayavijnana exist in the formless realms? --------------------------------------------------- Presuably, if we are reborn there. But there is no matter in the formless realms, so my crazy hypothesis for how my mental stream can reoccur outside my body (action at a distance, of gravity) seems to be disproven if the title question is yes (the alayavijnana does not necessarily include form and mass undergoing the gravitational constant). For what it's worth, I would think that supposing there is no rebirth without physical mass, then that would suffice to demonstrate that the strangeness of action at a distance (seemingly involved in post-mortem rebirth) ***itself does not preclude* the possibility of rebirth**, though of course if the identity of mind with body means this this brain is necessary for my mind, then - my mind cannot live without this living brain Currently, I do not see any other motivation for the claim that death is the end of the citta-santana, but I welcome any correction to that.

Is it possible to attain the first jhana, then remain in first jhana, while walking, talking, eating and performing other daily activities? Or does one remain in first jhana only while in sitting meditation, then he has to leave the jhana and meditation, before he is able to perform daily activities such as walking, talking and eating?

I may consider myself as a strong buddhist. But when I read about concept of quantum consciousness , it seems very realistic. And add to that, considering capabilities of current simple(chat GPT, etc) AI models, and considering how powerful an AI model(in DNA) would be powered by evolution through millions of years, it seems possible to believe ability to produce consciousness like behavior with 1) biological quantum consciousness and 2) AI model coded by DNA. So, my question is, what are the best **Buddhist answers** against this? Why may be these ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong? In other words, what information we can gather from buddhist philosophy and buddhist teachings regarding origin of the consciousness?

Does anyone know if becoming an anagarika in a Theravada monastery is only allowed temporarily or could one become a anagarika and stay in a monastery indefinitely? Also what concessions are given to anagarikas in a monastery life.

I read in this answer that if one wants to become a Bhikkhu then *"He must never have committed any grievous crimes"*. - What could examples of grievous crimes be? - What if crimes where committed many years ago. Does that have any value in the ordination procedure or does it automatically result in one not being able to become ordained in this life? Thank you for your time.

I have been wondering what the connection between the five aggregates and the four establishments are. Below i give the translations into English that i've found when reading Bhikkhu Bodhi (BB) and Thich Nhat Hanh (TNH) Five aggregates: * Form * Feelings * Perceptions * Volitional formations (BB); Mental Formations (TNH) * Consciousness Four establishments of mindfulness: * Body * Feelings * Mind, States of Mind (BB); Mind, Mental Formations (TNH) * Phenomena (BB); Objects of mind (TNH) **How can i think about the connection between these lists?** More specifically: * Why is "perceptions" not included in the establishments of mindfulness? * What's the difference between "form" and "body"? * Are "Volitional formations (BB); Mental Formations (TNH)" and "Mind, States of Mind (BB); Mind, Mental Formations (TNH)" the same thing? * What's the relation between "Consciousness" and "Phenomena (BB); Objects of mind (TNH)"?

What, exactly, is the notion of cause and effect at work in a causal series that includes the citta-santāna? I suppose the obvious answer is the 12 links of dependent origination, but I am confused ***how*** ignorance causes sankhara to arise. **Obviously, speculating where will be reborn is frowned upon, even if suggesting that rebirth may work even with some views (such as mind-brain identity) is not.** ---------- Suppose that it reduces to something physical, so that my *brain state* for my "death thought" must bring about a new brain state somewhere: is it very conceivable, in contemporary physics or biology, that the state of my brain right sufficiently for citta-santana with an existing (or just coming into existence) brain state that is not "my" brain?

> "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, > Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward." > AN 11.1 > It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous > person, one whose behavior is virtuous. > AN 10.2 What is the basis for defining skillful virtues, that would result in freedom from remorse? The Abrahamic religions depend on God to define what is right and wrong. The Buddhist suttas define skillful virtues based on "freedom from remorse". The precepts like killing, stealing, adultery and lying result in remorse. **Why do they result in remorse?** I've seen vague explanations based on laws of karma or kamma niyama (Dhp 127), natural laws or principles ("this law of nature persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural principles") based on AN 3.136 or SN 12.20, the Golden Rule ("don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you") based on Ud 5.1, and linking to the three poisons. However, I have not seen suttas that definitively provide a cause for remorse. Please support with sutta references, as far as possible.

From what I can gather, kasina meditation involves staring at the kasina initially, and then attempting to generate/visaulize it as a mental image. I *believe* this is how the Visudhimagga describes it. Are there any other older meditation manuals, perhaps like the Vimutimagga, or Abhidhamma, which describe kasina meditation in detail? However, I have seen other sources which say one should focus on the retinal after-image. What is the more traditional approach? I am aware that kasina meditation is not described in detail in the suttas. I would also prefer not this question to be derailed by the discussion of whether or not they were a late invention. Thank you!