As a layperson, I try to achieve sotapanna and do vipassana meditation for one month approximately. I like to hear song, so I leave it. But, I often sing and hum accidentally. I try to stop it but it's so difficult And second, I often speak loudly when there isn't anyone in the room. I try to stop it but it's so difficult

Why is the first *jhana* omitted from MN 125 ? How is this omission related to the context of that sutta? > As the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, they enter and remain in the second absorption … > *So vitakkavicārānaṁ vūpasamā ajjhattaṁ sampasādanaṁ cetaso ekodibhāvaṁ avitakkaṁ avicāraṁ samādhijaṁ pītisukhaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ …* > > third absorption … > *tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ …* > > fourth absorption. > *catutthaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati.* > MN 125

In various suttas like SN 35.204 and AN 4.170 , we find that both tranquility (*samatha*) and insight (*vipassana*) must be developed in most cases, in order to make progress on the path towards complete liberation. > The swift pair of messengers stands for tranquility (*samatha*) and insight (*vipassana*) > SN 35.204 To me, it appears that *jhana* is needed to overcome the five hindrances ("quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, they enter and remain in the first absorption" - DN 10 ), without which, insight is not easily achievable. On the other hand, the *vipassana* contemplations of the Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) appear to be using *vitakka* and *vicara*. Is this right? We also read: > Sound is a thorn to the first absorption. Placing the mind and keeping > it connected are a thorn to the second absorption. Rapture is a thorn > to the third absorption. Breathing is a thorn to the fourth > absorption. > AN 10.72 So, it sounds to me like, just the first *jhana* is sufficient for *vipassana*, since *vitakka* and *vicara* are thorns to the second *jhana*. So, putting these together, the *vipassana* contemplations of MN 10 is best practised after entering and remaining in the first *jhana*. Is this right?

I'm aware that Buddhist monastic communities often wear robes that distinguish them and visibly mark them out as Buddhists. Do lay Buddhist ever do the same thing? Is there any jewellery or clothing that lay Buddhists wear to mark them out as Buddhists - a visible marker of their religion. This is obviously common in other religions e.g. crucifixes for Christians - but do Buddhists of any tradition have an equivalent?

Can devas in heavenly realms do good deeds and get a rebirth in other higher heavens and progress successively from one higher heaven to other? Preferably, from Mahayana Buddhist or Theravada Buddhist sermons of the Buddha.

I have issues with the exact meaning of vitakka/vicara. I'm familiar with the stock translation "initial and sustained application of attention" and the images of vitakka and vicara being like a gong with initial strike vs. resounding and the bee visiting a flower and than buzzing around. My meditation teacher mentioned that "vitakka and vicara have an aspect of 'fruit'". That makes a lot of sense to me, because otherwise they wouldn't be listed as jhana factors. So there have to be multiple layers of vitakka and vicara, probably depending on the level of concentration? I didn't find any good references for it, can you help me? In terms of meditation experience, I always assumed that there is just one v/v. How would you describe the difference between normal consciousness v/v and the improved version of v/v in access concentration or 1st jhana?

Why do we have to circulate in the circle of Samsara? What did we do wrong for this suffering?

Buddhist teachings say one must restrain the senses and cultivate equanimity but I struggle to find a balance between doing that and finding joy in life etc. Do I just notice joy arising and let go?

Is there any person who is widely believed to be enlightened by Buddhists, and who confirms that himself/herself?

Looking at https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Five_skandhas , how is it possible that the feeling is derived out of the forms? If the forms don't have feeling themselves, how can feeling emerge from non-feeling basically? I would think the order is reversed, where first there are feelings, and the feelings create forms ("name" things, so to speak). So why does this say forms -> feelings instead of feelings -> forms?

I know this is not the place for this kind of questions. But I post this anyway. **I am seeking advice on Samatha meditation.** Time to time, I get strong urge to do Samatha meditation.(I'm not an expert on this). So, I start with a combination of Maithree, Anapanasati and Vipassana meditation to cut down five hindrances . At this level, I reach happy state. Then I switch to Kasina meditation. But I can't continue Kasina meditation enough time to reach any static Nimitta . That's because I lose urge to continue / neediness to reach Dhayana. Sometimes, - I feel full - I feel, can't hold any more fullness ( full pressure) - less neediness to continue . So, I feel one or multiple of above and then I can't continue the meditation. Like, I feel like I can't continue anymore. (but I want to). But through all this, I feel happy. (after Maithree and Vipassana meditation) So, questions are , - Why is this happening? - Why I lose urge? - Why sometimes feel full pressure? - How would I overcome this? ___ My own idea of the problem is, - maybe I didn't actually reduce the five hindrances evenly, maybe I reduced the 1,2 and 5, but I think, maybe I didn't reduce 3rd and 4th hindrances. (main point). - maybe my Vipassana is too much(for Samatha) and I lose carving(thanha) for Dhayana. (newly added this line). - maybe I don't have enough capacity. - maybe my methods are wrong. It could be one of above or something else. ___ Five hindrances > order is as in this article. 1. Sensory desire (kāmacchanda) 2. Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda) 3. Sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha) 4. Restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca) 5. Doubt (vicikiccha) **Thanks 🙏. ☸️.** **Any help is appreciated.**

**Do we feel because we perceive? Or do we perceive because we feel?** As per mahā-vedallasutta(MN43) > Yaṁ vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vijānāti. > so vedanā -> sañjānāti -> vijānāti But shouldn't this order be in reverse? Because first, we cognise (vijānāti), then recognise (sañjānāti) and then we feel, isn't it so? Goenka also confirms this sequence. vijānāti->sañjānāti->vedeti. Or is there a different between viññanā and vijānāti as well saññā and sañjānāti? Nibbedhikasutta(AN 6.63) says > Phassa is nidānasambhavo for vedanā/saññā/sankhārā. as if vedanā, saññā and sankhārā co-arise. but are they independent of each other? **Note**: (Adding comments of @blue_ego) consider this question as non sequential. When I say first it means second is dependent on first. Take any meditation practice. we just practice to change perception, and feeling changes accordingly. but vice versa is not true.

In Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, there is a debate with the Charvakas (ancient materialists) about the existence or non-existence of past and future lives. In the commentary, Rinpoche compares and contrasts the Charvakas tenets with modern day scientists who would deny the conventional existence of past or future lives. Rinpoche accuses modern scientists with the phrase "divorcing the view and the action" and advises that this is a saying among masters to describe something considered very dangerous: As Rinpoche implies that this phrase is commonly used by masters to describe something very dangerous I am wondering if there are other examples of masters using this phrase and why it is considered so dangerous. Can anyone find Sutra/Treatise/Commentary/Anecdote of other masters using this phrase? I'm also wondering if it is appropriate to describe modern Secular Buddhists who also deny the conventional existence of past or future lives as holding the same view as modern scientists and subject to this same phrase? If so, why is this so dangerous and what is meant by "divorcing the view and the action?" What is the translation of this phrase in Pali, Sanskrit, or Tibetan to the extent that there are examples of masters using this phrase in a similar way in any of these languages?

In Buddhism it's mostly all about mind training. The mind is regarded as a skhanda/aggregate separate from the body. Also, feelings, consciousness and karmic conditions. Now I am in doubt, thinking that the body could produce the mind. If so, that would mean, that the Buddhist path is stripped of many implications, like that we are wandering in samsara since beginningless time. Could someone please provide some links or explanations which explain the Buddhist argumentation that body and mind are separate "entities"/ aggregates. Thank you.

> "And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering." > > -- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, [MN 38](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html) There are many suttas in the canon where the Buddha admonishes monks, and the above is a notable example. The translations, at least to my eyes, come as particularly harsh: "worthless" (in Nanamoli/Bodhi, we read "misguided" instead of "worthless". I've also read "foolish" elsewhere) -- there was another reprimand from the Buddha, almost mean as I recall how I felt while reading it, but which I could not find again. I've constantly felt troubled with these passages. I also look with very suspicious eyes the dribbling with "The buddha was harsh for their own good" (unless, if it is the Buddha himself justifying his harsh words, not we trying to excuse him and spare the texts). I find it troubling specially in light of: - the very explicit *right speech* teachings, promoting the abandonment of harsh words. - the difficulty of reconcile harsh "formations" in a mind free of defilements. Are the other/older versions (say, chinese, pali and tibetan) of these passages evoking somewhat equivalent harsh emotions on a reader? Or is it a particularity of the english translations? (Or is it just me?) Otherwise, were these harsh reprimands ever discussed (in books, commentaries, etc)?

On [this](https://tricycle.org/beginners/decks/pure-land/?continue=1) website, it is stated: > The Pure Land tradition is founded on **three sutras** and two commentaries: **the Sutra on Immeasurable Life**, also known as the Larger Pure Land Sutra; **the Amida Sutra**, also known as the Smaller Pure Land Sutra; and **the Contemplation Sutra**. The two commentaries are Vasubandhu’s Treatise on the Sutra of Immeasurable Life and Shandao’s Commentary on the Contemplation Sutra. Assuming someone acknowledges the Āgama and its form of the Pali canon, are the 3 sutras the only sutras that are, let's say "mandatory" for Pure Land Buddhism, while the rest of the Mahayana sutras are optional? Or are other sutras held as canonical and also "mandatory" to acknowledge and believe in?

Good evening, everyone! I'm curious about the Buddhist worldview and would like answers to these sixteen worldview questions. I rely heavily on James W. Sire's worldview questions from his book *The Universe Next Door*. If anyone is interested and willing, I could also gather your answers to these questions over Zoom or Microsoft Teams. There would be no proselytizing on my end. I'm simply curious. Many thanks for considering my request! 1. What is prime reality? 2. What is the nature of external reality, i.e., the world around us? 3. Are there absolute truths? If so, what is its source? 4. What is Good, and does it have a source? 5. What is Evil, and does it have a source? 6. Where did the universe come from? 7. What is a human being? 8. Why or how is it possible to know anything at all? 9. What is the meaning of human history? 10. What is the human problem? 11. What is the purpose of life? 12. What is the significance of the integration of iconography within Buddhism? 13. How do we know what is right and wrong? 14. Are right and wrong, good and evil, absolute concepts? 15. What happens to a person at death? 16. Will the universe as we know it come to an end? If so, how and why?

Can one elaborate please more on this quote: > "In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops. > > "Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases." Upādāna Sutta SN 12.52 (S ii 84) How is this exactly done?

I recall reading the Buddhist scriptures say those who revile Noble Ones are reborn in hell. Does this also apply to an unenlightened (puthujjana) monk that reviles a Noble Layperson?

It has been my experience that Buddhism has set me from blind obedience when it comes to religious rules. I was free to think what was good spiritually and no one can tell me otherwise. Is this what sages go through?