In one of Eckhart Tolle talks (can't find the exact one yet) he mentions how most people "loose themselves" at/during "work". i.e. - lose awareness of body, emotions and thoughts. For me this seems to be true - "digging deep", my consciousness becomes completely enmeshed in the academic or work at hand. Although similar to this question , I see this answer of mindfulness as a general way of working. But more specifically, is it possible for those fewer moments of very new, complex and complicated learning, to be like this? I cannot see how they can coexist. What would that look like and how is it done/practiced specifically?

I notice many Sinhalese posting on Western chatsites about Buddhism. However, I often notice these Sinhalese don't have particularly strong empathy with the Pali of the suttas. I sometimes feel "dukkha" ("suffering") when having to answer their questions. Is the Sinhalese language very different to Pali? Should Sinhalese be able to learn Pali easier than Westerners?

i was reading the scripture Uninstructed Assutavā Sutta (SN 12:61): > “Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow > disenchanted with this body composed of the four great elements, > might grow dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why > is that? Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down > of this body composed of the four great elements are apparent. > “But as for what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness,’ the > uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted > with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain > release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, > appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person > as, ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’ Thus the > uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted > with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain > release from it. this is difficult to apprehend. i am not capable of *willing* myself to stop using intoxicants, so how does this dhamma make sense? i will have to wait until i die to be released? that's my interpretation... what exactly grows dispassionate towards the body anyway? EDIT: THIS QUESTION MAKES VERY LITTLE SENSE...IT LACKS FOCUS. IT CREATES CONFUSION WHERE THERE MIGHT BE NONE. A BETTER APPROACH OR QUESTION WOULD BE 'HOW DOES A SELF-VIEW GENERATE VARIOUS PROBLEMS LIKE ADDICTION; BOTH PRECEDING THE ADDICTION, AND IN THE AFTERMATH?'

"**Chethanaham bikkawe kamman wadami**". > Dear Bikkhus, I introduce thought as karma. It is after having thought > that we engage in action physically, verbally and mentally. ( > Nibbedhika sutraya) My question is simple. Does thought or intention alone become karma? Or does it need to have certain characteristics (Sorry if this word is inappropriate) for it to become Karma? If intention alone is karma whether we engage in action in though, word or deed what is the point of good deed?

Can we just **"think"** that we are helping the poor and have good karma? Can we **"think"** that we are giving dhana to monks and have good karma?

In the context of good karma, can we just have good intentions and thoughts of good deeds and get the same karma that we get from physically engaging in such activities?

If you are mindful you don't eat for taste - so chances are you over eat are smaller. There are a few monks I know and I truly believe are advanced practitioners (meaning I won't be surprised if they are arahants) who are overweight. And this really clashes with the concept of eating mindfully - can someone help reconcile the fact they are overweight and being advanced practitioners ? Edit : just to be clear there are overweight people who eat little and have self control and healthy but have bad metabolism which makes them fat ... and skinny people who are gluttons and eat a lot of fat foods and are still skinny .... I'm just giving the most extreme example which are of monks who are extremely mindful and don't need to give 0 consideration to enjoyment from the food and are aware of their bodies.

What does Buddhism say about waiting vs acting? For some context, I quit my corporate job a year ago because it felt so much against my skin to be working for aggressive profit. Since then I have pursued things I have wanted to do - passions (things that I dreamed of doing), volunteering (helping others) and I have continued my meditation practice. I am quite content with my relationships, the state of my mind, my body and my meditation practise. But for some reason, I haven't yet found a job that I feel drawn towards and I am going through my savings fast now which causes me concerns. I don't want to be acting on the fear of going broke, I also don't want to go back to my old job. I am often faced with the conflict of waitings vs acting. How does Buddhism prescribe navigating through such a conundrum?

Where are the English Translations of Commentary? Have all of them translated in to English?

I found an explanation of Kalama Sutta in a website which is said to be from a Tipitaka teacher in Sri Lanka. Is Kalama Sutta only about Kilesas? > Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for Lobha-dosa-moha? > > The famous Sri Lankan lay Dhamma-preacher Saminda Ranasingha > (aathaapi.org ) insists on two points when he is explaining Kālāma > sutta. > > 1. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for **Non-Buddhists** > 3. Kālāma sutta is only to be applied for **Lobha-dosa-moha** (and > Alobha-adosa-amoha) > > I’m here going to introduce the 2nd point of him, for seeing your > comments. > > > > Rest part of the sutta is also evaluated in the same way by him. > > So he insists that Kālāmā Sutta can not be applied for evaluating > other things mentioned in the Tipitaka. > > **If we consider the phrasing-style of the last paragraph in the above** > > ***“Iti kho, kālāmā, yaṃ taṃ avocumhā – … iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ > paṭicca vuttaṃ.*** > > ***So, as I said, kalamas – … Thus was it said. And in > reference to this was it said.*** > > This style can be seen in many Suttas in Anguttara nikaya and Majjima > nikaya where, > > 1. An “Uddesa (recitation passage)” is introduced first. > 2. Then it is questioned why was it mentioned. (in most cases) > 3. Then the Niddesa (explanation of the Uddesa) is menioned. > 4. At the end, it is concluded that the above Uddesa was mentioned for > Niddesa. > >Eg: Sakkapañhasutta, Araṇavibhaṅgasutta, Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta, Dutiyasaññāsutta, Paṭhamamahāpañhāsutta, Titthāyatanādisutta … etc. > > ***Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasutta:*** > >“‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbāni, > …’ti **– ayamuddeso saḷāyatanavibhaṅgassa.** “‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni > veditabbānī’ti **– iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. Kiñcetaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ?** > ‘Cakkhāyatanaṃ sotāyatanaṃ ghānāyatanaṃ jivhāyatanaṃ kāyāyatanaṃ > manāyatanaṃ. Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni veditabbānī’ti **– iti yaṃ taṃ > vuttaṃ idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.** > > “‘The six interior sense fields should be understood. …’ **This is the > recitation passage for the analysis of the six sense fields.** ‘The six > interior sense fields should be understood.’ **– That’s what I said, but > why did I say it?** There are the sense fields of the eye, ear, nose, > tongue, body, and mind. ‘The six interior sense fields should be > understood.’ **– That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.**

It's clear right view is the foremost factor as without the right view one would not go for practicing the noble eightfold path at all. But when the rest is considered, is there a real sequence? My physical actions are generally good and my speech is fine but needs to be improved as I'm vulnerable to idle chatter. But controlling speech the action is difficult to me. But when I realize that idle chatter(rather idle communication, not just idle chatter alone) leads to more dukkha I am abstaining from it. It's kind of right concentration. Am I following the noble eight foldpath correctly in that scenario?

In Theravada, the Concepts are considered unreal ("person", "chariot" etc.). Then what about the "Concepts about Real" ("red", "perception")? Are they Concepts? or Real?

Would a civilization based on the teachings of Buddha ever had a need for military force? It is said in Metta Sutta that one who practices *metta* is free from dangers of fire, poison and weapons. Is the practice of *metta* enough to protect the citizens from any aggression?

I have a question that I find kind of interesting, and can't find an answer anywhere. Will the next Buddha find a new path, different from the middle way? Or will he rediscover the middle way once it's been forgotten. I think both are possible, but I'm not too sure.

Where is the Noble Eightfold Path found in the Pali Canon? Are there significant differences among the traditions in its interpretation?

When given advice by Devadatta (or a Devadatta-like person), should that person be ridiculed as a Buddha (i.e. the Buddha that he pretends to be), or as what he is behind the mask? Or both? When a hypocrite calls me up to behave in decent ways, then in order not to get tangled up in his net, I naturally get the urge to ridicule the Buddha into his face (possibly before ridiculing himself), in order to give a clear sign of not adhering to fake advice, even if giving that sign requires temporarily insulting the real Buddha. It’s as if saying “I’d rather ridicule the Buddha himself than take his Dhamma from someone like you”.

In which sutta does the Buddha state that he does not have to follow all the monastic rules and austerities closely because he is already liberated and free, as an arahant? I remember reading this recently but I couldn't easily find it again.

While doing meditation I had experienced sudden stop of mind for a second. Then restart again reflecting that is peaceful. What was that experienced?is it stream entry?

This is different from asking, "does the Tathagata exist after death? or not? or both? or neither?"

Who are the most knowledgeable Abhidhamma masters today? Where are the active Abhidhamma communities? - country - lineage - monastery - institute - teacher - group - website - forum

How to apply eight fold path to the wholesome act as meditation of three marks of existence (Pali: tilakkhaṇa) of all existence and beings, namely impermanence (aniccā), non-self (anattā) and unsatisfactoriness or suffering (dukkha)?

Today I realize that, if something good or bad happens to me, it is caused by Karma. It gave me a huge relief. Because before I would experience aversion when something bad happened to me. But now, I believe that I am 100% responsible for whatever happens to me. But, As I know, not everything is caused by Karma. There are some other reasons such as whether, Dhamma etc. So how can I know the real cause behind something for sure? (Is it Karma or some other cause?) It is said that someone needs to experience the truth to understand the truth. So how can I build a solid understanding of the cause behind things and Karma?