Very often when I meditate, or in everyday life, there are times when I get bored. I don't have to do anything. And often I go on YouTube to get busy. It is the same in meditation, very quickly I get bored, I feel the time passing and it becomes heavy. How do you manage all this?

Every cita has an Object associated with it. when we meditate on breath then the object of attention is breath.. and after some time suddenly a past memory image pops up.. can one explain in terms of abhidhamma mind-moment model.. How the object of attention changed. and compare it with new, medium and adapt practitioners perspective. -------------------------------------- **EDIT** There are 3 answers and yet there is no answer. I myself did some more research and concluded as following. I think abhidhamma, or buddhism as such has no explanation for attention Shift from one object to another. As each mind moment has object which can be different from previous and each mind moment has cetasika called manaskāra. I never understand what kind of cetasika it is. 1. Is it yes / No to current object. 2. Is it intensity of attention like 0% to 100 %. 3. Is it pointer to object of attention. It could be current object or another object altogether. However **Patanjali yoga sutra has more clear answer** to this. they attribute it to unconscious activity. and called that 'manasa'. 'Manasa' is organ of body which travels to any location of body. and then only objects of that part are thrown to consciousness. It filters the data of all sense door... This is quite close to modern neuroscience too as hypothalamus in brain. This manasa can be instructed to change its filters . I am giving a link to a **PDf document which compares buddhism and patanjali yogasutra only around this question** .. Its too good. [Contrasting_Nyaya_Vaiseika_and_Buddhist.pdf ][1]

I am indian. And in all indian languages Priti means love. And even in abhidhamma I found a statement that it's towards the object. interest in object. Whereas sukha is from the object. I sometime feel my breathing so comfortable that i just love/like that effortless breathing. Isn't this pīti? Why we made so difficult word like rapture? And making it more complicated.

I know that killing virtuous beings is a grave bad karma. But when it comes animals, virtue is irrelevant. I have heard from monks that bigger the animal greater the sin it is to kill it. How is that so? Why does physicality matter at all? Isn't it just a matter of your intention when it comes to karma?

Some people said to me that , Gautama Buddha ***never made claims*** about himself that he had gained ***enlightenment*** and on the other hand, some people say that's not true. Some people have also said to me that this ***news of enlightenment*** was probably initiated by one of his disciples after his death. Here is ***my question***: Who claimed that ***Lord Buddha said that that "he obtained enlightenment"***?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#AnotHist Buddhism is sometimes compared to solipsism. Discussions on this topic can be found on the Internet. I do not understand why Buddhism is sometimes compared to solipsism. As far as I know, in all schools and sects of Buddhism Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana there is a doctrine of anatman (no-self), and in all schools and sects of Buddhism a special role is played by compassion (in the Mahayana there are Bodhisattvas who swear to deprive all people of suffering). Also, all schools of Buddhism say that each person consists of skandhas. How then can this be solipsism? As far as I understand, Buddhism cannot teach solipsism at all. Do Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana teach any form of solipsism? Or is it just that someone doesn't understand what they are talking about?

I'm searching for a Sutra (or possibly a commentary) but it has escaped me. My recollection is hazy, but it is about one of the Buddha's monks (most likely Ven. Ananda or Ven. Sariputta) asking the Buddha three times to teach an elderly lady. The Buddha finally entertained the request, but as he approached the lady it is said she turned the other way. The Buddha then approached the lady from the other 9 directions but she always turned away from the Buddha. I would like to be able to reference the source as I think it is relevant to illustrate the role or importance of positive affinities when teaching living beings. Here is how someone else remembers the story: *So Buddha walks up to her, she turns away. Buddha repeats this in every direction, and even multiple directions (by using his powers) and she just turns to the direction she can't see him. He floats, she just looks down. Then Buddha sends Ananda to talk to her. She greets him warmly, and accepts the Dharma from him. So the disciples ask why the lady rejected the Buddha so. Buddha explains that both Ananda and the Buddha met this lady in a past life. She was just about to send-off her dead husband and was grief-stricken. Buddha was a wandering scholar who told her about impermanence and that grieving is of no use. She was affronted at his blunt advice. Whereas Ananda consoled her by hugging her and saying reassuring words. Therefore the lady has favorable affinities with Ananda instead* (sic). BTW I'm a Mahayana Bhikkhu. In my study and teachings I reference both Theravada and Mahayana texts equally. My fellow bhikshus know of the story but not the origin either. I've been looking out for this in my many years of practice. I have not been able to find it in my studies of the Pali Tripitaka nor in major Mahayana texts. Thank you in advance.

I was thinking about whether the goal of a wholesome action is to reduce suffering (dukkha) or to "shrink" the roots of suffering, namely craving, desire or aversion (the three poisons). In fact, there are actions that temporarily create more suffering with the ultimate goal of eliminating its roots---This is the case with exposure therapy, where a psychotherapist exposes a patient to the object of their phobia in order to train them to let go of the aversion towards it. This leads me to three questions: 1. Is it sometimes wholesome to perform actions that can temporarily lead to suffering with the goal of "shrinking" its roots? 2. If so, how much suffering is allowed in order to "shrink" its roots? For example, can a Master lead someone towards a path that includes a lot of suffering in this lifetime if they know it to be necessary to eliminate the roots of suffering in the next? 3. Do wholesome actions always lead to a "shrinking" of the roots of suffering (ignorance, craving, and aversion)? It seems possible to me that this is not the case. Take for example the case of a Master who---with the best of intentions---exposes someone to an advanced insight. Two scenarios: - This person was not ready for the teaching and ends up developing more ignorance, craving and aversion. Did he perform an unwholesome action? - He didn't realize that five other people were listening to this teaching through the door and they were not ready for it. Unwillingly, he ends up creating more ignorance, aversion, and desire in these five. Did he perform an unwholesome action?

In the Theravada tradition is the Pali Canon viewed as the final truth? In other words, are the Buddha's teachings viewed as the final authority which cannot be revised or are his teachings subject to possible enhancement or even revision by later enlightened ones in the way Newton laws were later made even more accurate by Einstein's work?

According to Visuddhimagga, focusing on breath does't require repeating "inhalation, exhalation..." in mind (at least it seems that the book doesn't explicitly tell that) . However, the 10 Kasinas and the 10 foulness may need repetitive words in mind. For example: > "Anyone else should use that same kind of circle of luminosity just described, developing it as “luminosity, luminosity” or “light, light.”(Vm. The Remaining Kasinas.The Light Kasina) I think that the principle of the 10 Kasinas is focusing on concepts of meaning. So maybe repeating the concepts of word isn't necessary. Many modern experts also imply repeating words when meditating but give no further explanation.

I was thinking about taking vows and I had a few questions: 1. does cannabis and magic mushrooms count as intoxicants? 2. does masturbation count as sexual misconduct? if cannabis and magic mushrooms are in fact intoxicants, can I use them one last time before taking the vows. Just to have that experience one last time

I am a bit confused about what is the difference between 'witnessing meditation' as taught by Osho, which can be found here , here , and here , and 'silent present moment awareness ' (*page number 11*) as taught by Ajahn Brahm in his book, 'Mindfulness bliss and beyond'. At first, they both seem identical to me, but as I practice with Osho's instructions it's difficult to get to that point He describes. I would appreciate if the commentary is provided along with the answer from practice point of view.

I have read in a Buddhist sutta that one should meditate on the deathless state. What does this mean? What is it?

In this video clip you can see renowned Tibetan master Chögyal Namkhai Norbu saying that life is unreal and that the Buddha taught it is just like a dream. Is he correct? I've transcribed below: > Sometimes we have very nice dream. Fantastic dream... And we enjoy. We > are very happy. We are dreaming, for example... ...I'm looking and > someone is selling... lottery ticket. Very, very big lottery. I am > taking and buying from someone and I am returning home. And I am > seeing the television. And when I am looking at my number... The > television is saying that number! Then I feel very happy. "Oh, what do > I do now?" All this money. I am really happy and then I wake up. When > I wake up, I discovered that is a dream, unfortunately. I am not > happy. Or sometimes... very, very bad dream. There are many people > that want to kill me. They are arriving in my house. Then they are > starting to kill me. I feel very afraid. That moment I wake up. And I > discover, "Oh, that is only a dream!" I am very happy. **You see, good > or bad. Even good or bad. A dream is a dream. Unreal. So Buddha is > saying, our life is just like a dream. Big dream.** Dream of night is a > very small dream, but... Our life's dream, it has many day and night, > day and night etcetera. When we discover that... Dreams, we discover > when we wake up. But big dreams, we discover... When we are dying and > being in a state of Bardo (transitional state). Emphasis mine. A closely related question (with answers) is here.

Thich Nhat Hanh seems to deny a major teaching on dukkha/suffering common to both Theravada and Tibetan teachings -- the idea of *all-perasive suffering* ("the suffering of composite things",*samskara dukkhata*)-- found in many places in the Pali and Tibetan canons. Below are some excerpts. A link to the whole chapter is at the end. I think his interpretation may well reflect a misunderstanding of all-pervasive suffering -- it does not deny joy; it simply says the only lasting happiness comes from addressing conditioned existence in general (or emptiness/shunyata and inherent/intrinsic existence in Mahayana terms); it cannot be found by only addressing worldly suffering directly. Or maybe I am misunderstanding him. But he is pretty emphatic, even to the point of implying that the Pali Canon was corrupted to reflect this teaching before it got written down. He also suggests removing *dukkha* from the Three Dharma Seals/Marks, replacing it with *nirvana* (rather than just adding *nirvana* to make four seals, as is usually done) **My questions -- does this reflect Zen teachings in general, or is it limited to Thich Nhat Hanh and/or some schools? If some Zen schools or teachers do teach all-pervasive suffering, can someone point me to references? I'd also be interested in other Zen teachings that reflect Thich Nhat Hanh's strong objection to the doctrine of all-pervasive suffering.** Thanks. --- The following quotes (with **my emphasis** added) are from Chapter Five, "Is Everything Suffering?" , from *The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching*, by Thich Nhat Hanh, > Since the Buddha said that the First Noble Truth is suffering, many good > students of the Buddha have used their skills to prove that everything on > Earth is suffering. **The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering** was > such an attempt. It **is not a teaching of the Buddha**. > > The first kind of suffering is "the suffering of suffering" (dukkha > dukkhata), the suffering associated with unpleasant feelings, like the pain > of a toothache, losing your temper, or feeling too cold on a winter's day. > The second is "the suffering of composite things" (samskara dukkhata). > Whatever comes together eventually has to come apart; therefore, all > composite things are described as suffering. Even things that have not yet > decayed, such as mountains, rivers, and the sun, are seen to be suffering, > because they will decay and cause suffering eventually. When you believe that everything composed is suffering, how can you find joy? The third is "the > suffering associated with change"(viparinama dukkhata). Our liver may be in > good health today, but when we grow old, it will cause us to suffer. There is no point in celebrating joy, because sooner or later it will turn into > suffering. Suffering is a black cloud that envelops everything. Joy is an > illusion. Only suffering is real. > > ... > > This dialogue is repeated in many sutras: > > > "Monks, are conditioned things permanent or impermanent?" 'They are impermanent, World-Honored One." "If things are impermanent, are they suffering or well-being?" "They are suffering, World-Honored One." "If things are suffering, can we say that they are self or belong to self?" "No, World-Honored One." > > **By the time the Buddha's discourses were written down, seeing all things > as suffering must have been widely practiced,** as the above quotation > occurs more frequently than the teaching to identify suffering and the path > to end suffering. > > ... > > The theory of the Three Kinds of Suffering is an attempt to justify the > universalization of suffering. What joy is left in life? We find it in > nirvana. **In several sutras the Buddha taught that nirvana, the joy of > completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts, rather than suffering, is > one of the Three Dharma Seals.** This is stated four times in the Samyukta > Agama of the Northern transmission. Quoting from yet another sutra, Nagarjuna listed nirvana as one of the Three Dharma Seals. To me, it is much easier to envision a state where there are no obstacles created by concepts than to see all things as suffering. I hope scholars and practitioners will begin to > accept the teaching that all things are marked by impermanence, nonself, and > nirvana, and not make too great an effort to prove that everything is > suffering.

Not sure if this is the correct place to ask this question so sorry if it is not. I am just looking for a book that is specifically about the 37 factors that explains each one in depth.

In the YouTube video entitled "Characteristics of a Sotapanna ", Ven. Dhammavuddho Mahathera stated (with some paraphrasing): > So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the > suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not > attained *piti* (rapture) and *sukha* (joy or bliss) > which are secluded from unwholesome > states and sensual pleasures, the five hindrances will obsess him and > obsess him habitually. ..... *(with example of someone raping his own > daughter because he couldn't control his hindrances)* > > So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly, > it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is > habitual, it is very often there. ..... When a person attains the first > jhana, these hindrances reduce to a very low level, > that they are not considered hindrances any more. ..... They are > eliminated for good. Which sutta(s) support the following? - The five hindrances are overcome only by the attainment of jhana (at least the first jhana) - The five hindrances obsess and enslave the mind habitually, even outside times of sitting in meditation (you can find this elaborated in the video)

What is Buddhism view on this? **Spiritual Intelligence (SQ)** SQ may be defined as: “The ability to behave with wisdom and compassion, while maintaining inner and outer peace, regardless of the situation.” Wisdom and compassion being the pillars of SQ. 1. Deeper understanding of one’s own world view, life purpose, value hierarchy and controlling personal ego to consider the higher self. 2. Self-mastery of one’s spiritual growth, living your purpose, values and vision, sustaining faith in and seeking guidance from a higher power. 3. Universal awareness of world view of others, limitations and power of human perception, awareness of spiritual laws and transcendental oneness 4. Social Mastery/Spiritual Presence: wise and effective mentor of spiritual principles; leadership change agent; making wise and compassionate decisions; and being aligned with the ebb and flow of life. Does Buddhism agrees on this statement below or there are more pillars? > Wisdom and compassion being the pillars of SQ. Source - TRUE LEADERSHIP - SQ+EQ+IQ+PQ = SUCCESS

In vipassana we are asked to be optimist. But buddha said expectation is the cause of all suffering. . Is there any difference between expectation and optimism?

In the state known as neither perception nor non-perception, it seems impossible to cognize the relative particulates that allow it to occur as an event, but one can emerge mindfully from its attainment, as is stated in the Anupada Sutta. Hence, there is a beginning and an end to the event. In this way, I can only define it by what is absent rather than what is present - similar to exiting a noisy nightclub and resting in the dead of the night, then entering the nightclub again, taking with me only the memory of the still night. > Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. > >Anupada Sutta This leaves a trace-memory of the event that can be recalled, but even that itself is tenuous for two reasons, 1) by its very definition (neither perception nor non-perception) - from beginning to end - its particulates are so subtle, so indistinct that one can not confidently declare "I am emerged in neither perception nor non-percpetion". 2. The recall itself poses some accuracy issues, that since it is now in the memory, it is open to all sorts of interpretations including how I have chosen to define it here. In the instance of neither perception nor non-perception, it seems the ability to *discern* and *cognize* are nimittas that are absent. Please correct me? Is it sufficient for the mind to have experienced the presence of neither perception nor non-perception or must it be investigated further?