What is the meaning of delusion ? and how it is different from lust , passion or greed ? What is the meaning of non-delusion ? and how it is different from no lust , no passion or no greed? And finally , how to get rid of delusion ?

I’m just curious if anyone has noticed what I am noticing. When I ejaculate, in that exact moment, there is a weird sensation in my head. This sensation is about half the duration of the orgasm, so about one second long. it feels like something is literally being drained from my head in that moment. Immediately, after this, I feel unclear and with slight brain fog - basically more delusion, I think. This brain fog takes about a day to get lifted. So I’m wondering what this is and is it just me or is there’s any mention of any energy related stuff in Buddhism related to it? Thanks for any answers.

I consider the profession unwise and harmful to all. But I'm looking for a compelling argument against it. PS. Maybe "compelling" is too strong a word.

there is a meditation technique that supposedly was given to v. moggalana by buddha wrote here like this: > “If you do not abandon your drowsiness by doing that, Moggallāna, then > you should pay attention to the perception of light – the night as the > day, the day as the night. In this way you should develop an open > mind, a mind of unveiled radiance. By doing this it is possible that > you will abandon your drowsiness. but then another script is saying it's delusion: > “There are some contemplatives & brahmans, brahman, who have the > perception of ‘day’ when it is night, and of ‘night’ when it is day. > This, I tell you, is their being in a dwelling of delusion. As for me, > I have the perception of ‘day’ when it is day, and of ‘night’ when it > is night. If anyone, when speaking rightly, were to say, ‘A being not > subject to delusion has appeared in the world for the benefit & > happiness of many, out of sympathy for the world, for the welfare, > benefit, & happiness of human & divine beings,’ he would rightly be > speaking of me. which one is correct? both? or perhaps it depends on context? what is the context? a related post: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10528/how-to-attend-to-the-perception-of-light

What is moha (delusion)? What is avijja or avidya (ignorance)? What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja or avidya (ignorance)?

For those Buddhists who claim that some sentient beings are Icchantikas , do they mean that those sentient beings cannot make *any* form of progress along the Buddhist path? All I know is that, following tao-sheng, most Buddhists think that the Icchantika has buddha-nature, and that the term can also refer to Bodhisattvas, who postpone their Buhddhahood. What I'm especially interested in is whether an Icchantika can make progress toward arhatship, anything like that?

In reading about Zen I see encouragement to question "notions". Understand them as to some extent misrepresenting the things they represent. The map is not the territory. I'm not sure how to interpret that and I can think of a couple different meanings. Consider a statue like The Statue of Liberty. To some it represents a country with a history of slavery and Jim Crow laws and the statue is a lie. To others, it represents a land of opportunity, an escape from tyranny. To someone else, a statue is just a bunch of copper, the copper itself being made of atoms, the atoms made up of quarks. The statue has no "romantic" or "pessimistic" meaning. Does Buddhism make a distinction between the emotional notions like "freedom" and "tyranny" versus more material notions like "copper" and "atoms"? I could see the distinction mattering in terms of suffering. If you see a statue and it reminds you of unpleasant things, you suffer. If you just look at the statue and just see a bunch of copper, it won't make you suffer. If "All Emotions are pain", then even positive associations with the statue are a painful thing. Neutral associations like "The Statue is made of copper" seems to be of a different substance, a concept more directly "pointing at" what it refers to whereas the emotionally loaded notions in a since "point away". Are both kinds of notions the kinds of notions to be wary of? Even still, are there distinctions made between the two?

I often hear people make use of the defence “that’s not my problem”. Is this a delusion in the form of rejecting no-self and denying or not seeing interdependence? Or are these people right and should we remain equanimous about other people’s problems? Should we be careful not to assume other people want the best for us so we take more responsibility in solving our own problems?

I am looking for connection between lust, hatred, and delusion, and craving. Craving is more fundamental than lust, hatred and delusion: it is the craving which leads to lust, hatred and delusion. But how ? My question is -- how does the craving lead to lust, hatred and delusion? --- - "craving" -- *taṇhā* - "lust, hatred and delusion" -- *lobha*, *dosa*, *moha*

In an answer to Non-attachment as object of meditation , there was an interesting idea that the essence of many advanced practices is > to be at peace with whatever happens in your phenomenal field - without either suppressing it or getting carried away by it. > > ... You don't get attached to either the thoughtless state, or to any individual thought (or emotion) If so, then what should you do when a delusion, e.g. an attachment, comes to your phenomenal field and starts to develop? Should you be at peace with it and let the attachment develop? It seems to be a question worth some exploration, because we could use various approaches, each might have some merit: 1. Just watch, in a non-attached way, how the delusion develops. Eventually it could help to realize, through direct experience, how the mental processes work. Perhaps that realization could lead to liberation from such delusions. 2. Or we might wish to dissolve somehow that development of the delusion which came to our phenomenal field. Perhaps that might help to reform our mental habits directly. 3. Maybe it could be reasonable to combine those two methods, in accordance with particular circumstances? Then when should we use this or that approach?

A monastery nearby my house, where I was about to be ordained and venture into the world of which I have been waiting so long, has now denied me ordination due to my bad habits of reading erotic literature, sensual audios and masturbating -- all of which I want to leave forever. I do go on abstinence streaks, but when something unfortunate happens to me(an incident or mishap that saddens me) I get triggered and relapse.sometimes even the most simplest of natural phenomena such a blossoming flower can be the root of the lapse.other times it's just plain advertisements on t.v which cause the downfall.it has become tedious to avoid triggers, it also leaves no time for meditation and other stuff. Due to the kind advice of ven. Yuttadhammo bhikkhu I have quit my porn viewing addiction, but I can't seem get enough of masturbation and other forms of pornography(though the frequency has been significantly reduced)I request the members of this forum to provide some comprehensive techniques and advice that can be adapted with a practical approach and help me quit all these bad habits forever. It has ruined my life to such an extent that I longer feel the state of bliss that I used to have during my abstinence streaks(i now recognise they were the best period of my Buddhist training) P.S: if possible, do explain in detail how to inculcate "sila" in my practice, because @Dhammadhatu mentioned that a proper practitioner has to practice three methods of lust eradication (I have attained mastery over the other two).

Do you have any suggestion on how to view the *act* of sexual intercourse objectively? For example, when we view a lady, we view her as a composite of flesh, bones, feces, pus, joint oil, etc. Similarly in which way can we address sex neutrally without labelling it as good or bad? This is because I have learnt to remove my lust for the human flesh, but not for the sexual act. Is there any thought based method using which I can achieve this feat? Similarly while using urge surfing, when a lustful desire comes up I repeat in my mind "pleasure, pleasure" -- similarly how can I combat a desire to have sex through this technique as I am on a period of abstinence?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ Fascinating read, and I wondered what the wisdom of the crowd was on how closely they thought this notion fit with the principles of Buddhism, most notably the idea of reality being an illusion, and the liberation of ourselves from the chains of perception?