I am going for minor operation. Should I ask for anesthesia or do without it(seeing the unpleasant sensation equanimously) ? And when I have orgasm or very tasty food it's very difficult to see the sensation equanimously. What to do? Any tips to remain in equanimity in orgasm ?(too difficult!) Isn't anesthesia same as alcohol ? (numb your consciousness )

I practice Vipassana meditation and am currently going through a period of anhedonia and I am trying to understand if my depression is a sankhara or if it is simply a result of my mind reacting and not being equanimous in my everyday life. While practicing Vipassana I don't have a problem following the instructions or have an overly difficult time practicing equanimity so it doesn't make sense that I would be able to cause that much suffering in my every day life because of my reactivity. But then if it's not my mind reacting to something it means it has simply arisen for whatever cause. I find it difficult to navigate the personal accountability of what one experiences (I caused my depression by not living a fulfilling life, not providing for my needs etc) and my depression simply being caused by the inescapable suffering of life and/or sankharas. Because then it does mean that we can control our well being by changing something outside of ourselves which contradicts the idea that we are 100% responsible for the pain we carry, but that's not true is it? We are hurt and traumatised by the world and relationships and while we then have responsibility to not generate more suffering for ourselves we didn't cause the harm that was done to us in the first place which would mean that certain pain and sadness that we carry does not come from us. I realise that ultimately, whether our suffering comes from a reaction, a sankhara or from wherever else the procedure of taking care of and approaching the suffering will be by the same technique according to Vipassana, namely through observing the sensations and by practicing equanimity. But is that enough? How do you know if you need to change things in your life to be able to be well? If you practice you might feel a sense of relief and a little more clarity but what if that's not enough to actually feel a sense of meaningfulness and a desire to take action, to do things? Hope this made sense, if anyone has any insight they'd like to share around this topic I'd be deeply appreciative, thank you.

The following story comes in Udana 1.8 . It is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son." The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman. We can say that the monk displayed equanimity (upekkha), but then seemed to lack compassion (karuna). In the essay entitled "Toward a Threshold of Understanding ", Bhikkhu Bodhi discusses this: > The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably > upekkha. **The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference > in the sense of unconcern for others.** As a spiritual virtue, upekkha > means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. > It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner > equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, > praise and blame, pleasure and pain. **Upekkha is freedom from all > points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of > the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the > well-being of one's fellow human beings.** True equanimity is the > pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the > "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic > joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the > preceding three, but perfects and consummates them. How do we interpret the actions (or non-actions) of Sanghamaji? Did he lack compassion? Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of suffering? The sutta does not say if he ensured that the welfare of his wife and son is taken care of, before leaving the lay life of a householder.

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?

This is a practice-related question. In Buddhism the goal is to not suffer, but empathy seems to mean suffering because someone else is suffering. In several places in the Pali Canon and elsewhere, compassion, loving-kindness, and sympathetic joy are mentioned, but so is equanimity. [Here](Https://suttacentral.net/vb13/en/thittila) is an instance. I assume this means one should feel free from malice towards someone while also being unpained by this, but how does one deal with the wrong empathy that emerges, which is an energetic pull towards even codependency (If I were to say it in psychological terms)? In the moment, empathy seems very blinding, so how does one extricate from it without losing the non-violence, happiness, and positive feelings? It seems from the fetter view that empathy is at least one of the 3 forms of craving, or perhaps it is some form of restlessness. I wonder if there is an antidote for this particular complex.

I am undergoing a strange period during vipassana meditation (sn goenka guruji tradition). When I am scanning my body there is an extreme stiffness that travels almost throughout the body as my attention shifts and stays in that body part till my attention stays. My body part visibly gets tensed while this happens. e.g. foot and toes are all visibly tense and toes are bent. In the core of the body I have slightly different stiffness experience. I feel like stiffness wants to rise through the spine and gets stuck in multiple spots and puts lot of pressure on that part as if trying to break away. But then I realize I am not breathing as core moves if i breathe and i am stuck focusing on this rising stiffness. If I breathe at this stage, I get out of this and then stiffness goes away and I stop feeling this and other sensations in my body for sometime. Then as I start scanning again the same stiffness comes back. If I don't breathe this goes till neck and throat region gets stuck in neck and leaves me in pain afterwards. I am assuming this is usual sankhara coming and trying to observe with equanimity but unlike other sensations that come and go after observation, this one is increasingly capturing my entire body part by part. This has been happening for last one week. Not sure if I am doing something wrong.

I'm wondering about older sources for some of what Ven. Nyanaponika Thera says in this essay: - [The Four Sublime States: Contemplations on Love, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html) . For some of the claims, it's easy for me to realize what older text he's referencing - for instance his claims about why they are called sublime you can trace to Vism. IX 105. But specifically for his claims about how the four sublime abidings all suffuse each other, I'm having a harder time thinking of an older reference. Anyone know one? Or should these be categorized as his own claims? The passages I'm thinking of are these ones: > "How, then, do these four sublime states pervade and suffuse each > other? > > Unbounded love guards compassion against turning into partiality, > prevents it from making discriminations by selecting and excluding and > thus protects it from falling into partiality or aversion against the > excluded side. > > Love imparts to equanimity its selflessness, its boundless nature and > even its fervor. For fervor, too, transformed and controlled, is part > of perfect equanimity, strengthening its power of keen penetration and > wise restraint. > > Compassion prevents love and sympathetic joy from forgetting that, > while both are enjoying or giving temporary and limited happiness, > there still exist at that time most dreadful states of suffering in > the world. It reminds them that their happiness coexists with > measureless misery, perhaps at the next doorstep. It is a reminder to > love and sympathetic joy that there is more suffering in the world > than they are able to mitigate; that, after the effect of such > mitigation has vanished, sorrow and pain are sure to arise anew until > suffering is uprooted entirely at the attainment of Nibbana." etc.

It seems clear to me that that which is aware of sadness, anger, or anxiety is not sad, angry, or anxious. But shouldn't this work the other way as well? Wouldn't this mean that that which is aware of happiness or joy is not happy or joyful? It feels like by this logic that mindfulness, when applied to positive states, nullifies them or diminishes them and that one wouldn't want to do this. If mindfulness diminishes the power of negative emotions wouldn't it diminish the power of positive ones as well? I'm not sure how this is desirable. What exactly am I missing?

Beyond householder-equanimity is recluse-equanimity. Yet - equanimity being the highest factor of the factors for awakening - does this factor then result in a further kind of equanimity, or does equanimity fade into something else, once highest, aim, is reached? What's higher than equanimity? And where and how could the stages of equanimity be mapped on the ten-fold path?

MN 137 discusses the six sense fields. How can we understand lay equanimity with respect to the six sense fields? For sights, lay equanimity arises for an uneducated ordinary layperson but such equanimity does not transcend the sight, and that's why it's called lay equanimity - says the sutta. What does that mean? What is an example of lay equanimity? > And in this context what are the six kinds of lay equanimity? When > seeing a sight with the eye, equanimity arises for the uneducated > ordinary person—a foolish ordinary person who has not overcome their > limitations and the results of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. > Such equanimity does not transcend the sight. That’s why it’s called > lay equanimity. When hearing a sound with the ear … When smelling an > odor with the nose … When tasting a flavor with the tongue … When > feeling a touch with the body … When knowing a thought with the mind, > equanimity arises for the uneducated ordinary person—a foolish > ordinary person who has not overcome their limitations and the results > of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. Such equanimity does not > transcend the thought. That’s why it’s called lay equanimity. These > are the six kinds of lay equanimity. > MN 137

Is Upekṣā (equanimity) a certain kind of feeling which if attained, everyone will feel in a similar way, or its a kind of numbness to sensory input? From the wiki the definition of equanimity says > is a state of psychological stability and composure which is > undisturbed by experience of or exposure to emotions, pain, or other > phenomena It is not clear to me, as a Brahmavihara, is it a special kind of feeling, or it simply is maintaining calm composure in all circumstances,kind of indifference attitude, but this sounds like if practiced, is certain kind of numbness to sensory input, meaning, no matter what is the sensory input is, you stop or repress any kind of feeling that may arise.

The thirty-six states (6 x 6 classes of contact) to which beings are attached are described in Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta ; I have made a caricature while reading each state as below, states 1, 2, 4 & 5 are easy to understand, however, I'm straggling to clearly identify the two type of equanimity and how they differ. Quoted below is the definition given for each equanimity states in the Sutta, but it’s not clear to me how the foolish deluded householder equanimity is any different from the other. How do these two people react to a given situation? I will give an example for the householder equanimity and If possible please try to use the same situation to represent the state of the renunciation equanimity and if possible beyond renunciation equanimity (atammayata) in which there is no act of intention, not even the intention underlying equanimity is said to be present. For example, a householder loses his beloved son or a wife he could reason and say ‘I know I was only in love with a mortal and what has happened is natural’ and he remains calm without suffering. This equanimity, I take it, doesn’t go beyond form. With a wide open eye as I caricatured his state, he looks into pain and pleasure even death with equanimity without reasoning beyond form. Let them change he is just looking. Many thanks. > "And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity > that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill, > untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results > of action & who is blind to danger — sees a form with the eye. > Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called > household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile > sensations, & ideas.) > > "And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity > that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, > their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as > it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, > stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which > is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, > smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.) > > "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on > multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity > with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas: > this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming > from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity. > > "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on > singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the > infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the > infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of > nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent > on singleness.

What are the examples in ancient texts or in history when a trained Buddhist sustained their equanimity and well-being through torture, forced isolation or other unfavourable circumstances? Which tools given in Dhamma do you think would be useful if one had to survive, for example, through the years in prison? Could it be possible to keep on the development of skilful qualities in places like this? Would you consider suicide as a solution?

*Question is grammatically similar to this question but different in content.* Apparently, Equanimity is not indifference but a feeling in itself. According to the Note at the bottom of Potaliya Sutta. ; > MN 137 (passage § 179 in The Wings to Awakening) identifies **"equanimity based on multiplicity" as equanimity with regard to forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations**. It identifies "equanimity based on singleness" as the four formless attainments. In the context of this sutta, however, the Commentary defines **equanimity based on singleness as the fourth jhana**, and this interpretation seems correct. Toward the end of this passage, the equanimity based on singleness functions as the basis for the three knowledges, a function that is normally filled by the fourth jhana. As I understand, there is Equanimity with regards to sense bases and one generated through Jhnana. My question is, **How to Cultivate this Equanimity wrt multiplicity? Will the one wrt Jhnana get cultivated by itself**? The Indriya-Bhavana sutta mentions it as **peaceful and exquisite**, does developing that feeling in face of changing circumstances account to equanimity?

I have been a practicioner of mindfulness and vipassana for a few years. I have felt that buddhism is at odds with striving towards professional success and ambition. Ambition and professional success inherently has elements of attachment and passion, which are at odds with the fundamental virtues of buddhism (such as equanimity). On one hand, I would like to be my best self in professional life and make significant contributions to my field, but when I have this mindset I experience negative emotions like insecurity, impatience. Do you think that these two things are at odds with each other and if not, why?

From the last few days i have been trying to meditate to generate equanimity. My question is simple: If i practice equanimity, compassion, loving kindness, forgiveness, there would always be people who would take advantage of that right? For instance if someone comes to steal from me, i should give him my belongings right? Like thats the Buddhist way right? Fighting and resisting is forbidden right? And he informs 10 other thieves about this kind man. How to be wise in this situation where you know people take advantage of your compassion, niceness?

Which suttas in the Pali Canon give flat out instructions for how to develop equanimity?

Namo Buddhaya. This sutta asks for development of 7 factors of enlightenment including Mindfulness and Equanimity. Development of Mindfulness is described in detail but I couldn't find any sutta describing development of Equanimity. My question is : Can you please suggest a sutta which describes how to develop Equanimity ?

- Are there any practices or habits that one can employ, either frequently or on a daily basis, to train one's mind to remain still and equanimous in the face of compulsive urges or cravings, without giving in to them / acting them out? - Can this skill be developed in a general sense, applicable to all types of urges/cravings, or does one need to train a different, tailored technique to handle each type of urge/craving individually?

For a layman who wants to overcome behavioral addictions (i.e. any "*addiction that involves a compulsion to engage in a rewarding non-drug-related behavior – sometimes called a natural reward*", such as food, sex, pornography, gambling, internet, video games, etc.): - Which meditation techniques are the most recommendable? - Additionally, given the fact that an average layman cannot afford going full-time monk, what would be a recommendable frequency (in terms of minutes/hours per day) to see palpable results in a reasonable time? Furthermore: - Is a single meditation technique enough to overcome behavioral addictions? Or would it better to practice multiple meditation techniques at the same time? Or maybe different meditation techniques for different situations? For instance, are there any special meditation techniques to handle strong, compulsive urges in the presence of addiction cues/triggers? Finally: - Is meditation as a whole enough, or would one need to complement it with other non-meditative practices or measures? For example, positive affirmations, hypnosis, or maybe going to a therapist, exercising, sleeping 8+ hours, etc. I'm just throwing some ideas around.