In [this comment](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51562/was-the-buddha-neutral-on-self-centredness-or-selfishness#comment84938_51575) it was pointed out as per [AN 4:95](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_95.html) that one who practises solely for one’s benefits is better than one who practises solely for others’ benefits. While the best of the 4 types of individuals is those who practise for theirs and others’ benefits. It seems strange that a selfless and altruistic intention is seen as lower and less refined than a selfish one by the Buddha. This [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28527/if-you-cannot-can-save-others-then-why-is-your-practice-more-worthy-than-anythin/28658#28658) proposed possible reasons why type 3 (solely for oneself) is better than type 2 (solely for others). In short, by practising for oneself, the individual indirectly confer protection to others as well as to oneself. But won’t the same effect be achieved with type 2? Is this right or is there something else? By logical extension from the above, if one is practising for oneself and others there should be additional benefits as this type is the best of all according to the Buddha. Are there additional advantages and what are they? The last question is somewhat related to [an earlier post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51562/was-the-buddha-neutral-on-self-centredness-or-selfishness) . If intentions are not to be judged on the basis of selfishness versus selflessness, what is the proper Buddhist criteria for deciding if an intention is noble/refine versus ignoble/base? Any insight is much appreciated.

I have a two-part question. One is related to personal practice and the other is scriptural or theoretical. I'll lay down a concise personal background for the sake of clarity. I am an irregular practitioner of Vipassana. I have finished 3 Vipassana retreats (Goenka tradition). I try to meditate for 2 hours a day most days. I also attempt walking and sleeping meditation as much as I can at times when I'm not formally meditating. **Question 1** It had been difficult for me to establish equanimity in body scanning since i was getting distracted too often. So I allowed myself to indulge in just doing anapana sati (samatha meditation). While I thought I was just doing anapana sati, I probably unconsciously was doing insight meditation too by using the nostrils as the object (I'm not sure if that's what it is, please correct me if I'm wrong). I would try to attain equanimity towards the sensations within my nostrils. My breath would increase pace when i would fail to get the sensation. I would then try to slow it down to natural pace which is super subtle, by attempting to be equanimous about the CURRENT sensations and eliminating all cravings. When i would succeed, the breathing would become too subtle, too short, too sharp and too fast to notice and yet I'd be effortlessly noticing it without affecting the pace of the breath. At this point I would experience the below mentioned state. I'm not sure if this state is the first jhana or not but it's the most significant experience I've had as of yet while formally meditating. It has following characteristics: 1. a feeling that breathing (the area of nostrils) is the handle through which the instrument of my whole body is being held with 2. a uniform sense of numbness throughout the body 3. a steady awareness of the non-uniform subtle sensations on the body yet simultaneously uniform and unbroken sense of equanimity towards all of the sensations 4. the feeling of "MY body" being retracted/sinking within the objective body as if the ME is far away from the surface of the body 5. a mild pleasure arising from the realization of the momentary freedom from surface sensations Note: I've experienced this state multiple times but usually when it occurs, i get taken by surprise and either get too excited about it or anxious about the possibility of it ending, in both cases it actually does end up terminating the state. **Q: Is this any of the rupa jhanas or am I just experiencing normal precursor stages before entering the first jhana?** **Question 2** I've been obsessively delving into Buddhist literature through various PDFs, forums such as this and meditation related subreddits as of late. I haven't formally studied the canon. So please forgive my ignorance. I read somewhere (I don't recall where) that if one progresses through the arupa Jhanas (Samadhi) without making any progress in the insight (Panna) then after death, the citta is reborn in the formless realm (arupa loka) and has to stay there for a long, long time until the pleasant sankharas run out after which one returns to the material realm whence one can continue the journey towards liberation through insight practice.   **Q: is it true that too much progress in Samadhi and little progress in Panna can lead to rebirth in arupa/deva/brahma loka which would actually delay the progress towards liberation? if it's true, then how farther would it be safe to progress in jhanas to secure rebirth in human realm so that one can keep working towards nibbana?**   Thank you for your patience! Much metta!

What is the connection between time and impermanence ? Are they different terms for the same thing ? I heard this from philosopher, "*Nibbana is like a timeless space*".

I'm soon getting my wisdom teeth removed. Like always, I don't plan on using any anesthesia for the procedure - the pain is probably going to be excruciating, like always. So how can I use it as a meditation object for doing insight meditation? The logic behind it would be that my mind would be entirely hyperfixated on a single sensation, distractions subsiding completely due to the lack of spontaneous mind moments caused by other sensations. Firstly I plan on investigating on how my mind reacts to pain, constantly self-reflecting on all the intricate mind mechanisms related to it. This would prove insightful in getting my mind to give up resistance to the pain, which is something that would be practically impossible for me to do at an intrinsic, fundamental level, but somewhat possible to accomplish at a concious level. Afterwards, I plan on investigating The Three Characteristics directly in the sensations I'm experiencing related to pain. This, for me, is the most confusing part of insight meditation. How exactly does one notice The Three Characteristics in sensations? How are you supposed to realize that everything is transient and ephemeral when the pain you're experiencing is excruciatingly constant? How are you supposed to meditate upon no-self and unsatisfactoriness? This question isn't limited to the context of the post. I'm genuinely confused about what they mean, and I would be deeply grateful to anyone who could answer my questions.

I've heard and read it said many times about realising or having insight that mind states, thoughts, emotions etc "are not you because they arise and pass". Its always said as if its some kind of profound understanding but idk isn't it obvious they aren't you? They are happening to a sense of you. Noone actually thinks they are their thoughts. They think they are a brain having thoughts. What am I missing here?

When I meditate after maybe 30 minutes I notice a shift and the meditation feels like suddenly not as much or no effort is required. It’s a nice calm feeling. Thoughts are almost non existent. Usually I just continue to sit and note whatever comes to my attention. Sometimes it’s boredom so I also note that. Is there something else I need to do to deepen the meditation further or should I just keep noticing and letting go?

Over the years I observed in myself and others a tendency to get stuck (to be biased) in our views, thoughts and behaviour. This appears to be the result of [cognitive biases in the mind](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cognitive-bias-2794963) resulting in adverse effects to ourselves and others as the examples below illustrate: **Case 1:** Someone with end stage renal failure and had to undergo a graft placement in her arm to prepare her for haemodialysis. The first operation failed as there was non-stop bleeding and the surgeon re-do the surgery but that too failed with the same issue. A third attempt was scheduled but the surgeon warned if that fails too then the patient is considered unsuitable for haemodialysis. The patient’s daughter who was not medically trained, decided to check the daily medication the hospital was giving her mother and noticed that she was still on aspirin, a known anti-coagulant. Luckily, the discovery turned things around swiftly. **Case 2:** Years ago there was a shipping accident involving a ferry ship called [MV Sewol in South Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol) . The tragedy would have been avoided if steps were taken to improve safety but those in charge assumed that it was business as usual. **Case 3:** Analysts believed the [current war between Ukraine and Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine) arose due an overconfident Russia miscalculating [its military capabilities](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2022/07/20/commentary/world-commentary/putin-ukraine-miscalculation/) and assuming it will be another “Crimea-like” walk in the park. My question are as follows: 1. What could be the cause(s) for such biases from the perspective of Buddhism? 2. From Buddhist teachings, what can be done to reduce or stop such biases? Please answer freely from any insights you may have. I believe this is a problem that has grave consequences to the world with its effects greatly magnified with modern technology. Therefore, any contribution or idea would be appreciated. **Appendix (I)** Some time back, I came across a study that linked [mindfulness practice and its positive effects on cognitive biases](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00712-1) . As it is popularly known, [mindfulness practice has its roots in Buddhism](https://web.northeastern.edu/matthewnisbet/2017/05/24/the-mindfulness-movement-how-a-buddhist-practice-evolved-into-a-scientific-approach-to-life/) . Thus, I suspect Buddhism compared to other religions may be able to suggest cause(s) and solution(s) to this problem which is plaguing us and the world.

As the question states, is there a clear way to distinguish the pair? I understand that stopping one's meditation practice causes the affects of the dukka nana to end. Are there any other signs? Love and gratitude

I have been doing buddhist practices and ***trying*** to keep the precepts for a few months, after an intensive retreat. I have been noticing recently that I have automatically started to avoid looking at any women that are potentially attractive. This is almost instinctive and I go out of my way to avoid looking at them as much as possible. Also, I can see that I do not find most women attractive now, like in the sense of having that primal urge to have sex with them. Instead there is a subtle judgement like 'Hey, she looks pretty' but mostly without any deeper lust. While watching porn (I do it compulsively unfortunately) I have just a few moments of actual lust during the whole session, and for the most part, even the prettiest women there have stopped appealing sexually to me. But there are some women though, in real life, for who I am like "MY GOD she is too beautiful!" and I feel that strong sexual urge (and suffering along with it) unlike with all others. I want to ask, is this normal and expected part of the practice? Not that I am complaining - I am pretty happy with it tbh coz when I don't jerk off for a few days I feel my mind stronger, calmer, happier and have energy to get stuff done. I am worried though if my avoidance is rooted in aversion to feel the sexual urge and the suffering? If this is indeed good, are there any other practical tips (other than meditation) on how to take this further - to remove all lust- and the slavery that it carries? Kindly give your insights. Please do not hold back on technical aspects, give me as accurate and precise answer as possible as I understand the formal terminology of the sutras etc. Any responses are appreciated. Thank you

I've been recently observing that I am surrounded by a lot of narcissistic people which include all kinds of relationships friends, family, coworkers and acquaintances. Having been surrounded by these people I believe I have developed a relatively weak ego/low self-esteem over time -which of course translates to suffering. I also have been doing some meditation related work which has made me stronger/confident and also I believe it is the reason I've been recently having clashes/fights with these kind of people. Thus I wanted to understand narcissism from a deeper perspective of Dhamma. Modern psychology has it already in the dark triad personality traits, namely, narcissism, machiavellism and psychopathy. I watched and analyzed some videos from Jordan Peterson and some others; but I am shocked to find such a surprising lack of material and insights about this phenomenon from any good spiritual gurus, and even here on forums like stack-exchange, reddit etc. Thus I am making this post! So I would like to plead here - kindly contribute any deep/thorough analysis of this trait both from classical sutras perspective and from your own understanding: giving arguments/analogies/reasonings for any assertions. Possibly include the following topics - deconstructing what narcissism actually is, what kind of mental states and defilements are involved, how to overcome those as a person who has narcissism and how to minimize the bad karma recieved while dealing with such people. It may be a little bit of effort to write up properly, but I believe you sharing such valuable insights will be very helpful - for both people like me who have to deal with narcissistic people and also for others who want to fix their own narcissism and corresponding defilements. If anyone does contribute here, your efforts and insights are greatly appreciated, Thank you!

Even though I am Catholic, I am discovering the Truth of the existence of karma through personal experience in my own spiritual journey. There is a certain habitual sin that I am struggling with. After reading the Buddha's teaching, he said that when habitual sin repeats, it is because there is a pattern of karma that comes together under very specific logical conditions (conditions that can be numbered 1, 2, 3) to result in you making the choice to sin. What strategies does the Buddha offer to: 1. Loosen this bad karma 2. Discover the logical conditions that cause this sin to repeat 3. Change the context so that the logical conditions causing this sin no longer arise?

> In the same way, my friend, purity in terms of virtue is simply for the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total Unbinding through lack of clinging. > [MN 24](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.024.than.html) Why is the purification of by overcoming doubt i.e purification leading to Stream Entry not already the doing the next two of the purifications subsequent to it? (excluding the purification leading to Nibāna without clinging). Why are those other two purifications needed before stream entry? Surely if one has purified any one of these three it would imply the the other two?

After right concentration, how does right view change? Do you become completely convinced by right view, or was that already the case? Is right view in some other sense more pervasive? Or is it just as it was, and all that's changed is you have a deeper insight (and if so in what way?)? I've tagged this Theravada, but only because its path is easier to break down into right view etc., so welcome an answer from any tradition.

For me, until recently, an insight was this: having been mindful of some phenomenon that I contemplated, I then have a spontaneous idea about that phenomenon. For example, I might be contemplating suffering and then get a cognitive insight, a thought, comprehending and summarizing suffering and its nature. Is this what is meant by insight in Buddhism? I have been considering that maybe Buddhism means insight in an altogether different way. I know that in insight meditation, in vipassana, one examines specifically non-self, suffering and impermanence. But: 1. Is there such a thing in Buddhism as *general* insight, that is an insight into any type of phenomenon? 2. And as I mentioned, is there in Buddhism some other type of insight than a conceptual thought, an insight that might require mere awareness *without* thought?

I have been practicing Vipassana in S.N. Goenka's lineage for two years. I have read some of Mahasi's and Webu's Sayadaw writings as well. The biggest hindrance I've thus come across is Doubt. Every now and then I find myself full of questions regarding the technique, especifically about the way it works in pavimenting the path to liberation. I would like some pretty direct answers to questions as... 1. 'why noting and paying attention to the movement of the stomach helps creating understanding' or 2. 'how not reacting to sensations throught the body leads to insight' or 3. 'how restraint of the senses and mindfulness leads to liberation' 4. etc. I'm aware that I may have read satisfactory answers to those questions in the past. But I really would like to get something directand easy to come back to, instead of reading full long texts full of heavy explanations. Thanks.

Isn't everything in this world equal in value? Can we say that the value of a human being is greater than the dust?

In Maha-parinibbana Sutta Buddha has said: > "there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the > Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who > keeps some things back." however, in Simsapa Sutta Buddha says: > "there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to > you. What I have revealed to you is only a little." Do we have any knowledge about the teaching that he has not revealed to us? The commentary on accesstoinsight writes, "This famous saying has been taken to justify the doctrines of various Mahaayaana schools, Theosophy and so on." Could that be the teaching of tantra? I hope there's some good insight here.

One of the main station of insight before stream entry is _bhanga-ñāṇa_. In some explanations this seems to be subdivided further into 1st (paṭhama) and 2nd (dutiya) _bhanga-ñāṇa_ ("knowledge of dissolution"). What is the difference between them?

How can I be happy at other's happiness ? How can I develop my willingness to see others' being happy ? If I define a happiness level, scale of 0 to 100 about being happy at others' happiness, I think I'm at the 25-50 level. How can I promote it to 90-100 level ? Sometimes, I do loving-kindness meditation. But I'm looking for some kind of understanding / wisdom about being happy ? How can this help in path to the enlightenment ? Or Should I do loving-kindness meditation to gain that wisdom ?

Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless. There is no joy in eating, sleeping, working, reading, entertainment, social media, relationships, or sexual pleasures. I don't know why I am doing all this? Maybe just for the sake of it. But surely all the glamour and attraction in the above things is very superficial. The ego is never satisfied. So what is the use of doing all this? I am trying to find something which never desires, is always satisfied, is Deep and meaningful. Or should I work on making these superficial things satisfying? I feel lost in this material world. Suffering more than I enjoyed. Suddenly everything seems bull shit. Desires have become a pain in the ass, making me do the things I don't want to do, at least I don't feel satisfied after doing them. Show the question comes up again, why am I doing these things? I would very much like to eliminate all this things in my life but they are a compulsion to human life. Other people are craving these things and satisfying themselves but for me all this has become stupidity. And on the other side I feel a lot of freedom of choice. And even after realising this I can't seem to get out of this rut. What do I do?