It often seems that ultimate reality is only available in the absence of thought, yet interactions, work and daily functioning requires thought. How does one curb thought when it is uncertain as to whether there is utility in the thought and that it is necessary to follow that thought to achieve something? Wouldn't this mean that ultimate reality can't be accomplished?

It is said that ultimate reality is only truly experienced at the point of the mind ceasing to identify and add its mental 'knowing' to any given phenomenon. How does one practically enter into the space of seeing something with the fresh curiosity of not entirely knowing what it is? I notice that it is very difficult to *see* anything at all. Immediately meaning is assigned as to what something or someone is - their behaviours, their familiarity, what might be expected - and then my reality seems dull. Is there a pragmatic practice that can guide me back to the authentic, unlabeled unknown?

There's a question regarding the Dhamma that I really wish to rectify and clear up with you and that's regarding the suicide cases of Channa, Vakkali and Godhika - When I first came across these cases, I was really disappointed and discouraged to practice the Dhamma because I saw Dhamma as the way to prevent people from committing such acts in the first place, but if by practicing the path of Dhamma and reaching Arahant stage and this is a possible blameless result, I became very disillusioned and anxious over the path, moreover hearing the cases of Bhikkhu Samahita and Bikkhu Nanavira also fuelled this, creating a fear that this may be a possible outcome of developing the path. My mental clarity and wellbeing plummeted since hearing these cases, since it raised a lot of doubts and confusions, esp because Dhamma used to be something that gave me hope and is foundational to me, but now there's a lingering sense of hopelessness if this is a possible result of the practice. When I ignore this topic I feel good again, but when it resurfaces again to my mind I feel quite hopeless and anxious again, I know there's so many people who have heard of these cases and who most certainly haven't responded to these cases adversely and in a negative way, so my question is, in light of such cases what is the best way that one should view/understand such cases so that one's own practice and wellbeing isn't affected and that one can continue to practice the path with security, hope, joy, contentment and composure, and walk the path correctly without falling into wrong-views? The ways I have tried to understand and view such cases is that they were cases of euthanasia and since they are highly debated as to whether those 3 monks were arahants before or after they committed suicide, I have realised it is better to instead focus on the 10 Great Disciples of the Buddha who embodied the Dhamma to a greater extent such as Arahant's Mahakassapa, Sariputta, Moggalana, Subhuti, Rahula etc, and hence are the best role-models for one walking the path, Sariputta in fact says "The Teacher has been served by me; the Awakened One’s bidding, done; 70 the heavy load, laid down; the guide to becoming, uprooted. And the goal for which I went forth from home life into homelessness I’ve reached: the end of all fetters. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time as a worker his wage. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time, mindful, alert." This quote is what has personally given me hope that those cases of Suicide are from non-Arahant monks - and thus I have learned to place my faith again by discarding these controversies, and listening to the Dhamma of every monk who have talked on this manner, who have all labelled it is as an akusal (unskilful deed) that must be removed from the mind. I feel like I've answered my own question in many respects, but I still would love to hear another Dhamma practitioner's perspective on this, so that I can reach a more holistic and objective understanding on how to move forward and best navigate myself through these knots & controversies in the Dhamma and not fall into wrong-views. Thank-you so much for taking the time to read this post, I really sincerely appreciate it.

Not having a quality, not seeing a quality in oneself, people get annoyed, even angry -- and use 1001 excuses to escape the first training. Now, one who is stingy and not even willing to master it, can such a person expect to be able to grow in Dhamma? Could he even understand teachings a little in right way, and open to the next step, i.e. right moral virtue? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining binding here, but for an exit for debt)*

Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa. Even though it may at first hand appear to be a shallow subject and inquiry, I happen to find it of relevance to the practice and wondered about it. How prevalent was the Buddha's smiling ? As I was starting to read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "The Buddha Smiles ", it is stated : > The Pali Canon has a reputation for being humorless. And it’s easy to > see why. In some of its passages, the Buddha seems to regard humor in > a bad light. For instance, in the Wailing Discourse (AN 3:107) he > refers to “laughing excessively, showing one’s teeth,” as a form of > childishness, and counsels that a monk, when feeling joy in the > Dhamma, should simply smile. His instructions to Rāhula in MN 61 note > that one shouldn’t tell a deliberate lie, “even in jest.” A passage in > the Vinaya (Sk 51) tells of a monk, formerly an actor, who made a joke > about the Saṅgha. The Buddha, in response, made it an offense for a > monk to tell a joke not only about the Saṅgha, but also about the > Buddha or Dhamma. > > There is also the famous verse in the Dhp 146 that seems aimed at > squelching all forms of merriment: > > "What laughter, why joy, when constantly aflame? Enveloped in darkness, > don’t you look for a lamp?" > > **And then there’s the fact that the Buddha himself rarely smiles in the > Canon, and when he does, the reasons for his smile are never > hilarious.** (the emphasize in the quoted passages is a making of mine) Yet, I started to also read Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha taught" in which I can read the following : > The Buddha was never melancholy or gloomy. He was described by his > contemporaries as **‘ever-smiling’ (mihitapubbamgama)**. In Buddhist > painting and sculpture the Buddha is always represented with a > countenance happy, serene, contented and compassionate. There seems to be a divergence in the two quoted passages as to whether he was "ever-smiling" or only in rare occasions. In Bhante Vimalaramsi's teaching the act of smiling within one's practice is quite present yet I cannot recall from what I read in the suttas the mentioning of smiling. I'd appreciate learning more about it. (If such a question is indeed irrelevant please kindly let me know and I'll delete the question). With metta.

Sometimes some visual or auditory sense perception gives the taste of no-self. Like, the ego dissolves for a moment and you feel tremendous oneness with existence. For e.g. while looking at the sunset or the night sky, or listening to the rain. But such states don't last for long. So just want to understand what might be happening. I think what happens is that you perceive but there is no reification, but that is what I think. Is it possible to have perception without reification? And is this state the same as "***Yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana***"

Sampajana is observing mental object(dharma) and associated perception and feeling.and its part of all 4 foundation. It seems there are two different types of dhamma.One is for Sampajana and other is for dhammanupassana. So what is the dhamma in dhammanupassana and what is dhamma in sampajana.

If I'm remembering right, in a previous life of the Buddha, because dharma teachings were so rare at that time, a being offered to give a teaching, but only if he sacrificed his life to this being. What is the text and reference for this?

Does any authentic Buddhist scripture mentions the Saraswathi River? If yes where and what does it say? Saraswathi river is an ancient Indian river mentioned widely across all Indian scriptures but it's dating is debated. We know that Buddha lived around 6th century BC, if Saraswathi river is mentioned then we can be of some certainty that the river flowed, however sparsely around 6th century BC. Refer

There was an incident in the 50s, a monk named [Ñāṇavīra Thera](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanavira_Thera) commited suicide, he was believed to be a stream enterer and was suffering from amoebiasis. So I'm curious to know, if someone knows for sure that he's become a stream enterer (or beyond) and doesn't desire to live anymore, can he decide to commit suicide?

Did any contemporaries/students of the historical Buddha achieve "full enlightenment" before he passed away?

During practice of meditation experience there are thoughts that can't be noticed. But they stop on their own and later they appear to show up less and less. The thoughts were less wondering with the practice. Is this due to obsessive defilment become less? In what stage this is experienced?

Doubt (Vicikitsa) is one of the five hindrances to progress to meditation. I searched for the hindrance of doubt, and as I understand it is the 'doubt in Buddha, his attainment and the Dhamma he taught'. I also tried reading about the 'ten fetters', but none of it mentions countering self-doubt. I mean, the thoughts go in this way, > I have been unsuccessful in worldly matters, I was unsuccessful in > getting 'this and that', I couldn't fulfill the expectations I > had...then how do you expect to succeed in attaining Nirvana...If you > failed in samsaric life, then...so and so... How does one counter this negative chatter and some kind of predictive reasoning?

I was wondering if seeing flickering lights during meditation meant anything. My eyes had been closed for about 15 minutes. I would not say I was in a deep meditative state. The room was dark already and the blinds were down. At the beginning of my session I had seen points of light converging on a point. When I try to focus my eyes on the pattern, the shape changes or disappears; I’m not sure which. This doesn’t happen when my eyes are open. I’ve been meditating for a couple of years for about 10-20 minutes a day but never have felt like I was a good meditator. My mind usually wanders when I try to focus on my breath. In the past I have felt like my whole body has become stone during meditation but the flickering lights is something new. Was wondering if anybody has ever had that experience or knew if it meant anything. My guess is that I’m not supposed to pay attention to things like that.

I think the co-worker fighting is normal here: (YouTube) Horrifying office fight (Leaked video) . It happened to me as well quite a few times with different bosses. How to handle in this scenario in Buddhism? It's related to this previous post: Dealing with Anger and Criticism . But that does not directly answer my question. Some solutions may take a 500 lives to practice too such as master in patience as story of Buddha himself so minimum is 500 lives. The situation may could lead to continuous karma such as injury, unhappiness in the company or even death in some cases. We just have few seconds of thoughts in this event of karma. Any other quick guide? I tried these quite useful. Assume the "boss" is aggressive and unreasonable type 1. Personal message or personal discussion with the boss before the karma happens. i.e. if u start to scream like the other day, then how to manage ya. I can't talk properly when being screamed. 2. Can we talk about this in an hour time later ? Or just walk out of the place by saying "I need some fresh air". This tip eventually given from #1 above. Another solution provided in minute 2:03 of (YouTube) 4 Types of Workplace Bullies , for #1 screamer: she said can we have discussion in a respectful way. What if the boss said "No! get the F out of here?" and continue screaming?

In this question , we found the metaphorical use of the term "the world", different from its ordinary everyday meaning. Similarly, the sutta SN 35.151 below talks about living the holy life without students and teachers, as well as living the holy life with students and teachers. A deeper look into the elaboration by the Buddha seems to indicate that "has students" and "has teacher" are metaphors. What do these metaphors mean? And what is the difference between "has students" and "has teacher" in this case? Why are they differentiated into two different things? > “Bhikkhus, this holy life is lived without students and without a > teacher. A bhikkhu who has students and a teacher dwells in suffering, > not in comfort. A bhikkhu who has no students and no teacher dwells > happily, in comfort. > > “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu who has students and a teacher > dwell in suffering, not in comfort? Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu has > seen a form with the eye, there arise in him evil unwholesome states, > memories and intentions connected with the fetters. They dwell within > him. Since those evil unwholesome states dwell within him, he is > called ‘one who has students.’ They assail him. Since evil unwholesome > states assail him, he is called ‘one who has a teacher.’ > > “Further, when a bhikkhu has heard a sound with the ear … cognized a > mental phenomenon with the mind … he is called ‘one who has a > teacher.’ > > “It is in this way that a bhikkhu who has students and a teacher > dwells in suffering, not in comfort. > > “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu who has no students and no teacher > dwell happily, in comfort? Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu has seen a > form with the eye, there do not arise in him evil unwholesome states, > memories and intentions connected with the fetters. They do not dwell > within him. Since those evil unwholesome states do not dwell within > him, he is called ‘one who has no students.’ They do not assail him. > Since evil unwholesome states do not assail him, he is called ‘one who > has no teacher.’ > > “Further, when a bhikkhu has heard a sound with the ear … cognized a > mental phenomenon with the mind … he is called ‘one who has no > teacher.’ > > “It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu who has no students and > no teacher dwells happily, in comfort. > SN 35.151

I have a friend who is in/with the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) and she states the importance of relying upon a spiritual guide. I know that this meditation practice is a part of the Tibetan Lamrim practice. What I ask is who created this "necessity" or concept in Buddhism? This seems to me that it completely contradicts the Buddhas teaching! From the mahaparinibbana sutta : > "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto > yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your > island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge. There is more to that sutta but I do not want to link massive paragraphs. While conventionally we need teachers to teach us things. We even had a teacher, our parents, teach us how to bathe correctly! Though from my understanding in Buddhism, the Buddha IS the teacher! He IS the example and the dharma IS his teachings of the truth. So who taught this necessity for a teacher and to what degree is this a necessity? From my understanding only a Buddha is self realised, and arhant is a disciple so by definition an arhant has relied upon a teacher, but that teacher can specifically be Buddha, via the suttas.

When a person enters into Jhana (particularly 2nd onward): 1. What is he mindful of? 2. What kind of meta awareness or introspective awareness(Sampajānakārī) is there? Note: it says that the 2nd onward is without vitaka and vicara. So my doubt is, if there is no object of attention, then what is one mindful of? And what is one peripherally aware (Sampājano) about? Tripitaka, and even no person, is referring to "co-existence of mindfulness and Jhana". Am I missing something very obvious?

Existence, Consciousness, Bliss is described as Brahman by Vedanta but surely that only applies when viewed through the veil of Maya and experienced as the universe. As awareness/ consciousness is always "on", no matter of what state it's in then surely awareness/ consciousness would still experience non-existence, akin to our lack of any experience in deep sleep. Is Buddha Nature Vedanta's opposite of Brahman i.e. Non-Existence, Consciousness, Bliss? Knowing that existence arises from Buddha Nature, non-existence, is this why we start to grasp and cling to the dream of there being any existence at all? Not that there is nothing but that there are no-things, no names or forms, no self, just awareness/ consciousness?

What exactly is the anatomy of a Desire and why does it have such a potent effect on our psyche and life? Is it a ***thought*** of wanting something we don't have, but then we have so many thoughts about so many things? Is it a ***feeling*** of missing something or something being wrong in the present moment, but then we have so many other feelings? Is it a mental reaction, or ***perception*** of thought and feeling? Is it some mental energy illumined by ***consciousness***? Or is it will want? The Buddha went as far as saying, ***taṇhā*** ("craving, desire or attachment") is the cause of suffering. I want to understand what is this as a phenomenon?