I've been practicing meditation and studying buddhism for years, and I've always been curious about *vipassana*, but I never knew how should I practice it, on what should I focus, etc. So my questions is: what do you recommend for someone who is starting *vipassana* meditation? How do I begin and how should I do it?

In theory, many ways of meditation have been given to stop cravings and aversion. What about practical life? During day to day life, it has often been seen and experienced as well that, "we tend to lean towards comfortablity", whether it be of body or brain. Let's take a basic example: one living in a rented house tend to go for a own-home(whenever possible).... even monks of modern era tend to go for own-kuti/monastery. For this one needs money. Reason being given is, "i feel more freedom inside my own-home instead of rented one". Another eg. : Using technologies, more resources for making life easy-going. Resaon being given as: we have less headaches, more respect, easy-flow of society. Even if i properly give time to analyze, realize, etc. bhlabhla, stay *disconnected* to this modernized life, there is definitely no need for me to ask this question! If one doesn't go for maintaining status, using hi-fi techs, spending money(either for dana purpose or for anything else..), ........ It's more likely to be 99.99% that such person would be physically and mentally **behind** from others. One simple solution came is:: live like a bpl(below poverty line) person but this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, decreasing their chances of learning dhamma. (If possible, kindly don't include advice for meditation to a freak and too-ignorants) i am more concerned into balancing the life(middle path for householders) such that both nearby ones and me can have less possible crave, more possible dhamma! **Edit::** Maybe, this answer is somewhat talking about balance in last 3 paragraphs. But it is also saying to re-engage in earning money to get approval of others.....getting approval is ok but how would money change someone's behaviour, confusing to me?

It seems that often what one has difficulty with in attempting to hold onto some thing is some other which competes. Can what is effortful in attention be seen as a non-clinging to that which we don't want to attend to? In other words can what is effortful in attention be thought of as an excess of attachment? As if we were something sticky; is what is effortful in rightful adhering (to what is attended to) to be a matter of nonattachment? edit: To put it in Buddhist language is the vāyāma of sati anupādāna.

Four Parts of the Mind 1. Vinnyana or Consciousness – 6 Vinnyanas. These include the consciousness that arises from the Eye, Ear, Tongue, Nose, Mind and Body. 2. Sanya or Perception – Function of this part of the mind is to recognize and evaluate. 3. Vedhana or Sensation – Function is to realize the sensation. 4. Sankhara or Reaction – Function is to react, to give fruit to the sensation. This is the volition of the mind. The 3 types of Sankharas include a) like line drawn on water b) like line drawn on sand on beach c) like line drawn on rock, deep line. My question which part of mind observes 3.Vedana/Sensation in VIPASSANA ? Is it 1.Vinnyana ? And how come one part of **mind**(the first part) is again **mind**?

Given that using the internet and its services, such as social networks and brokers, involves signing contracts, terms of service, policies, and so on, is it possible to use them without breaking the fourth precept? Indeed, most contracts are assumed to have been read and understood before signing. However, reading and understanding what is read can take dozens of hours in each case and requires considerable intellectual effort, even legal knowledge. Furthermore, these contracts often contain clauses that are difficult to comply with or even logically impossible. With the proliferation of these contracts, it becomes almost unmanageable unless one is willing to dedicate an excessive amount of time to them. So, how can we use these services without breaking the fourth precept?

In Buddhist philosophy, particularly in traditions like the Madhyamaka, the catuṣkoṭi (tetralemma) operates as a dialectical tool that rejects the four extremes of affirmation and negation (“is,” “is not,” “both,” “neither”) to demonstrate the emptiness (śūnyatā) of any inherent essence (svabhāva). But conversely, Advaita Vedānta employs a similar deconstructionist method, the neti neti (“not this, not this”) utilising it as an epistemic negation process in order to systematically exclude all contingent identifications such as body, senses, mind (manas), intellect (buddhi), and ego (ahaṅkāra) — to arrive at Ātman, the absolute self conceived as pure awareness, distinct from all phenomenal processes. From a Buddhist philosophical standpoint, can the catuṣkoṭi be coherently applied to the Vedāntic conception of Ātman—understood as pure awareness beyond mind,ego and intellect? Would such an analysis deconstruct this posited ultimate subject , or does the Vedāntic notion of Ātman represent a category that eludes Madhyamaka negation?

In the Dīgha Nikāya 15 (DN 15), the Mahānidāna Sutta, the Buddha outlines a a complex stratification of "seven stations of consciousness" and "two dimensions" > “Ānanda, there are these seven stations of consciousness and two > dimensions. Which seven? > > “There are **beings with multiplicity of body and multiplicity of > perception,4 such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the > lower realms. This is the first station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with multiplicity of body and singularity of > perception, such as the Devas of Brahmā’s Retinue generated by the > first (jhāna) and (some) beings in the four realms of deprivation.5 > This is the second station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with singularity of body and multiplicity of > perception, such as the Radiant Devas. This is the third station of > consciousness.** > > “There are **beings with singularity of body and singularity of > perception, such as the Beautiful Black Devas. This is the fourth > station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings who, with the complete transcending of perceptions > of (physical) form, with the disappearance of perceptions of > resistance, and not heeding perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) > ‘Infinite space,’ arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. > This is the fifth station of consciousness.** > > “There are **beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension > of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ > arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness.** **This is > the sixth station of consciousness.** > > “There are beings who, **with the complete transcending of the dimension > of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ > arrive at the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh station of > consciousness.** > > **“The dimension of non-percipient beings and, second, the dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception. [These are the two dimensions.]** ~ DN 15 Is the Buddha here describing subjective, internal states of consciousness that can be directly known in meditation, or externally existing cosmological realms that other beings inhabit? This ambiguity is especially pronounced in the case of the “dimension of infinite consciousness.” Is this to be understood as a temporary mental perception - an internal expansion of awareness beyond form - or does it point to a more ontological reality in which consciousness itself is experienced as boundless? If so, what does this imply about the nature of consciousness: is it something objectively infinite by nature, or is any perception of “infinite consciousness” merely a constructed meditative perception, still within the conditioned world, and thus ultimately impermanent?

I have constant chronic pain. Would really like to be rid of it. Is this considered a negative desire in Buddhism? I remember in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the Buddha stated that the second Noble Truth is "craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." I guess I interpreted the craving for non-becoming to apply to my desire for my pain to be gone.

Do we know any Zen teachers/masters that do not have Chinese origins and do not speak Chinese? For example English? P.S. I know that such type of logical questions are taken humorously in the zen culture, as it does not really matter but still my "small mind" is curious. Does one need to know Chinese in order to get to the heart of the teachings?

In AN 8.70 , the Buddha lists eight causes for an earthquake. The passages read as follows:- > Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one > side, and said to him, “Sir, that was a really big earthquake! That > was really a very big earthquake; awe-inspiring and hair-raising, and > thunder cracked the sky! **What’s the cause, what’s the reason for a > great earthquake?”** > > “Ānanda, **there are these eight causes and reasons for a great > earthquake**. What eight? > > **This great earth is established on water, the water is established on > air, and the air stands in space. At a time when a great wind blows, > it stirs the water, and the water stirs the earth. This is the first > cause and reason for a great earthquake.** > > Furthermore, there is an ascetic or brahmin with psychic power who has > achieved mastery of the mind, or a god who is mighty and powerful. > They’ve developed a limited perception of earth and a limitless > perception of water. They make the earth shake and rock and tremble. > This is the second cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the being intent on awakening passes away from the > host of joyful gods, he’s conceived in his mother’s belly, mindful and > aware. Then the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the third > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the being intent on awakening comes out of his > mother’s belly mindful and aware, the earth shakes and rocks and > trembles. This is the fourth cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One awakens to the supreme perfect > awakening, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the fifth > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One rolls forth the supreme Wheel of > Dhamma, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the sixth > cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One, mindful and aware, surrenders the > life force, the earth shakes and rocks and trembles. This is the > seventh cause and reason for a great earthquake. > > Furthermore, when the Realized One becomes fully extinguished in the > element of extinguishment with no residue, the earth shakes and rocks > and trembles. This is the eighth cause and reason for a great > earthquake. > > These are the eight causes and reasons for a great earthquake.” Seven of these eight causes are clearly supernatural (e.g., divine beings, psychic powers, events related to a Buddha) while the first and the only natural explanation of earth resting on water stirred by cosmic winds being the cause of earthquakes does not align with what we understand today as the geological and entirely naturalistic explanation of earthquakes. My question is:- How do Buddhists, especially those who identify with traditional or orthodox readings of the suttas understand these earthquake causes today? Do they:- - Reject the modern scientific understanding of earthquakes and accept the sutta’s description literally? - Interpret these causes allegorically or symbolically? If so, how? I’m curious how different Buddhist traditions (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, etc.) approach this apparent conflict between scripture and modern scientific understanding.

I want to work on the Koan,**'What was your original face before you were born'** and '**Who am I**',How do I go about it. Should I constantly ask myself this question? Should I write it down? How is the Koan practise done?

A few months ago I bought a four volume set of The Shobogenzo, translated by by Gudo Nishijima and Chodo Cross. In this set there was not only a translation of the Shobogenzo, but an interpretation of each chapter of the text in modern language. I found these interpretations extremely helpful in actually understanding the text, as a lot of the original language was quite obscure. Recently, I also picked up The Blue Cliff Record, translated by Thomas Cleary. However, in his text there are no direct interpretations of the chapters, and so I'm having trouble understanding some of them. I largely understand Zen itself, but the original language of The Blue Cliff Record often just doesn't seem to get to the point, or make that point clear. **So I'm wondering if any modern, English interpretations of The Blue Cliff Record exist?**

I often see the Abhidhamma referenced as a framework for interpreting the teachings of the suttas. However, opinions vary widely: some say it is essential for proper interpretation, while others argue that it is a later analytical system not required for understanding the early discourses. How exactly does the Abhidhamma function within Buddhist hermeneutics? Do canonical or commentarial texts explicitly state how the Abhidhamma should be used to interpret other teachings? And if yes How do traditional commentaries justify its authority? Furthermore Are there examples where Abhidhamma exegesis diverges from sutta usage? If so How do scholarly commentators resolve such differences?

Early Buddhist history shows a rapid diversification of viewpoints, lineages, and monastic communities, eventually producing schools such as Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mahāsāṃghika, and many others. What historical, doctrinal, social, or organizational factors contributed to this early schism? To what extent were these divisions driven by philosophical disagreements, regional spread, monastic discipline (Vinaya) issues, or broader political and cultural influences in ancient India?

As a lay person, I’d like to find resources online to practice phowa because of a lack of masters I can meet in person where I live. Are there any good resources on the internet to achieve phowa? And has anyone here done the phowa practice?

As per title. I read the English translation of the heart sutra recently.If Karma is part of the Dharma, or is the Dharma, does this mean that Karma is not created or destroyed, and it neither decreases or increase, according to the heart sutra?

In reading this answer to another question I came across this link which is seemingly a Tibetan Buddhist site proclaiming the following: > In Buddhism the two beings that are often confused with the Christian > concept of the devil, Yama and Mara, are also Bodhisattvas. Lord > Yama’s job is to make sure beings receive the appropriate karmic > retribution in the appropriate hell realm. Which strikes me as completely antithetical to Buddhism, the Dharma, the Bodhisattva way of life, and well in just about every sense wrong and even *dangerous* idea about how karma works. This is certainly never been taught to me in the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and I would be quite shocked if any of my teachers (in the lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama) accepted any of this. As a student of Tibetan Buddhism, but not specifically the Vajrayana I would like to know if there is any defense of this from the viewpoint of Vajrayana? Does anyone follow this way of thinking? Personally, I would file this under *don't believe everything you read purporting to be Buddha Dharma on the internet.* There are ignorant people out there making all kinds of bellicose claims and surrounding themselves in the iconography and material trappings of Tibetan Buddhist culture all the while being shockingly ignorant of Buddha Dharma. This seems to me to be one of them.

Wikipedia says this about Vajrayana Buddhism : "According to several Buddhist tantras as well as traditional Tibetan Buddhist sources, the tantras and the Vajrayana was taught by the Buddha Shakyamuni, but only to some individuals." What precisely is the claim here? What rationale is given for the Buddha reserving teachings for "only some individuals"?

Two questions that may have an overlapping answer: - How and why the Buddha would praise simple living, the simple life of monastics? In which sutta (or vinaya texts)? - Are there any sutta in the Pali canon where the Buddha explains the advantages of a simple life (a life without too many material comforts)?

Udāna 8.1 describes what appears to be a radically transcendent “dimension” — one beyond the elements, the formless attainments, and even beyond movement, time, and dualistic perception. It is characterized entirely by negation, culminating in the phrase: "just this is the end of stress/suffering."- > There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, > I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither > passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support > (mental object). This, just this, is the end of stress. Have any advanced practitioners, past or present, claimed to have directly realized this dimension? If so: - How was the realization described? Was it marked by total cessation, a kind of knowing without content, or something altogether ineffable? - Was there awareness during the experience? Or did it resemble the cessation of perception and feeling (nirodha-samāpatti), with no consciousness during and only retrospective insight after? - How was the transition into and out of this dimension understood? Did it feel like a gradual absorption, a sudden drop, or a shift beyond all experience? - Did practitioners interpret it as a momentary event or as the uncovering of a timeless truth? In other words, is this dimension entered, or is it recognized as always already the case? - What changed after the experience? Were there shifts in perception, identity, or sense of reality that aligned with the description of “no coming, no going” and “no this world or another world”? ---------- I understand that language may fall short in describing such a realization, but I’m curious whether any teachings or testimonies exist that give practical or phenomenological insight into what this “dimension” might entail — and whether realization is framed as a momentary insight or an ongoing mode of liberation.