*(English is not my mother tongue, sorry in advance if I make mistakes)* I recently read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's writings [](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Ebooks/SelvesAndNot-self_181215.pdf) [](https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/NotSelfRevisited171126.pdf) on anatta and although I found his arguments persuasive I am still conflicted. I invite you to read them at least in part before reacting as they are rich in arguments and answers to the first objections that might come to mind. Nevertheless, I quote TB's summary of his thesis and the objections he encountered: > These reflections were sparked recently by reading a critique of an article I wrote in 1993, called “The Not-self Strategy.” The thesis of that article (available in the essay collection Noble & True)—which I revised in 2013 both to tighten and to expand the presentation—was that the Buddha intended his teaching on not-self (anattā), not as an answer to the metaphysical/ontological question, “Is there a self?” but as a strategy for cutting through clinging to the five aggregates and so to put an end to suffering. The main argument I presented in support of this thesis in both versions of the article was that the one time the Buddha was asked point-blank, “Is there a self?”… “Is there no self?” he remained silent (SN 44.10). Similarly, in MN 2, he stated that such questions as “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” and “What am I?” are not worthy of attention because they lead to conclusions that fetter a person in a “thicket of views” and a “fetter of views,” including the views that “I have a self” and “I have no self.” In other words, any attempt to answer these questions constituted a side road away from the path of right practice. > > The critique—“Anattā as Strategy and Ontology,” written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi—was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time. It takes issue both with the thesis and with the argument of my article, but in doing so it displays the scholarly bias mentioned above: that the practice of the Buddha’s teachings is primarily a process of leading the meditator to give full assent to the accuracy of those teachings as a description of reality, and that this assent is what frees the mind from suffering. Because this bias is not only the bias of the critique, but of so much thought in the Buddhist world, I thought it might be useful to explore how both the thesis of the critique and the arguments used in support of that thesis display this bias, so that it can be recognized for what it is not only in this case but also in other Buddhist writings. I came across [this page](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bodhi-vs-hanissaro-debate/7348) where Buddhists are debating the view of TB in opposition to Bhikkhu Bodhi's response. In particular, I found [this answer](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bodhi-vs-hanissaro-debate/7348/89) interesting. I'd like to hear your views on the arguments on both sides. Anatta: only a strategy for realization or a real "ontological" position? Among the [trilakkhanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence) , anatta is really the one I have the most trouble with. I can't understand it. And the more I learn about it, the more I realize that Buddhists don't seem to understand it either, given all the disagreements on the subject. Even within Theravada, many ajahn of the Thai Forest Tradition seem to reintroduce a form of self by talking about the ["mind that does not disappear, immutable and indestructible reality"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Forest_Tradition#Original_mind) (which clearly resembles the Hindu [atman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)) / [purusha](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha)) . Ajahn Maha Bua, considered by his peers to be an arhat, stated that he ["observes the essential enduring truth of the sentient being as constituted of the indestructible reality of the citta (heart/mind), which is characterized by the attribute of Awareness or Knowingness. This citta, which is intrinsically bright, clear, and Aware, gets superficially tangled up in samsara but ultimately cannot be destroyed by any samsaric phenomenon."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_Maha_Bua#Some_basic_teachings_on_the_ 'Citta'). In the Mahayana it's even more obvious, we could talk about [tathāgatagarbha, buddhadhātu,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature) [dharmakāya,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakāya) [dharmadhatu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmadhatu#Definition) ... Absolutely all these concepts seem to me to be reinsertions through the window of the self thrown out the door. They all affirm, in one form or another, an ultimate reality, which they call "awareness" or "mind", a state of bliss… wich literally corresponds to the [Hindu definition of the supreme self.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satcitananda) Yet the Buddha seems to speak explicitly of this state and describe it as just a step towards the summit: > Furthermore, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of earth and the perception of the dimension of infinite space—focuses on the oneness dependent on the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness. (…) > > https://suttacentral.net/mn121/en/sujato Even vacuity (sūnyatā) does not seem to be the destination, [the infinite nothingness being only a penultimate stage of the jhanas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyāna_in_Buddhism#The_arupas) . What should we think about all this? At the end of the day, it seems to me that the subject can be summed up in one question: It is often said that the Buddha would have affirmed that all phenomena are without self: sabbe dhamma anatta Then the question arises as to whether Nibbana is a phenomenon (dhamma) or not. If this is not the case, [as some people maintain](https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/sabbe-dhamma-anatta-did-the-buddha-really-teach-that-there-is-no-self/) , it is logical to consider that the supreme reality, being neither impermanent nor dukkha, does not possess the third seal of the no(t)-self either, and to start talking about this supreme mind, awareness, etc., which is not a dhamma, but a permanent and blissful source of all impermanent and unsatisfactory phenomena - by the way, *how better to define the phenomenon than as what appears in consciousness*? -; in this case, the border with the Hindu atman-brahman becomes extremely thin, not to say non-existent. If, on the contrary, Nibbana is also a phenomenon (dhamma), having no self, the difference with Hindu thought remains but then, what about the other two seals of all phenomena: anicca and dukkha? How to apply them to Nibbana? Maybe, like dukkha and anicca, anatta must be abandoned once the destination is reached.

I just wan to know whether there are any measurements advised by the Buddha to identify a stream enterer (sotapanna). I know for a fact that from the stream enterer and above, all four types have given up on self doesn't tell that he/she is enlightened or in this state or not. So how are we to find these noble people? Are there any instructions and where is it cited?

This question is built on top of another questions asked in this site (not all by me). Based of these premises: 1) Kamma is not the only phenomena/process responsible for the current condition of beings. There are other processes apart from those borned from anthropologic interactions or from any kind of will/intention (e.g. weather conditions, geological events, biological diseases, etc.), which can affect our lives and states. 2) I heard from one user that ghost and other 'paranormal' entities (let's assume for a moment that they exist, and let's just consider what the suttas tell us) can control other's minds. And even if is not "the person itself" the one doing an action, the kamma will be ripen for that person eventually (and I insist, even if that person didn't have the intention of doing an unwholesome deed) And the question: for those who believe in literal rebirth (i.e. the continuation of certain mind states and kammic seeds from one life to another after the break up of the body), what do you think it happens after biological death to those whose brains begin to malfunction as a product of some biological conditions or fortuitous event, such as a tumour, dementia or a lightning striking on someones head? What if those persons begin acting impulsively and heedlessly, even if before those misfortunes they had completely normal -or even wise- behavior? Will they rebirth in hell or something like that? Thanks in beforehand for your time and patience!

What meditation practice(s) are encompassed by 'asubha' (non-beautiful)? I've heard one teacher say that in the EBT (early buddhist texts), asubha practice only refers to 31 body parts, and later Theravada expanded it to include 9 cemetary corpse decay, and perhaps other practices as well? Does anyone know for sure? In the pali suttas, most of the references to asubha do not specify a specific meditation practice(s). Is AN 10.60 the only place where asubha is specifically assigned to 31 body parts? I'd prefer to believe asubha meditation encompasses more practices than just the 31asb, unless there is conclusive evidence. Simply because in an oral tradition where memory of teachings is mandatory, it's helpful when a label, 'asubha' in this case, covers all the practices that could qualify for doing that job. We know that the purpose of asubha (ugly or non-beautful), is to counter the effects of subha (beautiful) have in inducing lust/passion/desire for sensual pleasure, especially for sex. Clearly the stages of decomposition of corpses, the discharge from the 9 orifices of the body, all qualify in accomplishing that goal. AN 10.60 defines the practice of asubha as 31 body parts contemplation: > *Katamā cānanda, asubhasaññā?* And what is the perception of ugliness? Idhānanda, bhikkhu imameva kāyaṃ uddhaṃ pādatalā adho kesamatthakā tacapariyantaṃ *pūraṃ nānāppakārassa asucino paccavekkhati:* It’s when a monk examines their own body up from the soles of the feet and down from the tips of the hairs, wrapped in skin and full of many kinds of filth. *‘atthi imasmiṃ kāye kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco, maṃsaṃ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṃ vakkaṃ, hadayaṃ yakanaṃ kilomakaṃ pihakaṃ papphāsaṃ, antaṃ antaguṇaṃ udariyaṃ karīsaṃ, pittaṃ semhaṃ pubbo lohitaṃ sedo medo, assu vasā kheḷo siṅghāṇikā lasikā muttan’ti.* ‘In this body there is head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.’ *Iti imasmiṃ kāye asubhānupassī viharati.* And so they meditate observing ugliness in this body. *Ayaṃ vuccatānanda, asubhasaññā.* This is called the perception of ugliness. summary of my research on this so far: (lots of hyperlinks embedded within source link) http://lucid24.org/tped/a/asubha/index.html a-subha 🧟‍ = un-attractive ✅in EBT meditation, it refers to 31asb🧟‍ body parts contemplation. See AN 10.60, AN 6.29. ⚠️300+ years after EBT, in Vimt. and Vism., Theravada re-defines asubha meditation to refer to 10 stages of corpse decay, and they reclassify 31asb🧟‍ under kāya-gatā-sati 🏃‍. It's important to know this, because in EBT suttas, an instruction to "develop asubha" is frequently mentioned, but without detail (examples: SN 8.4, SN 54.9). 31asb is immediately accessible, corpse contemplation considerably more complex. • What's the purpose of asubha meditation? To counter perversions of our inverted perception AN 4.49, SN 8.4. • But be careful, this is an advanced practice. Best to first have foundation in breath meditation SN 54.9. • SN 12.61 and SN 12.62 is the more general case of seeing 4 elements via dependent origination 12ps as not being worth clinging to.

*(English is not my mother tongue, sorry in advance if I make mistakes)* I am currently reading a philosophical book that I stumbled upon by chance, a unique work by a young (23yo) Italian of the early 20th century, after what he killed himself: *Persuasion and Rhetoric* by Carlo Michelstaedter. I don't know if anyone here has read it? I hope so, because I may not be the clearest. At first I must confess that I didn't understand it at all, but as I progressed through the book I began to see what he was talking about: I haven't finished his book yet, but I can already tell - it's amazing. There's so much to say, I'll try to keep it synthetic. This book had been sold to me as "the most depressive philosophical book (that my interlocutor had read)". I'm not disappointed, I got my money's worth. But in fact, its analysis is incredibly deeper than that. Let me be clear: the more I read it, the more I am struck by his observation: his whole book seems to me to be about dukkha. It's really incredible, I'm pretty sure he's never heard of Buddhism and yet his whole book is a wonderful analysis of dukkah, this cosmic suffering-unsatisfaction hidden in the hollow of all phenomena, like a cursed mark on (conventional) life. He analyses both dukkha caused by boundless desire, dukkha caused by the impermanence of all things, and dukkha caused by conditioning itself. This is wonderful. I would like to quote entire passages from the book to show you that a Buddhist monk could approve everything. My point is that he committed suicide after this book. And when you read it you can understand why, it's even almost logical: he didn't know Buddhism and therefore the radical teaching of Buddha: certainly dukkha exists and is everywhere, but it is not absolute; a way out is possible (nirvana). Except that Carlo didn't know this way out, and when one realized only dukkha, what's the point of living? The problem is that I recently read a very good article (PS 5) in the blog 'Politically Incorrect Dharma' about the difficulty of reaching enlightenment: in this day and age, in fact, hardly anyone achieves nirvana. Therefore, even if we can believe the testimonies of the historical enlightened about the existence of a way out (nirvana), when the chances are infinitesimal that we reach it, for us, it is as if there is no way out. From that point on, how can we not be depressed when we have (at least partially) realized dukkha? I'm not talking about a purely intellectual understanding, but a real beginning of realisation. How not to end up like Carlo, or completely depressed at the very least? ​ PS 1: At the risk of repeating myself, I have chosen only one part of the book's topics here, apart from the absence of solution (nirvana) because of his ignorance of Buddhism, his whole book sounds deeply Buddhist to me, as it delivers a brilliant and profound analysis of impermanence, desire (tanha), conditioning, life, phenomena and suffering-dissatisfaction. ​ PS 2: >“Are you persuaded of what you do or not? Do you need something to happen or not in order to do what you do? Do you need the correlations to coincide always, because the end is never in what you do, even if what you do is vast and distant but is always in your continuation? Do you say you are persuaded of what you do, no matter what? Yes? Then I tell you: tomorrow you will certainly be dead. It doesn't matter? Are you thinking about fame? About your family? But your memory dies with you,with you your family is dead. Are you thinking about your ideals? You want to make a will? You want a headstone? But tomorrow those too are dead, dead. All men die with you. Your death is an unwavering comet. Do you turn to god? There is no god, god dies with you. The kingdom of heaven crumbles with you, tomorrow you are dead, dead. Tomorrow everything is finished—your body, family, friends, country, what you’re doing now, what you might do in the future, the good, the bad, the true, the false, your ideas, your little part, god and his kingdom, paradise, hell, everything, everything, everything. Tomorrow everything is over—in twenty four hours is death. > >Well, then the god of today is no longer yesterday’s, no longer the country, the good, the bad, friends, or family. You want to eat? No, you cannot. The taste of food is no longer the same; honey is bitter, milk is sour, meat nauseating, and the odor, the odor sickens you: it reeks of the dead. You want a woman to comfort you in your last moments? No, worse: it is dead flesh. You want to enjoy the sun, air, light, sky? Enjoy?! The sun is a rotten orange, the light extinguished, the air suffocating. The sky is a low, oppressive arc. . . .No, everything is closed and dark now. But the sun shines, the air is pure, everything is like before, and yet you speak like a man buried alive, describing his tomb. And persuasion? You are not even persuaded of the sunlight; you cannot move a finger, cannot remain standing. The god who kept you standing,made your day clear and your food sweet, gave you family, country, paradise—he betrays you now and abandons you because the thread of your philopsychia (love of life) is broken. > >The meaning of things, the taste of the world, is only for continuation’s sake. Being born is nothing but wanting to go on on: men live in order to live, in order not to die. Their persuasion is the fear of death. Being born is nothing but fearing death, so that, if death becomes certain in a certain future, they are already dead in the present. All that they do and say with fixed persuasion, a clear purpose, and evident reason is nothing but fear of death– ‘indeed, believing one is wise without being wise is nothing but fearing death.” ​ PS 3: >“Likewise, however little man, in living, demands as just to himself, his duty toward justice remains infinite. The right to live cannot be paid by finite labour, only by infinite activity. > >Because you participate in the violence of all things, all of this violence is part of your debt to justice. All of your activity must go toward eradicating this: to give everything and demand nothing; this is the duty—where duties and rights may be, I do not know.” ​ PS 4 (>Xbox): >“I know I want and do not have what I want. A weight hangs suspended from a hook; being suspended, it suffers because it cannot fall: it cannot get off the hook, for insofar as it is weight it suspends, and as long as it suspends it depends. > >\[...\] > >Its life is this want of life. If it no longer wanted but were finished, perfect, if it possessed its own self, it would have ended its existence. At that point, as its own impediment to possessing life, the weight would not depend on what is external as much as on its own self, in that it is not given the means to be satisfied. The weight can never be persuaded. > >Nor is any life ever satisfied to live in any present, for insofar as it is life it continues, and it continues into the future to the degree that it lacks life. If it were to possess itself completely here and now and be in want of nothing—if it awaited nothing in the future—it would not continue: it would cease to be life. > >So many things attract us in the future, but in vain do we want to possess them in the present.” ​ PS 5: [http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-ive-almost-stopped-meditating-part\_15.html](http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-ive-almost-stopped-meditating-part_15.html) **Edit:** *I just learned that Evola was a reader of Michelstaedter, that he wanted also to kill himself at 23, and that he changed his mind after reading the Pali Canon. Amazing. My hunch didn't come out of nowhere!*

As, pointed out by Buddha in Mangala Sutta, the causes of downfall of a man. Among those following is the one among them; 1) Those who have ample wealth does not support his old aged father and mother has a downfall! Question remains, How if pursuing the goal of Nibbana, one abandoned the all relation and property. Including that of old age mother and father, won't have Downfall. How, if that 1st statement is assumed valid, there was not a downfall of Buddha, although abondened his old age parents? Please answer the above correctly!

The title is not meant to be disrespectful, but only to highlight the incongruity of the representation with what I understand of Buddhism. Images of [Maitreya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya) in English Wikipedia are modest and comtemplative, but the [Chinese](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BD%8C%E5%8B%92%E8%8F%A9%E8%96%A9) page shows one familliar image with a large, well-fed body, surrounded by riches, and a big happy grin. Where I live these representations of Maitreya are everywhere. It is understandable that as buddhism spread to different cultures certain superficial aspects might be altered to convey ideas in different ways. Here I'm just asking about history of the change. When and where were depictions of the Maitreya buddha first changed so dramatically? **edit:** The question [Why is Budai often associated with the future Buddha Maitreya?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8775/11327) suggests to me that this is not actually a representation of Maitreya at all, which conflicts with what I remember and what a google translation of the Chinese Wikipedia page at least *seems to* say. [Source](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HK_Sheung_Wan_Hollywood_Road_%E5%A4%A7%E8%82%9A%E5%BD%8C%E5%8B%92%E4%BD%9B_Buddhist_statues.JPG)

So I have been doing different meditation techniques to control/reduce different poisons(Klesha) of mind. Such as I do 1. Asuaba(Perception of Unattractiveness) for Lust 2. Perception of Loving Kindness (Metta) for Hatred 3. Anapanasati for overflowing of thoughts 4. Perception of Compassion (Karuna) for thoughts of harming 5. Perception of Sympathetic-Joy (Muditha) for jealous and so on. But when ever I encounter thoughts or memories of sorrow and pain, loss, I get confused on what meditation technique I should use to overcome it. All the dark memories haunt me, and i tend to fight them. But most of the time I fail to overcome them. And in that process my mind and body energy is already consumed and i become tired and sometimes i get a migraine. Is there any specific technique to overcome sorrow and pain? I know that Satipattanaya is there only way of overcoming sorrow, pain and loss, But i want to know the specific technique that I could practice on. A sutta reference is appreciated. -Metta

I sometimes see rules suggesting that monks (at least Theravadan) should not eat various animals. The lists vary, but includes to varying degree: elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears, hyenas, slugs, cows, and humans. When I try to find something authoritative about this, I've come up short. Can anyone shed light on: (1) is there a list of animals that monks are prohibited from eating, and if so, (2) where does this appear in the canon, and (3) how/why were the particular animals listed?

Is there any authoritative sourced that a man can have more than one religion if he pleases?

I don't like the shape of my body. My skin is poor. I lack physical stamina and strength. I feel hungry but I don't eat. I just don't like myself. How can I purify my body so that I feel good in it? My body is just lethargic, fatigued and weak. Did Buddha share any techniques to purify and strengthen the physical body? Also I masterbate a lot which is the cause of my weak and ugly body. I don't even have the strength to exercise the way I want. This is all topped with immense guilt that I want to wash away.

Many times in the suttas the monks are said to be frustrated, but the word anger is never used.. what is the difference? My short thought is - anger is seeing wrong speech or action, and saying 'why are you acting this way - it hurts the other', whilst frustration is 'why are you acting this way - it hurts you'. Any thoughts on this from respectable sources?

Can sensations be a meditation object like breath? if yes how do I practice meditations with it?

For the longest time, I never had much to question about it but I've taken to wondering about an extra one, one that wasn't there before. I get to feeling that "right spirit" should be another fold. Can Buddha's spirit be tested for this?

I really need to know what is the mean of true love according to Buddhism?

In oral study system (reciting and memorizing)... I definitely sure according to Mahasatipatthanasutta's structure "aparam" means "next step". For an example, after the practitioner meditated the previous body (breath) in (entire) body (in sitting posture), next step when the practitioner is going, he is clearly understanding "I am walking (with clearly understanding in breath, 32 organs, 4 elements, etc.)" ***In the blanket is omitted as understood from the previous Pabba in oral study tradition***. Niddharana (list) is the meaning of the sattamii vibhatti of kaaye (entire body), kaayaanupassi and kaayasmim (body's part), vedanaasu, citte, cittasmim, dhammesu. "Puna ca" means another Pabba. Vasi (practice to be professional) is objective of internal, external, internal&external, iriyaapathapabba, and sampajaanapabba which next step from sitting-iriyaapatha in aanapanapabba (and other Pabba). So, I am not sure of "and further", "again" meaning in all translations. According to each Sutta's context and history, MahasatipatthanaSutta is for no-unawesome-mind-practitioner or attained jhana practitioner (vipassanayaanika), and KaayagatasatiSutta is for newbie jhana practitioner (samathayaanika) and Anapanassati is samatha, so I quoted from KaayagatasatiSutta ... > Kathaṃ bhāvitā ca bhikkhave kāyagatā sati kathaṃ bahulīkatā mahapphalā hoti mahānisaṃsā . idha bhikkhave bhikkhu araññagato vā rukkhamūlagato vā suññāgāragato vā nisīdati pallaṅkaṃ ābhujitvā ujuṃ kāyaṃ paṇidhāya parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā . so satova assasati sato passasati . dīghaṃ vā assasanto dīghaṃ assasāmīti pajānāti dīghaṃ vā passasanto dīghaṃ passasāmīti pajānāti . Rassaṃ vā assasanto rassaṃ assasāmīti pajānāti rassaṃ vā passasanto rassaṃ passasāmīti pajānāti . sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī assasissāmīti sikkhati sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī passasissāmīti sikkhati . Passambhayaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ assasissāmīti sikkhati passambhayaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ passasissāmīti sikkhati . tassa evaṃ appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato ye gehasitā sarasaṅkappā te pahīyanti . Tesaṃ pahānā ajjhattameva cittaṃ santiṭṭhati sannisīdati **ekodibhoti** 1- samādhiyati evampi bhikkhave bhikkhu kāyagataṃ satiṃ bhāveti. > > **Puna caparaṃ** bhikkhave bhikkhu gacchanto vā gacchāmīti pajānāti ṭhito vā ṭhitomhīti pajānāti nisinno vā nisinnomhīti pajānāti sayāno vā sayānomhīti pajānāti . yathā yathā vā panassa kāyo paṇihito hoti tathā tathā naṃ pajānāti . Tassa evaṃ appamattassa ātāpino pahitattassa viharato ye gehasitā sarasaṅkappā te pahīyanti . tesaṃ pahānā ajjhattameva Cittaṃ santiṭṭhati sannisīdati **ekodibhoti samādhiyati** evampi bhikkhave bhikkhu kāyagataṃ satiṃ bhāveti. > >@Footnote: 1 Ma. Yu. ekodi hoti. Thaanissaro translation... >"There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. > >"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body. > >"''Furthermore'', when walking, the monk discerns, 'I am walking.' When standing, he discerns, 'I am standing.' When sitting, he discerns, 'I am sitting.' When lying down, he discerns, 'I am lying down.' Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body. Do "and further", "again", surely mean "next step"?

As we know people who stay in coma or unconsciousness "experience" timeless,space-less, absolute emptiness and total detachment from physical world. Even though I used the word "experience" will not suitable to describe the situation in coma or unconsciousness state. It is a condition with no happiness or sorrow, no pain,no darkness or light,no noise or sound etc....and finally we can say "unconditional state of mind." and closer to description of "Nirvana" 1. what happen when person die during the coma or unconsciousness state? 2. Is this similar to Nirvana? (as total detachment of world.)

I am unable to understand different meanings of words dhamma, dharma, atta, anatta... Does dhamma means as "path" or "truth" or "teaching" as in Ariyapariyesana Sutta or as "phenomenon" or as "things ? Is dhamma and dharma same? Does atta means 'self' or 'soul' or 'ego' or 'eternal-self' or something else? I have read anatta meaning as 'not-self', does this means as 'not-I' or 'not-me' or 'not-mine' or something else? It is because I have read it's use as different meanings...confusing. What could be the correct translation of "Sabbe dhammā anattā."?

When I sit for Vipassana and observe the sensations, they intensify. The sensations get stronger and stronger the more I observe them. After a limit these sensations break my will power to sit and force me to stop. What is happening here, can anyone explain?

Is it only pertaining to "no adultery" for layman or as "no sex" for monk? If such is the case, why in ganika sutta it was mentioned as "path middle to celibacy and adultery" for ganika(female dancers)? Conclusion:: 3rd percept varies from person to person. It is different for one who has the capacity to "no sex", one having capacity to "no adultery", one who has the capacity to "no sensual pleasures", one who has no-capacity or livelihood depends on adultery-- so "middle to adultery and no-sex(celibacy)",......... It's main purpose is to enforce people of various livelihoods, various traditions, various spiritual-levels, various situations(incidents) to realize the **cravings associated** with "harmone-loss through privates, mental-exhaustance in sensual-pleasings, breaking-percepts, various-perceptions, sankharas, ignorance". Is above conclusion true? Yes/No then justify? *(wholesomeness has essence and craving of never-dying.)*