Can we use Piti as a meditation subject? There are 40 meditation objects are given in Visuddhimagga as follows. Ten recollections; ten foul objects; ten kasinas; four sublime abidings; four formless absorptions; one resolution into elements; and one perception of the filthiness of food. My question is whether we can keep four form absorptions as a meditation objects, but specifically Piti as a meditation object.

I am wondering how to go about starting on the path of Buddhism without offending or appropriating the culture. As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged with the ability to overlook the repercussions of my actions when adopting a new practice/lifestyle what have you. I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it - but I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist. I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture" and I also don't want to offend those who's cultures were shaped by it. I guess what I'm asking is - how can I start myself on the path respectfully in a manner that shows my true reverence for the teachings of the Buddha? I have privately tried my best to follow the path for some time now, but I've realized I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it. Advice?

Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun alone (not a laywoman)? Are monks allowed to be in the same room as a nun (considering the rule applies) while others a present? Is there a specific rule in the Vinaya for this, if so please cite. What should one do if one sees a monk alone with a female nun and it is not allowed (if that's a rule)?

There is some evidence that plants are 'sentient beings' and can communicate (e.g. see [this article](http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants) or [this wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(physiology))) . However Buddhists believe eating meat is wrong because of killing a living entity, what about plants? If this is true what can you eat?

**A solitary Buddha occurs in one in a million of the human population**: please correct me if that's how often the vehicle occurs -- though I struggle to completely understand the concept of a "solitary" *seed* or fixed yana. Either way, that one million figure is -- I think -- an expression of how it is more unique than arhatship. Or, have I invented the statistic in bold? Anyway: > [[a]s of 2016 Thailand][1] had 39,883 wats (temples). Three hundred-ten are > royal wats, the remainder are private (public). There were 298,580 > Buddhist monks, 264,442 of the Maha Nikaya order and 34,138 of the > Dhammayuttika Nikaya order. There were 59,587 Buddhist novice monks. Thailand's population is about seventy million, which works out, if you ignore 'turnover', as one in two hundred being monks. So that, depending on how you understand the numbers in the first paragraph, suggests in monks, no less than one in a thousand are already arhats. Likewise, assuming they don't get stuck on the first step, in which case more still, about one in a hundred are stream winners. Is that *completely* wrong? Does it make sense, do you know, to say that there are e.g. *three thousand* sages in Thailand? *Three hundred* saints? How does it compare with success in the English speaking nations?

Is Satori like a stage of stream entry? Is Satori only an intellectual knowing or something deeper than that?

When we do a simple observation of breath (in & out) during meditation, how to know if its natural flow I am observing or forced one? Regards

I think I've noticed some conceptual overlaps between Buddhism and Western Philosophy and Science. What are good sources for comparing and contrasting Western ideas and Buddhism? What are suspected sources of eastern ideas appearing in Western works? I list some speculated commonalities below by my admittedly incomplete understanding. What knowledge I have of Buddhism primarily comes from books by Thich Nhat Hanh and Alan Watts. I also attended Pure Land services for a while. **PSYCHOLOGY** For example, Mindfulness has a bit in common with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Meta-Cognition. Mindfulness is, in part, awareness of ones thoughts. Meta-cognition is awareness and control of one's cognitive processes. One's thinking isn't dominated by random firing to which the thinker is oblivious. The Second Nobel truth relates suffering to delusion, CBT relates emotional suffering to "Cognitive Distortions". These distortions are typically lack of present-mindedness, obsessing over past and future. They also involve a general failure to consider events in their full context. **LITERATURE** 'When Hamlet asks Rosencrantz and Guildenstern why they would volunteer to come to a prison, they respond that they don't think of Denmark as a prison. Hamlet explains, “[T]here is / nothing good or bad but thinking makes it / so.” '. Here the 'good' and 'bad' are pleasure and pain and the degree to which they are experienced. CBT says something similar- one has emotional suffering because of thinking one way about them as opposed to alternatives. Buddhism says suffering is due to various delusions. CBT faults "Cognitive Distortions". In his The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde says, "To become a spectator of one's own life is to escape the suffering of life.” One can be self-aware, aware of oneself in a third person sense, and one can be aware of one self in the first person, as an 'I'. Here Wilde seems to be relating reduction of suffering with reducing ego. Just prior to writing this book, he wrote the forward to a friend's book on The Tao Te Ching. His line might also might touch upon a mindful self-awareness as well as a capacity to be amidst unfortunate events and yet not suffer, at least emotionally. William Blake speaks of The Human Form Divine which seems to overlap with Blessed Human Existence. "To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour" speaks to a element of timelessness. Apparently Blake was familiar with Vedic works- Awakenings: Blake and the Buddha **PHILOSOPHY/EPISTEMOLOGY** More significantly, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics approaches ethics with an emphasis on character development as opposed to focusing on only individual acts. One is less ethical than ideal if one does the right things for the wrong reason, if they have the wrong motivation. Western philosophy categorizes ethical theories which emphasize character as Virtue Ethics. So both Aristotle and the Buddha would fall into this category. Also, Aristotle is notorious for advocating Moderation in All Things, similar to The Middle Way, very similar to the Dharma Seal - Nirvana is Beyond Extremes. Buddhism also seems to have a lot in common with Stoicism which teaches something very similar to "All Emotions Are Pain"- The Second Seal of Dharma as discussed here by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche on Four Seals of Dharma . Science strives to be objective and not subjective. A subjective experience is very personal, ego-centered. Personal stake in an experiment's outcome one tries to avoid. Go where the evidence leads and don't shoe horn it into a pet theory, which admittedly may be going on here. There are some elements of experience which are more or less universalizable. There's a distancing of ones understanding from the self or personal stakes. Data is assessed by means of an impersonal method of evaluation. One doesn't have a gut feeling that there is a correspondence in the data, one has methods for proving a correspondence with statistical significance, e.g. Statistical Hypothesis Testing. Are these all just a coincidences? Superficial linguistic commonalities? Are humans in touch with something that speaks to them about Buddhism regardless of their background? I've read that the Dharma is everywhere. Emerson speaks of The Oversoul like some speak of dharma.

- What is it to let go in Buddhism? - What is it to accept in Buddhism? - What are the things we accept? - What are the things we let go? Why? How? - What do Buddhists scriptures have to say about it?

Can mind be free from becoming (Suffering) ? I should be and I should that. I am thin and I want to be a body builder. I am this and I want to that. Can mind free from becoming?

Why are Buddhist concepts so challenging for people to understand? What do people who understand know that average people don't know? What are some of the barriers to the understanding of Dharma? What facilitates understanding of Dharma?

I have been on a few forums and Facebook groups and a lot of people on there seem to be missing the point of their practice. What colour robes should I wear, how many breaths should I take per minute while meditating and (worst of all) what is meant by this word, in this particular translation, of this sutra. No offence to anyone else here. In "Hardcore Zen" by Brad Warner he make some comment about the people who go to the temples, sit there meditating all day, but for all the wrong reasons. The principles are fairly self explanatory and as long as you live a good life as a good person, that is it. Enlightenment aka "the same old, same old". I know my life won't realistically be any better if I won a million punds and I am happy with that. By all means swot up on the methodology but it will just make you a better "buddhist" as opposed to making you any happier. Am I missing something? I hope not.

Can someone give a name of a monk to learn Buddhism? Thanks

Is the Zen term Satori the same as enlightenment or does it have different nuances or emphasis over what is commonly meant by enlightenment in non-Zen texts. If it is the same then why is used at all. Is its usage just a cultural thing and enlightenment could equally be substituted?

When I try to feel the sensations of the breath at the nostrils/upper lip during anapana, it's so faint that after a certain point, I think I may be imagining the touch of the breath. I may even feel other sensations (pressure/vibrations) on my face but I would still have trouble feeling the touch of my breath at the rims of my nostrils or my upper lip. And my mind is still very much lost in thought so I know it's not because I've become very concentrated or anything. So how obvious should the touch of the breath be? Should it be as faint/subtle to the point of almost feeling imaginary? Should I stick to this and assume it will approve as does my concentration?

Could dry vipassana & pure one-pointed samadhi type meditations just be different approaches to the same enlightenment? If one attains the fourth jhana with one pointed concentration does one experience anatta? What about anicca & dukkha? How is sunyata related to anatta? Is it really necessary to focus on non-consepts at some point in order for one pointed (ekaggata) concentration to lead to enlightenment? Are there scriptures that can help us understand this?

According to Buddhism & Science there is no gender to the mind but to the body.The difference between the male and female ideology is a difference between practicing two different ways of life. **Birth of gender according to Buddhism** When one era of a universe comes to an end almost all the beings get their birth in Brahma realm (**Aabhassara** ).Once the universe is set to its default (Universe as we know it) beings are born in Human realm as illuminating gender less creatures.As they become fond of touch they begin to form recognizable genders. But the reaction from others who are not in favor of this new sensation is negative (quite like what gay people experienced over the years), But just like society accepting LGBT groups in our time they learn to accept this gender+sex situation. So as of this point sex is not even considered normal and gender is an anomaly. If we drop the biological point of view and take only the teachings of Lord Buddha a new pattern start to appear beneath our acceptance of reality. --- *so my question is....* If we take Sutta+Abhidhamma point of view and focus on a human being,what we see is the same kind of species with two different Bone,Muscle,Brain,etc structures. As to Buddhism Humans do not have an essential need of sex for births to happen (**spontaneous birth - Ambapali**) . So sex is an alternative for a human birth. Human body,culture,way of life are all based on what gender that person belongs to (This may not be the reality where you live but travel the world enough and you will see the sad truth). But once you use something like **Vipassana meditation** to see a human being you see that there is no such thing called gender in this bag of flesh and bones.After all Lord Buddha said that if someone can come above Temptation he/she is free. --- - So is it right to think that one illusion of the mind defined all that we are as beings? - Is gender really an illusion or is there more to this? > Please note that this question does not ask for personal opinions,Please add sources to your answers so we can expand our knowledge.I have seen the question (Is gender a result of Kamma?) and this is not a duplicate of it.this address a whole different point of view.Please leave a comment before voting negative

What are the Buddhist communities & forums on the internet and in the real world? What are their history? How does BuddhismSE fit in with the others?

I've cut out many addictive behaviours recently, and in line with what I read about addictive things, I've experienced the return of feelings of great sadness and discouragement. Seemingly without pattern, I feel utter sadness, despair, etc. But, as quickly as they are felt, they seem to go away very fast and leave a happy state. Is there any way to deal more effectively with such states of sadness and despair? I noticed I tend to project these emotions as *blame,* finding fault in everything. What does Buddhism recommend for such states?

can I become a monk if i have schizophrenia? I have to take a shot every two weeks and I do hear voices every once in a while