That is a question that emerged from a previous discussion, but here I would like to focus on this story. From the background story: "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any evil." Question: Does it mean that if you work for a company that sells weapons or intoxicants and you do not directly sell or produce it, you also had no opportunity to find another job (it is what you got to pay your bills), you are blameless like the wife of the hunter?

I don't see any other questions, in the suggestions of the site, linked with this precise topic. What is the equivalent of "willpower" in Buddhism? How is it developped? Thank you.

What is the right way of living in the Present? Present day living is full of challenges and with forces in play and to act in certain way. How does one follow the Path in these conditions without incurring karma and its after-effects?

Approaching yr68, I have committed my share of unwholesome conduct over the years, the typical errors of middle-class youth and adulthood in this USofA. I've been practicing sitting meditation for close to two years, and am most comfortable with Theravada vipassana concepts and practices, though I have not taken lay Buddhist vows. I generally sit "with the breath" for one hour most every day, some days see two sessions. I have not yet realized "access concentration". I am perplexed that I never have feelings of remorse or shame or guilt over past deeds arise during sitting, and only rarely have I experienced strong feelings of gratitude or happiness. Might I assume that it is only a matter of time before "the stuff hits the fan" and I find myself overwhelmed with "remorse or shame or guilt" during sitting meditation?

My current understanding of dependent origination is that things cause other things to arise and cease and ultimately it a big interconnected web of influences. If that's reasonably correct (on a provisional level) then what meaning does right effort or just effort generally have in that context. If I arise and cease dependent on other things then where does my own effort come into it? If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web? I appreciate that this kind of questioning can be (rightly) criticised as metaphysical nitpicking. However when I meditate (or even just sit around and reflect) this kind of question comes up for me. It's like a little personal koan that keeps nagging at me so I would appreciate any input - even if it is just a reminder not to worry and get practicing.

Many western Buddhists have non-western names: - **Jeffrey Block** - *Bhikkhu Bodhi* - **Geoffrey DeGraff** - *Thanissaro Bhikkhu* or *Ajaan Geoff* - **Deirdre Blomfield-Brown** - *Pema Chödrön* Are they given to them when they are ordained as monks/bhikkuni (like *Dances with Wolves*), or are they more informal (e.g. *Ajaan Geoff*)? Just curious.

Meditation skill level: greater than beginner, less than adept. Before I can get to the Electric Feel, we need to come to a mutual understanding on how I get there. I have a specific technique to my meditation that I have sown together from random scraps of multiple religions(taoism, buddhism, christianity(yes they meditate), Islam and new age stuff). Imagine my technique to be a pyramid that has many levels(plateaus). I must achieve reaching the first level before going to the next. If I am on the third level and stop doing something that was required to reach the first level, then I have to gone down to the first level again and must work my way up from there. The first level is Breath... of course. 4 seconds in, and 4 seconds out. The attention is on breath. Continues until this process requires no counting of time and is automatic. Second level is muscle relexation over then entire body. The attention is on the entire body in a state of rest. During the first and second levels one must shrug off all thoughts that are worldly worries or thoughts that are hindering your progress. Third level is Electric Feel. I can feel what I would call an energy running circuits through my body. This sensation can be directed through intention: If I want to feel energy coming in through my head and go down my spine, it can happen. Levels after 3 are theoretical. But I feel like I can feel my 'Asteral Body'.(when answering you may disregard anything about the Asteral Body if it has no correlation with Buddhism) So is this sensation a normal one for meditation? How can I move past this sensation to deepen meditation? Are my 'levels' accurate to what Buddhism teaches? What level comes after the electric feel? Does Buddhism support the notion of an Asteral Body?

I have read previous posts on this topic here but wanted some clarification. I want to transfer merit (I am familiar and have great faith and practise with the Therevada tradition, and so am interested in this strand of Buddhism...), to someone who is currently experiencing great difficulties and is not open to buddhism or really anything that can help. If I were to transfer merits, it would have to be done without the person knowing and I was wondering if this would give any benefit to the person. Any advice given to this person directly would definitely be unwelcome.....and I want to help in whatever way possible.

I began meditating a few months ago with the help of guided online meditations for a long time from different sources and read some articles on how to do Anapanasati while continuing my practice. After realising what the essence of the meditation practice is, I decided to practice it on my own with the help of online timers. What is bothering me is that, while other thoughts do arise and the point is to recognise the thoughts and bring the attention to the breath, while doing the meditation there is also an inner narrator in my head which comes in as any other thought would and it guides me as an instructor would in guided meditations, that too in great detail. The voice would often be in someone else's voice and at times on my own voice. I am not entirely sure if I am forcing this on me at times or it comes up effortlessly. And at times it adds up to my dissatisfaction and confuses me a lot. What I want to know is, am I doing something wrong or is it perfectly normal for people like me who are new to meditation and started off with guided meditation as a starting point? If it is wrong, how to avoid this and continue my meditation sessions without hindrance? Should I be non-judgemental or non-reactive to it like any other sensation and visual/pictorial thoughts arising on mind while meditating, observing it, and bringing the attention to my breath be of help? I need help here because I don't think that at this rate, I can bring myself to have the level of concentration to be effortlessly aware of my breath to reach the next stages of meditation. ---------- **Edit:** Apologies to everyone for the delay and maybe I wasn't verbose enough in my question. What I meant was that apart from auditory or visual distractions that come to some/most of us while meditating (eg; a song popping up in our brain, or some conversation which happened a while ago or a long time ago, some negative thought or remark by someone to us which made us sad/angry -- and most of which come without us putting an active effort to bring forth these thoughts, i.e. unwillingly and naturally), I experience the narration of voices of many people based on whose guided online courses, audio files, videos, I started doing meditation (eg; Gil Fronsdal, Sharon Salzberg, John Kabat Zinn, etc.). And often, they come when bodily sensations(distracting in nature -- kind of like a fidgety feeling) or mind wandering (of other forms) start taking the central stage for a brief period of time during Anapanasati, and sometimes without any kind of distractions. I am not certain if this is happening with an active effortless conscious effort from me or whether this is some kind of distraction/mind wandering/cognitive auditory effect of its own coming from the Default Mode Network of my brain. For the record, I do have ADHD and my psychiatrist (of recent) thinks that it may be plausible that I might have BPAD, but he isn't sure as more tests are needed to conclude that. Maybe some of it is because of these ailments. I hope I was more clear now.

I have seen many answers to questions referring teachings of modern teacher in this SE. *But as i have learned* Lord Buddha's understanding is above any other,even above an arahant. Dhamma/Dharma itself is timeless and therefore does not need modifications or updates. ----- So what is the need of the term "Modern practice / Modern Buddhism"? Shouldn't we take Lord Buddha's word above the rest and use any other resource later on for further clarification if there is such a need? Why there is a trend of drifting away from original teachings, does the followers now believe that Lord Buddha's words are outdated?

I've heard it taught by various secular teachers that through mindfulness one can uncover the "true authentic self" because we realise that we are not thought but that we are awareness of thought. Please correct me if I'm mistaken but in my understanding this is not in alignment with Buddhist teachings and a misunderstanding of mindfulness. We can discover that there is an awareness of thought, emotion etc but are we this awareness? Wouldn't Buddha say that even awareness is not self? If we are not thought, not awareness, who or what is the observer? Is the observer just more impermanent phenomena?

I try to maintain mindfulness in daily life and I find that most of the time my thoughts keep wandering and I often find myself regurgitating on some random topic which is not at all useful at the moment. Is there any sutta in which Buddha talks about thoughts - which thoughts are useful to dwell on and which are not?

“finding a place for the mind in a world that is fundamentally physical” —has been puzzled over for centuries, and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. The reason is that apparently every possible solution has inadequacies. Anyone familiar with the philosophical literature is aware of all the problems with Cartesian substance dualism, reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, behaviorism and functionalism, non-reductive physicalism and emergentism. One is tempted to agree with Colin McGinn that the cognitive apparatus of humans is intrinsically inadequate to the problem of explaining the relation between the mind and the brain. How something like consciousness can emerge from something like the brain seems totally inexplicable. What is the Buddhist explanation for Mind-Body problem?

Today, I received an email with a quote in the signature attributed to Blaise Pascal reading > All of human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room. A [more accurate quote](http://fr.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal) is, > tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne pas savoir demeurer en repos dans une chambre > > All the **unhappiness** of men comes from only one thing, which is not knowing how to **stay** at rest (or 'remain peacefully') in a room. [Here is the whole passage in context](http://www.etudes-litteraires.com/pascal.php) (I translate), > When I put myself sometimes to considering the diverse agitations of > men and the dangers and trouble which they expose themselves to, in > the court, in war, from where are born so many troubles, passions, > endeavours that are hardy (or fool-hardy) and often bad, etc., I > discovered that all the unhappiness of man comes from just one cause, > which is not knowing how to stay peacefully in a room. A man who has > enough goods to live, if he knew how to live with pleasure in his > home, wouldn't leave it to go on the sea or to the seat of a place. > One buys such an expensive warrant for the army, only because one > finds it intolerable to not move from the town; and one looks for > conversations and the distraction of games only because one can't stay > at one's own home with pleasure. > > But when I thought about it more closely and after finding the cause > of all our unhappiness, I wanted to discover the reason for that, I > found there is one very effective (reason), which consists in the > natural unhappiness of our feeble and mortal condition, and so > miserable, that nothing can console us, when we think of it closely. > > Whatever condition one figures oneself to be in, if one assembles all > the goods which can belong to us, royalty is the most beautiful > position in the world, and nevertheless if one imagines oneself (in > that position), accompanied by all the satisfactions associated with > it. If it's without distraction, and if one lets oneself consider and > reflect on what is, that langorous happiness wouldn't sustain itself, > it necessarily falls among the sights which menace it, the revolts > which could happen, and finally the death and sickness which are > inevitable; such that, if it is without what one calls 'distractions' > (literally 'detours', figuratively 'games'), there he (the king) is > unhappy and more unhappy than the least of his subjects, who play and > distract (or entertain) themselves. How would a Buddhist respond to such a statement ? I have a feeling he or she would agree at least on some levels. Even though it seemed Buddhism was introduced to the west beginning mainly in the 20th century, this quote seems to echo that the West was not totally unawares. If I remember correctly, "Lines Composed a Few Mile Above Tintern Abbey" also seemed to reiterate some principles found in Buddhism. There were probably missionaries who came in contact with it after the birth of Christ. Reverand Kusala mentions Zen Buddhism was actual a reaction of missionaries coming in contact with the existing Therevadan tradition.

This is a hugely amateurish question, for which I apologize, but: are Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism the same thing? If not, how are they related? In particular, does the term "Tibetan Buddhism" refer to a specific school of Buddhist thought and practice, or does it just generically refer to any sort of Buddhism that is practiced in Tibet? Wikipedia treats the two as separate entities, but some other sources (e.g. this ) treat them as effectively the same.

What is the best way, or how would I even go about finding a Buddhist teacher or spiritual guide? Thanks.

We all know the Pali Canon's definition of "The Buddha". The Buddha is one who discovers The Dhamma all by himself without external help, therefore by definition there may be only one Buddha until the teaching is completely forgotten and thus can be re-discovered. In Mahayana, the situation seems to be different. When Mahayana texts speak about "a buddha" they seem to put a different meaning into this word. In Mahayana, a buddha is someone -- or indeed *anyone* -- who has attained anuttara-samyak-sambodhi - the Complete and Perfect Enlightenment. At the same time, it does look like in many Mahayana contexts, the term "buddha" may be used rather too liberally. I'm not talking about the precepts, or the laity (which is what I am, at best). We all know that the Dalai Lama is said to be a tulku of Avalokiteśvara, and is presumably a Bodhisattva on the 10th -- correct me if I'm wrong -- Bhumi, and very, very close to enlightenment. I don't know of any similar claims in Tantric traditions outside Tibet. But the Tantric teachings propagated to Tibet via certain Indian masters, ones that East Asian Buddhism claim to share lineage with. Similarly, I know that some contemporary Korean Son monks have claimed to be Buddhas. > Seongcheol was widely recognized in Korea as having been a living > Buddha, due to his extremely ascetic lifestyle, the duration and > manner of his meditation training, his central role in reforming > Korean Buddhism in the post-World War II era, and the quality of his > oral and written teachings. I do not believe this is a complete anomaly. Huineng (the 6th Patriarch in China), as well as writing a "Sutra", was said to be on the 10th Bhumi (at least -- though I have read some Western commentators say this is just impossible with standard definitions of the Bhumis) by his disciple Shen-hui, whom I believe all Soto and Rinzai Buddhists, in deed all Buddhists that base their teachings primarily on Huineng, claim is in their lineage. I am aware that some Tantric traditions do teach "Buddhahood in this very body". But equally, there is a tradition of great *humility* in Mahayana Buddhism. The great Tientai (which mutated into Japanese Tendai) master Zhiyi claimed not even to have the appearance or semblance of enlightenment to his practices. Zongmi, who I believe may still be important in Korea, was of a similar, Hua-Yen and Ch'an, mind. So, where is "the bar"? E.g., are all genuine masters Buddhas -- or near as darn it. That may seem crazy. But are all Buddhas, according to the Mahayana, reborn from the Tusita heaven?

Does a Buddha or Arahant not make good or neutral karma? If somehow an enlightened one does make karma does it immediately come to a result? Are all the actions enlightened beings do the result(vipaka) of previous good karma while on on the path to Nirvana? Is all the enlightened karma neutral?

I earn well enough. But I don't count how much my money I spend. I mostly spend money on just foods only. But here is the problem. If I cook myself at home, I can save a lot of money. However, I spend twice / thrice the same amount if I spend eating outside. Well, the extra amount I could donate for good purposes. But, I don't want to cook at home as I need to wash the utensils and make necessary arrangements that would take my time. I am confused about what should I do?

If actually knowing the way to liberation, would one with ability to teach or knowing where to get taught, send another out to find out for one self? If someone is doing so, send you into the dessert, what can be the reason for such? Why would, if, a wise and compassionate person, possible avoid to send you out, relaying just on your own? And why would a unwise and attached person desire to guide or bind others? (This question(s) arose while reading [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/14010/loss-of-faith-in-buddhism/23218#23218) , and note, it's a question, not a judgement of a certain case at fist place, since preoccupations could distract proper attention easy and fail to, reflect and answer.) *[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purposes and other low wordily gains by trade and exchange.]*