I am doing vipassana meditation from last six month and had done two 10 days course of S N Goenka Vipassana Meditation.Doing daily 2 hours meditation in morning and evening. I am having constant sensation on my right cheek and on forehead during meditation and even after meditation almost 24 hours. Also have continure sensation in head in brain, on top, Side and back side of head ,I am not able to sleep due to it and I am feeling i am doing some thing wrong. As i understand that i am not monk who engage in meditation 24 hours. Should i do simple anapana, Not vipassana ? What should i do ? How can overcome it ? Or I should leave meditation and leave life as earlier as i was living ? Kindly provide solution in detail how to do, Like do it yourself ?

I never understood silence or emptiness in Buddhism and how is experiencing them beneficial?.Is it a way for experiencing the arising of experience ?

I have heard of five tricks/methods which could be used to avoid performing unwholesome kamma. I can remember three of them precisely. Would like to know all 5 listed in order. One is shifting the mind away from the unwholesome thought, another is finding the root cause, another is thinking of consequences.

What is the purpose or cause of cessation or extinction or Nirvana. Did Buddha ever talk about it? For example, see how [SN 23.1](https://suttacentral.net/sn23.1/en/sujato) ends: > “But sir, what is the purpose of extinguishment?” > > “Your question goes too far, Rādha. You couldn’t figure out the limit of questions. For extinguishment is the culmination, destination, and end of the spiritual life.”

How do those who have experienced multiple, profound-negative events, and/or long periods of extreme hardship muster up the will to continue on the path, or even to try to live a morally-upright life when one feels absolutely certain that any effort towards skillful thoughts/actions is only a short-term project that will only be demolished in the near future anyway?

How can a small woman in a small country who does not understand many of these questions, let alone the answers, ever hope to become enlightened.

I have done 02 10days Vipassana Meditation (S N Goenkaji)and want to devote life for same. Interested in knowing is any monetary in india where I can stay for years or more and learn teaching of Buddha and Vipassana

I read that the guidance of a teacher is "highly recommended because not all meditation experiences are spiritually skillful" and that > "It's also very common for solo practitioners to believe they have reached a deep meditative state when in fact they have barely scratched the surface. They may feel the rapture of the first dhyana, for example, and assume that's enlightenment. A good teacher will guide your meditative technique and keep you from sticking anywhere." > > [Developing Samadhi](https://www.learnreligions.com/samadhi-449923) Can we take a deep and authentic look, and potentially reach enlightenment without a teacher? thanks

In AN 3:65, while advising the Kalamas on how to choose among a variety of contradictory belief systems, the Buddha mentions ten inadequate criteria for truth: > Come, Kalamas. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by > hearsay, by a collection of texts, **by logic, by inferential > reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after > pondering it**, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you > think, 'The ascetic is our teacher.' I am interested in the four criteria that seem to relate to verbal reasoning (an alternative translation in parentheses): - Logic (surmise) - Inferential reasoning (axiom) - Reasoned cogitation (specious reasoning) - Acceptance of a view after pondering it (bias towards a notion that has been pondered) Bikkhu Bodhi has a footnote that, much to my consternation, says of these criteria, > [They are] four types of reasoning recognized by thinkers in the Buddha's age; their differences need not detain us here. I understand the main point being made (that we should go by direct experience), but I am curious about the precise meaning of these four criteria. **I am looking for an answer that explains the differences between these four types of reasoning by providing an example of each one from everyday life.** Bonus for any relevant historical context.

If I remember correctly, Buddha wanted to verify his insight after his sit under the Bodhi tree. He took a leaf and reversed the cause-and-effect leading to him holding that leaf in order to check something. Can anyone point to the story?

I wish to master my mind, one reason is I'm so mentally weak. Like anything you want to master you have to work at it. Drill it into you. But practicing on my own hasn't work. I need a far away place that will force me to master meditation. If I get off track they will make sure I get back on track. Where is a monastery like this where I a foreigner can join for a year?

Maybe a challenging questions for the scholars and literary Abhidhamma-fans, with much possibilities for great merits: * What are the 10 sammādiṭṭhis, ten right views? Deatal explaining of each would be a great gift of the deathlessness. *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]*

I've been learning about Dharma traditions for a while now. In short: I am attracted by the figure of Siddhartha Gautama and by the fact that Buddhism is not based on faith in the scriptures (nastika). I am completely convinced by his speech on dukkha. Besides that, I'm not convinced at all by the anatman. I believe in the atman, I am convinced by the vision of the advaita védanta, and I love the simplicity of Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga and its 8 clear and defined steps to the Absolute (Samadhi). All this being said, which path to take? Which one would be the closest to my position? I was told the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna?

In the **Kevatta Sutta**, Buddha is explaining to Kevatta why he doesn't use miraculous powers for his teaching. And while telling about psychic power he tells: > Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, **there is a charm called the Gandhari charm by which the monk wielded manifold psychic powers**...exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.' And while telling about telepathic power Buddha says: > "Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, **there is a charm called the Manika charm by which the monk read the minds...of other beings**...' What do you think, Kevatta -- isn't that what the man without faith, without conviction, would say to the man with faith and with conviction?" "Yes, venerable sir, that's just what he would say." So it seems that it is possible to gain psychic power through Gandhari charm and mind reading power through Manika charm. **I want to know what these charms are.** Are they Mantras? Do any Buddhist scriptures describe it? I'm well aware that Buddhist scripture do not focus in attaining these powers and Buddhism is related with ending of suffering. But as those charm names are spoken by Buddha himself, maybe it's possible to get knowledge about those charms. Also if there is some ancient commentaries of Kevatta Sutta, then maybe some information is avaliable there.

Farmers who breed animals and sale to butcher or for food concern is considered as intentional killing and break first precept?

In [this](http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/chanda.htm) website, it's stated that: >chanda: intention, desire, will. 1. As an ethically neutral psychological term, in the sense of 'intention', it is one of those general mental factors (cetasika, q.v. Tab. II) taught in the Abhidhamma, the moral quality of which is determined by the character of the volition (cetanā) associated therewith. However, I've seen in a lot of discussions and sutta translations that the word *cetana* is usually translated as *intention*, which also happens to be the word chosen as the rendering for *chanda*. At first glance, I kind of understand this situation, mainly because how intertwined and related these two phenomena (*chanda* and *cetana*) seem to be. Sadly, I'm almost a complete ignorant in regard to pali issues (and dhamma matters in general, by the way), and so, I cannot comprehend the nuances that may differenciate these two processes. What is the difference between *chanda* and *cetana*? How do these two relate to each other? If they are related, which one comes first, and which after? Is one a condition for the other? Thanks a lot, in advance, for your time and patience. Kind regards!

Could someone explain to me how to meditate in order to see how the sankharas can be manipulated and changed so to not feel that the current situation is fixed and a must and helpless. I read somewhere that this was possible and in my personal practice that would be really helpful. From what I have heard there are 3 Sankharas : Kaya,vaci and citta or mano. How do i manipulate them during meditation and in what way do i manipulate them so I can see that there is free will and that I am not helpless could you describe with what particular technique do i manipulate or change a particular sankhara, I really need to understand it so that I can feel that these things are not a must because it seems like a must for me. (especially my feelings seems fixed and like a must) Perhaps my perceptions are messing things up to so I really want to feel that I have power over my situation by direct seeing that these things are not a must and get be manipulated and changed beacuse now it seems like a must. But I would appreciate all possible advice you could give not just about manipulating feelings during meditation but all other Sankharas or aggregates and the technique used and which sankhara or aggregate is manipulated during that particular technique. Also 1 more question. Are sankharas volitions (things we do uknowingly that can be stopped with free will) to me its like they have power over me is that ultimate truth, Because from my first question as you saw there was Monk that said that theese things could be manipulated that seems like they are not a must and can with free will and skillful attention,mindfulness be stopped if yes please tell me how and please describe how and what is happening and I will try it. Thank you all.

Buddhism has been evolving dramatically since Buddha created it. Somehow it spawned into many different 'sects' across the world. There are numerous sutra and books on Buddhism. As a beginner, it's really hard to know what to start, but I had a feeling that I need to understand the original dogma/meaning of Buddhism when it was invented. However I heard that most sutra were written by Buddha's disciples, or disciples' disciples, or even laymen; Some of the recordings are contradict each other when interpreting Buddha's true meaning; Some original meaning was lost or probably altered since then. Anyone has suggestion how I should start and what to read?

This answer states that: > View are mental constructions as they break down under scrutiny at a lower level of abstraction. Since an average person cannot discern the realities at lower levels of abstraction some view and confidence in these view. I am confused by this, because I understand the world in terms of views, I have the feeling most people hold on to views. If these views aren't existent, what are people holding on to? I agree that perhaps these views are illusory, as they are impermanent and dependently originated, but doesn't the fact we recognize them imply they have *some* reality and existence? More so, when I write for myself I often get insights, but these insights form aggregated beliefs. They're precisely aggregated, abstract ways of seeing things. Does Buddhism precisely condemn this as a cause to suffering? Lastly, the quote mentions lower levels of abstraction. Wouldn't most people usually live in such levels, and fail to reach *higher* levels of abstraction?

The book Breath by Breath by Larry Rosenberg splits the Anapanasati Sutta into 4 tetrads. The wildmind website does a similar thing. In the second tetrad there is a verse that is rendered > He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental processes, and to > breathe out sensitive to mental processes. and in the third tetrad there is the verse > He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe > out sensitive to the mind. What is the difference between mental processes and the mind? In their English translations they look very similar. What is the original Pali words or phrases? Do they have difference translations or nuances that may make the differences clearer.