Buddhism mentions “world systems.” What’s the equivalent terminology for a world system in the parlance of contemporary astrophysics?

Where can I find chanting or music, inspired by Buddhism? I would like to have this for my MP3 player so I can remember to practice when not "on the cushion" (cost-free or not, chanting or any type of music inspired by Buddhism, helping us to come back to ourselves or inspiring us to practice, to understand, etc.) Thank you and kind regards.

I started practising compassion meditation, and initially it worked very well. Yet, I feel more averse to it than initially, and when I meditate I sometimes experience a kind of distorted facial expression, almost as if I experienced pain. Part of my psychology-related background leads me to think this is either fear of compassion, or even repressed contents surfacing to consciousness. **1) Is there any way to bypass this obstacle to meditation?** **2) Is there anything in Buddhist literature about *fearing/aversion to* compassion?** **3) Is there anything to suggest some memories or karma may surface in meditation, or even simply other inner contents?** Thank you

I learn from sources the Buddha and his teachings is often associated with pessimism . Is there any historical accuracies which can confirm this as a fact.

In a Facebook post on Huineng (6th Patriarch), I found the below conversation - > A monk asked Huineng, "Who is able to attain the essential teaching of Huangmei [the Fifth Patriarch]?"
Huineng replied, "Those who understand Buddhism."
The monk then asked, "Have you attained it?"
Huineng's answered, **"I don't understand Buddhism."** Where do I find a reference to this and what does it mean to not understand Buddhism?

I've been practising vipassana for some time. Now, I'd like to try body scan, but one issue isn't clear for me. Books or articles about sitting meditation, I've read, say that it's good to sit completely still during practise. Does the same implay to body scan? Should I lie entirely still during body scan or can I move my hand, for example, when I feel such a need? Thanks for your answers.

I have tried meditating on compassion, just as I've tried meditating on the breath. Currently, these days, I find it hard to meditate on compassion. My question is: **Would practising meditation of any kind improve a meditation of another kind, e.g. practising breath meditation would increase compassion meditation's effectiveness?** Simply put, does every meditation type share at least some aspects with others, some basic features such as--I suppose--gathering attention, learning patience, and so on? Thus, improving those aspects through breath meditation might extend to compassion meditation? Thank you

It's a hell of state to observe moment by moment. I mean nothing is really life threatening with PAWS so does a retreat somewhere accommodate this condition?

What is the duality of body and external name-and-form? What is the difference between the two? What is the relationship between the two? From the Balapandita Sutta (SN 12.19) (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato): > “Mendicants, for a fool hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, > this body has been produced. > > *“Avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, bālassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṃ > kāyo samudāgato.* > > So there is the duality of this body and external name and form. > Contact depends on this duality. When contacted through one or other > of the six sense fields, the fool experiences pleasure and pain. > > *Iti ayañceva kāyo bahiddhā ca nāmarūpaṃ, itthetaṃ dvayaṃ, dvayaṃ > paṭicca phasso saḷevāyatanāni, yehi phuṭṭho bālo sukhadukkhaṃ > paṭisaṃvedayati etesaṃ vā aññatarena.* The same excerpt translated here by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > “Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by > craving, this body has thereby originated. So there is this body and > external name-and-form: thus this dyad. Dependent on the dyad there is > contact. There are just six sense bases, contacted through which—or > through a certain one among them—the fool experiences pleasure and > pain. Also, as reference, from SN 12.2 (trans. Bodhi): > “And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, > contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and > the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. > Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form. Also, please note that the term "kāya" has been used in the sense of physical body for example in SN 22.56 (although I know that it can be used to mean group or collection, when combined with other things): > eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind consciousness. > *cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, sotaviññāṇaṃ,ghānaviññāṇaṃ, jivhāviññāṇaṃ, > **kāyaviññāṇaṃ**, manoviññāṇaṃ.*

I wonder if I have been practising wrongly all this time. I notice two patterns in my meditation: (1) Usually, I meditate, but discursive thought still comments on objects, perceptions, other thoughts. I usually focus on the breathing with a commentary, i.e. "I'm breathing," "I should focus on this," "I should focus on that," "My mind is clearer," "My mind is confused," etc. (2) However, today, I focused on the breathing with very little commentary, just perceiving the sensations at the nose. The rare thought which arose was: "Nothing is happening," "Everything's quiet." My mind was nevertheless alert, and I didn't feel lethargy. **Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?** I know one shouldn't control the thoughts, or judge experience, but since both methods mentioned are easy for me, I am curious. I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness. I also feel that in that moment nothing happens. Thoughts? Thank you.

Prince Siddhartha & Princess Yashodhara met in a lot of lives as partners. How are people intended to meet their present life relations in the next life? Is the desire needed to be wished upon?

This question applies mainly to Theravada Buddhism, which is the prevailing branch of Buddhism in my country (Sri Lanka). I've observed, many times, how many temples and monks are amassing wealth and influence. Some monks travel in luxury vehicles. Some buy expensive phones. These are just a few examples that comes to mind. How is practices like this aligned with Buddhism, i.e. how is it justified or explained by Buddhists? Also note that I emphasize "some", and not all.

Is there a correlation between sukha (the 4th component of the jhanangas) and passadha (the 5th component of the sambojjhanga)?

I noticed recently that I tend to try and impress others and gather attention, especially with women (I'm a man). I see this as problematic because unlike other sources of craving and attachment, its hard to avoid others. Thus, I'd like to understand the nature of the craving/grasping/etc. process in relation to trying to impress. **What type(s) of attachment(s) are involved? How can one best relinquish a need to appear a certain way to others?** Also, I wonder: **Is there any equivalent to 'overcompensating' in Buddhism?** Overcompensating here means specifically attempting to augment the self *because* the self is in reality lacking, insecure. How does no-self affect this? Thank you

Is there a specific reason why the breath is used as the object of anapanasati or to be more precise: Why did the Buddha chose the breath. Does it mean then that in daily life our main object should also be the breath?

I tried meditation literally just now...Monday 24 November 21:00 UK time. This is the second time I have ever tried it... literally twice this evening. I have tried before lying down in bed etc to see if I could get out of body experiences but no luck. So tonight I had nothing to do and tried sitting up (the classic meditation look.) I sat in a dark room with low level background sounds. My mind went blank and concentrated on my breathing which went super super slow. Then my airways opened up...i heard my air passages "click." Then i felt slight tingling. Then the tingling seemed to travel over my whole body then it was REALLY REALLY itchy tingling or "pins and needles" darting over my whole body...I had to stop as it was starting to hurt a little!!!!! After I started itching...mainly my back area and got a bit blotchy. I have just had a hot shower to help with the itching. As I know NOTHING about what Im doing, Is it normal to have that experience? I literally could not carry on. What would happen if you forced yourself to carry on? What should I be looking for when trying to meditate? Any help or information would be greatly appreciated. This isn't my scene really but Im interested in learning more. Thanks for your time. T

Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as > "the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore, > the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the > stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated > (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the > auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the > amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted, > dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter, > the asylum, the refuge, the destination." Also from another source in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying > "There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water, > nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the > base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, > nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this > world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say > there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and > no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. > Just this is the end of suffering." The Tao Te Ching chapter 1 says > "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be > named is not the eternal Name." while chapter 7 says, > "The Tao is > infinite, eternal. Why is it eternal? It was never born; thus it can > never die." And chapter 14 says, > "Look, and it can't be seen. Listen, > and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped. Above, it isn't > bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the > realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an > image, subtle, beyond all conception. Approach it and there is no > beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you > can be it ..." The Bhagavad Gita states in chapter 2, > "The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.", "This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging." And in 12.3, > "... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent. From the above, it looks like all are the same, yet if we look at other references, Tao and Brahman is the origin or source of all things, but Nirvana is not. And Brahman can also assume attributes in the changing world or become God the Person or Consciousness, but Nirvana does not. Also, the aspirant can become or become one with the Tao or Brahman, but in Buddhism, one has to "unbecome" or let go of all that is impermanent, to realize Nirvana. But then again, Tao and Hindu sources also discuss letting go of all that is impermanent. My question is, do Buddhists ever consider that it is possible that goals in other religions like Tao and Brahman, may in fact be the same as Nirvana, if we look beyond the semantics. And therefore, the practices in these religions, may in fact lead in the right direction? Of course, we can also say that one could start off as a Taoist or Hindu, but after a few Jhanas, move towards being Buddhist, towards Nirvana. Or perhaps, all these labels are irrelevant at that point.

This is a follow-on to [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/34694/254) What's the connection or difference between joy (piti), and the "bliss" (sukha) and peace (santi) of Nibbana? Is one required to seek joy to attain Nibbana? Why? Should one seek sukha, peace, or Nibbana (to attain Nibbana)? If Nibbana and joy are different then why is (or what's meant by saying that) joy is one of the [path factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Awakening) ? It seems to me the meaning of the English words "bliss" or "happiness" is synonymous with "joy" so why does it seem like Nibbana has been described as "bliss" or "happiness"? In my opinion if there is no element of "joy", "pleasure", "delight" etc. to the attainment of Nibbana then it is wrong to refer to it as "happiness" or "bliss". I don't understand how it could be possible for there to be an unconditioned happiness or bliss.

In Buddhism, we can find a name called "Maha Brahma". Is he a GOD (as per Buddha, there are no such people called GOD), or some kind of different bean?

I've heard in several dhamma deshana that discussing the bad practices practiced by monks is a sin. But I feel that if we don't discuss such with our family & just continue giving, we won't have much shradda in our heart & also we won't be able to inform it to the chief monks to be corrected. Is there any suthra that describes about this?