What lasts longer: the Cheesburger or a perception of it? What's more real? Where to put into de-veloping?

I can not focus in upper lip: my focus goes in to nostril. I can now watch breath in nostril, but can not stay focussed on upper lip and watch breath. I focus on entire nose and not on upper lip, and watch breath in nasal passage -- is this right ? I doubt is it controlled breathing ? Secondly I want to learn to stay focussed on upper lip and watch breath -- please guide.

I have a questions and I hope someone could help. Regarding time and space, I have seen different views: do they exist independently of our mind perceiving them, or is that all mind (inside mind)? I would love to hear both views Mahayana and Theravada. I really want to understand what they say, about time both existing subjectively in the mind or outside in the World -- and same about space, is it inside our mind or does it exist outside our mind independently? I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space -- I may be wrong, hope somebody could clarify it, I want to be clear. But isn't it important to understand what kind of relation time have to impermanence? In the Mahayana tradition Nagarjuna's theory seems to say that time is dependently arisen just as any phenomena and therefore doesn't exist. Does he mean that time doesn't exist subjectively in our mind, or does he mean that time doesn't exist for the universe? In my opinion, Mahayana's view of reality is that subject-object inter-are -- while Theravada does not talk about the nature of the universe, but instead focuses on what the cause and cessation of suffering is, without saying anything about time -- but isn't that important to understand for liberation? If there is nothing about in the scriptures then I will accept it and no problem, but I just want to know.

I am attached to my parents, children and other close family members quite heavily. Me alone escaping the suffering is not enough. I want to make sure they are on track to escape suffering as well. What are my options?

Buddhists have a new year ,But it is not January 1st.What is the reason they celebrate the new year of January 1st.It is based on a religious basis or something else...

Mahayana claims that the realisation of Nirvana in Theravada is dual while Mahayana is non dual. I have read that Advaita (the universal consciousness theory) is the same as Mahayana. - Does that mean that Mahayana claims that the universe is unreal, and that Everything is consciousness -- which means that the universe (and the time and space existing in it) is illusory, and exists only from the Point of view of the separate self but not in reality? - Or are they not as extreme as Advaita, but instead only claims that time do not exist (except) in our minds -- but Everything is consciousness -- or is there difference between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta? I want to learn both paths and then use both for my benefit. From what I have read the realisations are not the same and I would really like to understand the both realisations. Thank you for your patience and your energy

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all. Advaita says that there is only the universal conciousness and all the objects and people are ilusions what is the Buddhist view here?. Advaita says that in deep sleep conciousness do not stop what is the buddhist view here?. In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let conciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that conciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do buddhist explain that experience of our true nature. Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality conciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was conciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here? What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana?. What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which impliyes that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a ilusion that we are not. Hopefully someone will be able to answer my questions I would really be thankful. Thank you for Everything. Kind Regards

I'd like to look more on Candrakirti, and have a few questions about him. What was/is Candrakirtis most important contribution to Buddhist philosophy? - If you were to start reading Candrakirtis own works, where would you start? - Can anyone give me a good tip for a comprehensive introduction to Candrakirti?

At least one of the "introductions to Buddhism" that I read included elements from, some biography of, the life of the Buddha, including: - Early life - Searching for enlightenment - Sermon at Benares (a.k.a. "Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion") - Death (i.e. "Behold etc. ... Work out your end with diligence"). Is the Tipitaka arranged in useful sequence? I feel like I'm walking into a library, looking at the [Dewey Decimal Classification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification) and wondering which I should read first. I take it that the Tipitaka is not chronological! Am I right in think that the Dhammacakkappavattana is the first and most important sutta? If so is it sensible that, there, it is "SN 56.11" (i.e. not the first sutta)? What other "important" suttas should I read "first"? Is more known about the sequence in which the Buddha himself delivered them (e.g. if the Sermon at Benares was the first, was the Fire Sermon the second, and which then was the third, etc.)? Please answer any or all questions above. Or you could answer this question by commenting on what it says at [Which suttas should I read?](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/befriending.html#which) Do you agree with what it says there, do you have anything to add to what it says there, or to take away?

Is nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara possible? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?

I have like an electric current passing through my body during meditation. It is like in the whole body or maybe not just in the body like in my sphere. It is a fine-tuned electric current that comes for a couple of seconds. It stops for a fraction of a second and there is nothing and then it starts again. It feels like it is changing direction. It is not unpleasant it just is. What is this? What can I do with it?

An argument why [a question "mind vs. matter"](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/33424/mind-vs-matter-what-lasts-longer) will not be given free points on: >That’s why, when it comes to this mind, an uneducated ordinary person is unable to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed. Given that certain "Buddhist" say that matter is more secure, lasting and higher, why do they at the same time not get disillusioned about the mind? Or what does the Buddha here say, when praising the abounding of the "more lasting" first: >But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind. Why is that? This body made up of the four primary elements **is seen** (perceived) to last for a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer. May there be not-uninstucted and masters of Vipassana, who could enlighten the topic a little, for those who had abound "the longer lasting" already. *(Note that this pixles here will by far not last as long as your mental imprints beyound it, so be quick in penetrating)*

I’m very new to Buddhism and am wanting to find an accurate source to show me the word-for-word interpretations of terms and words. Right now I’m trying to learn the meaning of each word of the “Ethan santhan ethan paneethan..” chant and although I have the English explanation of the whole thing, I want to know what each word translates to in order to gain the best personal understanding of how this mantra is said and also how Pali works. I’d appreciate any help on this. Thank you.

This question can seem contradictory but form my understanding ,duality is inherent in reality and accepting reality in all its dualities leads to more conscious actions. But if the person as a result acquires ONLY positive qualities then isn't this dual and not in accord with nature? Buddhism lays emphasis that qualities like ,jealosy ,hate,pride and anger are unskillful and qualities like love,peace,contenmtent and compassion are. Don't we kill animals and plants to eat ,don't we fight in wars in self defense, these are negative but right actions to take and underlie negative qualities of brutality . Can we cry consciously can we kill consciously ?

A pure, almost metaphysical but from the inside of me: How would it sound that there is an afterlife of the more that 00 billion people that ever lived on earth since the begging of our species (as calculated). And more specifically those who have lost their lives in vein or with an unjust way, through war or crime or even physical disaster. How much JUSTICE could be embodied in our Universe and could these lost lives have a second chance as energy (a soul) in another parallel universe, or in other case, just be re-incarnated in our Earth?

It seems to be a strong affinity in media for monks to be beggars. There doesn't seem to be anything in Buddhism that effectively correlates to being poor, or even using begging for livelihood. The Noble Eightfold Path even has occupations in one of the folds, and doesn't recommend too much of a constrain to the point of driving people poor. Specifically, I would put the book Buddha Boy by Kathe Koja on display, where a Buddhist boy moving into a rather bad neighborhood is picked on at school for his actions, one of which is begging for food during his lunch period. In this example, "Buddha Boy" begs for food, however, that doesn't seem like anything I've seen in Buddhist culture. Is this a common misconception, or am I misinformed?

There are many, considering themselves even as "Buddhist" who would not give much toward Monks and Priests, yet reminded by the [Sublime Buddha talk](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than_en.html) : >"There is the case where a woman or man is not a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to brahmans or contemplatives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, he/she is poor wherever reborn. This is the way leading to poverty: not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to brahmans or contemplatives. Is there any valid way to get around such a future, if holding on such carry out further? Whould the only way out here be claiming that it was not taught, not even such as rebirth? He says "I give the poor, the animals, those i like...", would he nevertheless face such future if not actually already in such situation? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment binding here but for liberation of such)*

What does one here think: Is a person, having reached the path, able, would he, reject a request of something material, incl. strength and effort in material spheres, if he could share? In what cases, if he could reject, would he? *(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment that binds here in this wheel, but as a tiny door out)*

Has any Buddhist ever talked about postponing Buddhahood **forever**, but *not* for all sentient beings? I do not, I suppose, mean because the "bodhisattva" enjoys life. I am trying to ask about "compassion " for some group or even individual, if that is possible? I don't mind if the answer ignores the alledged universality of Buddha-nature, but would prefer if it was from that perspective.

Let's take 2 examples: 1. A Buddhist notices a crying girl. After asking it turns out that she lost her mother, and don't know where to find her 2. Alice and Bob has a complicated relationship. Bob wants to communicate with Alice, but due to her misunderstandings and prejudices, she doesn't accept his words. Helplessly, he turns to a Buddhist that is an important friend with Alice, hoping that he will help him to tell Alice that she needs to listen to Bob carefully Would the Buddhist helps them? - Yes, because explicit sufferings (losing mother, being unable to communicate, having prejudice) are more suffering than implicit ones (staying in the attachments)? - No, because ultimately it's still helping them staying in the attachments, while the Buddhist goal is aiming at the ultimate freedom? Or is that because helping others also a kind of attachment?
Related: [Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/33370/13525)