I read the following on the internet: > *Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.* > > *It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).* > > *We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.* Is consciousness a result of contact? Or contact a result of consciousness? What did the Lord Buddha, the Master, have to say about this?

Watching bodily sensations is simple ,there is **always** a sensation to recognize in the present moment .Same with breathing ,hearing and seeing.Always a reception exists realtime. > For example:- > > In breathing: there is a slow breath ,heavy breath ,refreshing breath. > > In the body:There is comfort ,tightness ,discomfort. But the mind as a sixth sense isn't as easy .It doesn't seem like it always keeps receiving a continuous stream of thoughts to recognize in the present. Is there a meditation practice that can help recognize thoughts continuously ?.Or do thoughts pop out erratically and according to ones interaction with the aggregates?. **Edit** What I mean by thoughts as in ideas coming to the mind.

I have been practising breathing meditation for some time. Now, I feel compassion meditation would benefit me more. I was thinking of practising 30 min of *each* every day. **Would such interspaced practise (one session breathing, one session compassion, etc.) be beneficial, or discouraged?** In other words, **is it better to stick to the same practice on the long term?**

It is common practice to speak of Nagarjuna's *theory of emptiness* and Doctrine of Two Truths. Why do we call one a theory and the other a doctrine?

Are the genders male/female a result of Kamma, or is it associated with it in any way?

In this sutta, the Buddha teaches how different people should approach sense-restraint. Here, the enlightened ones can perceive objects in a different light (positively, negatively or dwelling in equanimity), whereas beginners should be repelled in sense-objects. My question: (i) What does "repelled/disgusted" mean literally? (ii) Isn't everyone capable to perceive the good in the bad and the bad in the good? Why did the Buddha made such a distinction?

I want to start with this Buddha quote from the Dhammapada > As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, passion will break > through an unreflecting mind. Ch. 1: The Twin Verses, verse 13 Last night I was playing chess with a close friend and he beat me 4 times consecutively .The first time I almost beat him but my performance worsened linearly .The last time my performance was the worst. Aside from realizing that each time I lost the more I wanted to beat him ,I realized that while playing I was constantly **thinking** about the possible moves and wasn't mindful or aware during the game.Its almost like I was constantly surprised by unanticipated moves Its **during** the game that the feeling of defeat struck me and during this I was thinking about the plan . How can watching and strategic thinking occur,if when I watch there is no thinking?. A fellow here stated that thinking and watching are antagonistic .I think this has some truth as when I watch the thread of thoughts subsides. I think this leads to a more general question and that in any sport or activity that requires a certain skill .How can mindfulness be incorporated during that activity?. I know there are already related questions but,there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer.

It appears many of my doubts and questions about Buddhism is the result of not being able to marry the teaching of conventional truth and the ultimate truth. For instance, when we take Jati in Dependent Origination, in terms of Vohara Desana it applies to the physical rebirth of a person. However, in the ultimate sense, there is no person then who is re-born? Ultimate sense what is re-born is the attachment, aversion, and ignorance. We can apply this duality to all 12 links of DO. Actually, this dilemma is very similar to the problem of scientists who are trying to understand the relation between the universe and the atoms. Does Dependent Origination cover both conventional teaching and Ultimate teaching?

I noticed all the emotions mentioned in the title have a certain similarity. **Does Buddhism talk about movement or gratitude?** Similarly, movement seems to occur spontaneously, but gratitude and compassion may be practised. **Is movement more of a reaction, and less constructive on that basis?** Finally, movement seems akin to sympathetic joy. Would feeling sympathetic joy in itself -- i.e. the feeling or experience of it -- be constructive independently of practice, or is the *implementation* more constructive? **In other words, would practise like meditation or action bring benefit much beyond merely feeling moved?** I guess I'm somewhat implying the question as well: **Do experiences without effort (e.g. merely *feeling* compassion) have any potential for spiritual growth?** Thank you.

If I recall correctly, the term *karma* is used to explain the concept of dependent origination and how one thing leads to another, consequently creating every event that happens in our lives. It is also emphasized in Buddhism that we should conduct wholesome deeds to obtain good karma, which will lead to good things as a result. However, when we face unfortunate events like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, can karma explain the causes of these events and why seemingly innocent people suffer because of it? Furthermore, if we accept the notion that karma is behind everything in our lives, is that equivalent to saying those who die in these unfortunate events DESERVE it? Much appreciated.

Why do you have sadness in the first Jhana? It appears you still have the sadness in first Jhana. What sort of sadness it is? The Vitakka and Vicara in First Jhana are wholesome. That is loving kindness thoughts and renunciation thoughts which cannot be leading to sadness. ====== While a mendicant is meditating—diligent, keen, and resolute—the faculty of sadness arises. They understand: ‘The faculty of sadness has arisen in me. And that has a foundation, a source, a condition, and a reason. It’s not possible for the faculty of sadness to arise without a foundation, a source, a condition, or a reason.’ They understand the faculty of sadness, its origin, its cessation, and where that faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. And where does that faculty of sadness that’s arisen cease without anything left over? It’s when, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s where the faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. They’re called a mendicant who understands the cessation of the faculty of sadness, and who applies their mind to that end. https://suttacentral.net/sn48.40/en/sujato

A very short summary of the Vipassanā technique taught by S.N. Goenka would be: "observe your bodily sensations with equanimity". The role of physical bodily sensations is the key aspect of the technique and other traditions do not attach such a great importance to them. It is said that Goenka's technique of scanning the body to feel increasingly subtle sensations was passed on though several lay teachers and that it goes back to the Burmese monk [Ledi Sayadaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledi_Sayadaw) . Ledi Sayadaw left a large quantity of writings; some of them are available [here](http://www.aimwell.org/ledi.html) and/or [here](http://www.aimwell.org/LediSayadaw/) . I looked through some of them, and in no place did I see any passage that would present observing bodily sensations as the technique to be followed. If he really taught this, it is hard to imagine he would not mention that this is the key aspect of the technique. **Can anyone provide a relevant quote from Ledi Sayadaw's texts?** **Update:** The question is whether Ledi-style Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations/body scanning. Mindfulness of the body in Ānāpāna Dīpanī is presented as something distinct from Vipassanā, so it doesn't answer my question. Moreover, it looks like Ledi Sayadaw understood "mindfulness of the body" to mean "mindfulness of the breath", not body scanning. See [Ānāpāna Dīpanī, part XIV](http://www.aimwell.org/A%20Manual%20of%20Respiration.pdf) : > [...] establishing mindfulness of the body (kāyānupassana satipaṭṭhāna). The out-breath and in-breath, being part of the aggregate of materiality (rūpakkhandha) are called body (kāya).

If we consider person(Arthma) as a consciousness. When undergoing an operation, we are temporarily unconscious. Then what happens to that person while unconscious? Some related discussion are here: I want to understand the technicality of rebirth and what happens to conditioned self . If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth? . Is rebirth a delusional belief? . What are examples of identity-view? 1. If we say these things are temporary illusions then how it is continued? 2. What are the similes use to explain this phenomena in any tradition?

Since most of you have neither much chances to practicing generosity toward the Sangha and aside probably not easy finding individual people worthy of gifts, how do you, living in outer lands, try to practice such to have a basement for further training toward path?

My question is two-fold. First, I believe that *metta* is classified as a meditation object involving concentration. Yet, in this study, researchers suggest it is a mixture of focused attention (e.g. *shamatha*) and open monitoring (e.g. *vipassana*). **Does Buddhism suggest in certain passages or teachings that compassion is dual in this way?** More so, from my experience, compassion meditations deepens insight. Theravada involves a mixture of *shamatha* and *vipassana*, and the Mahayana involves (more so) a union of compassion and wisdom recognizing *sunyata*. I feel the depth of *metta* might occur from its union of concentration and insight (as suggested in the previous paragraph) and from *metta* itself and the realization of *sunyata* (implied by their merging promoted by the Mahayana). I feel all these things occur with *metta* in my experience. When talking about *metta* a researcher described the occurrence of gamma waves: > Davidson found their brainwaves showed never-before-seen levels of gamma, one of the strongest types of brain waves, theorized to appear when the different regions of the brain harmonize. **In Buddhism teachings and texts, is metta said to unite a variety of mental factors together?** Thank you

The Abhidhamma seems to talk only in terms of eradications. According to the Abhidhamma the following defilements are eradicated (different list than the fetters): - by Sotāpanna: wrong view, avarice, envy, doubt; - by Sakadāgāmi: nothing; He 'just' eliminates grosser forms of lust, hatered and delusion; - by Anāgāmi: sensual greed; hatred and worry; - by Arahant: delusion, shamelessness, fearlessness of wrong, restlessness, greed (other), conceit, sloth and torpor. With other words: once eradicated those emotions will never ever show up in ones mind. So far, so good. I'm interested now in the following: What doe the sutta's say about the characteristics of the Noble Ones? The Abhidhamma, for instance, tells me that a Sotāpanna can't break the 5 precepts anymore. This is one characteristic one could look for then. Are there more? What are noticeable characteristics of the other stages? So, what does this all mean practically? Okay, a Sotāpanna doesn't break the precepts. What about a Sakadāgāmi? Does this elimination of grosser forms mean (s)he never has sex? Does an Arahant not yawn, because (s)he has eradicated sleepiness? So, I'm not really interested in the list of the fetters. But more in the characteristics by which Noble Ones could be recognised. Like the not breaking of the 5 precepts by the Sotāpanna. This answer , for instance, is not what I'm looking for. Edit: In case I wasn't clear, I'm looking for characteristics noticeable by others. So, not internal ones only noticeable for the person in question. Thanks. :)

If a Buddhist noticed someone trying to severely harm their temple, for example trying to start a fire, how would one expect them to respond? I could imagine a range of responses from completely ignoring it and continuing about their meditation to compassionately talking with the person to getting themselves and bystanders to safety and planning to rebuild later to carrying the person out of the temple. I know spitting on the statue of Buddha is an example used in teachings but I am wondering about scenarios of lasting harm on the facilities that would make them unusable. Are there any instructive historical examples where something like this happened?

I've read a few answers and concluded that for most of these answers, concentration in meditation often implies unawareness of peripheral stimuli. This confuses me. I usually have wisps as thoughts rather than full blown thinking in meditation, but I don't particularly become unaware of my environment. **Is such an experience very advanced? More so, does unawareness imply literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by such distractions?** Finally, I'm wondering whether the diminution of thoughts *in itself* means little. **Is attention placed upon the object consistently more important than thought reduction?** For example, I can imagine attention being close to the object but thoughts (e.g. about the object) arising, but I can also imagine a thoughtless person's attention being fragmented, directed without focus. **Is any of these more important?** Thank you

I have on occasion seen commenters here and elsewhere who declare their achievements, such as being a sotāpanna. These comments are downvoted, so they do not appear to be appreciated. If comments like these show up on public forums then casual visitors may themselves see that the path can be followed, that people living today have found that the teachings work, and may themselves be inspired to study the Dhamma. That would be a good possible outcome from such comments. So is it considered wrong to write such declarations publically (at least if one is not a monk) and when would be the appropriate time and place to make declarations of achievements?

>Worth keeping in mind is that an arahant needs to learn from a Buddha to become enlightened, so if the story in question means the prince became an Arahant (*epic for one awakened*) before meeting the Buddha, that is impossible. Was said by monk [yuttadhammo](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31976) My person would reject such a categorical statement but is of course open to give it a prove. No doubt that an awakened would seek out for the Sangha, but especially this days, although the Dhamma might be traceable, such as the Sangha is not sure. So what is actually told about the appearances of a Paccecabuddha and Awakened, (such a person) being told as even someone who may be in the position to rebuke the monks? *(Note that this is not given for entertaining, stacks, exchange and trade but as a tiny door out of the wheel of householding)*