I have recently started meditation . I'm just doing normal breathing techniques and concentration techniques. Though, while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?Is it normal?how can we control this?

There is a sutta where a man kept asking the Buddha about forecasting destinations or future lives or something similar and the Buddha said to the man: "Enough!" and exhorted the purpose or goal of the holy life is to be dispassionate. Can someone help me locate this sutta? Thanks

There are probably a lot of ways to prepare for death. I myself can't come up with more than: - Reflecting on ones own death on a daily basis; - Don't buy stuff that's useless so that it's easier for loved ones to clean up after you. Are there more things one could do? And what do you yourself to prepare? Looking for inspiration. So, I'm not so much interested in the process of dying, but what you do on a daily basis in the years and decades before.

Today I stumbled upon [a thread on Reddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/aegs1z/insight_emptiness_and_the_awakened_heart/) . Deep down in the comments, I saw someone make the following claim: > My personal opinion is probably they [lay arahants] will run away from society and die in a forest, which is what happened in the suttas to a prince who ran away from society when he attained Arahantship in his sleep, and woke up. The Buddha telepathically communicated with him to come to the Sangha, aka The Refuge, it's called a Refuge because it is a refuge for Enlightened people who escape the lay life. When asked by another user where in the suttas this story was found, he replied that he didn't remember where he read it but that it was probably in the Khuddaka Nikaya. Of course I don't have time now to read the entire Khuddaka Nikaya, so I want to ask if anyone here is familiar with the story. On the one hand it sounds pretty improbable to me (if it were in the Canon, why have I never seen it being mentioned in debates about whether lay arahants exist?), but on the other hand I don't think the person who posted it has made it up all by himself. Thanks in advance for your answers!

Upon (re)-reading this answer, I conjectured perhaps there *are* techniques unsuitable for some. It does seem to be the case with the breath for me, in my experience, despite the popularity and near universality of the breath as meditative object. In context, I'm extremely sensitive to what people call *experiential avoidance ,* and focusing on the breathing to the exclusion of all else seems to trigger this. More so, I read here that in some cases of dissociative people the breath may be difficult to focus on. My question is mainly: **Given these conditions, could *even* the breath (or any object of meditation) be truly unsuitable for some? Is it possible that other objects would be much more suitable? How would one actually *know/discover* this?** I'm particularly tempted to conclude compassion (which has a visual and affective component) might be a better alternative. Yet, I'm always brought back to the breath because I keep concluding that its a *universal* object that *should* work for everyone. **Am I wrong?** Thank you

Whenever I do mindfulness with breathing I get ear pains whenever I do longer breaths. The breath is also hearable. Wherein lies the problem?

In [this Buddhadasa Bhikkhu Dhamma Talk](https://soundcloud.com/buddhadasa/9112-3-dhamma-questions-answers) , Ajahn Buddhadasa and Santikaro Bhikkhhu explained at around minute 51:30 - 54:00 that the four Satipatthanas are always investigated. As far as I understood, the four tetrads are done in a sequence, without choosing. After rapture arises in Kayanupassana, rapture becomes the object of meditation, and the transition from kaya to vedana happens. May one clarify their statement given in that recording? How is it done in daily life in whatever posture, if the arising of rapture etc. require deep meditation?

I'm wondering if pali has a specifically designated word for the view that the outer world is a reflection of one's own life state, not the other way around. Additionally, I am wondering if there are any good recources that people know of online that acts as a pali dictionary for buddhist philosophical concepts.

I wondered today whether compassion is an antidote to a kind of lack of motivation, given that it remedies fear in the suttas, and often approach and avoidance are seen as opposite (e.g. fight or flight), and that in psychology compassion is linked with the reward system: > They [the researchers of the study] point out that a heightened sensitivity to suffering causes people to avoid that suffering because it doesn’t feel good; however, because the compassion training also seemed to strengthen the brain’s ability to regulate emotions, people may have been able to sense suffering without feeling overwhelmed by it. Instead, the care for others emphasized by the compassion training may have caused them to see suffering not as a threat to their own well-being but as an opportunity to reap the psychic rewards from achieving an important goal—namely, connecting with someone else and making him feel better. > > “When your goal is to help another person, then your reward system will be activated when you’re meeting that goal,” says Weng. > > By contrast, the reappraisal group’s goal was to decrease their own negative emotions, making them less inclined to be altruistic when confronted with someone else’s pain. “When you’re focused on decreasing your own negative emotions,” she says, “I think that makes you less focused on other people.” > > [How to Train the Compassionate Brain](https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_to_train_the_compassionate_brain) I thus wonder whether compassion is said in the Buddhist tradition to increase motivation *in general*. I feel the Mahayana,which emphasizes compassion as primary quality with emptiness, appeals to householders historically in part *because* of this worldly quality of compassion. **Is there any evidence for compassion -- in the suttas or Buddhist tradition -- increasing motivation and energy aside from towards compassionate aims? In other words, does compassion increase drive in general?**

How is "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent Co-arising? If there is craving, will that craving always result in "becoming"? Is there something like craving without "becoming"? Thanks for your time and patience! EDIT: as I made the mistake of asking more than one question in the same post, I have two different answer (1231546 and Dhammadhatu's) which dissipated my doubts. Thanks!

Did Dignaga argue against real relations? I gather that his student, Dharmakirti, did. I'm asking only because I'd disagree, but am skeptical about universals.

What would one, certain wise but not free, ask/request if there is just one chance left?

A few days ago I started reading books about Paticcasamuppada because I realized how little and shallow was my understanding on this capital matter. Despite getting the gist of it, I still have problems understanding the exact details. For instance, I understand that dukkha arises from the 3 kinds of craving (kama, bhava, vibhava), and that craving is the condition for the arising of sustenance/clinging/fuel. I've been reading a book based on Dhamma Talks given by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Under the Bodhi Tree) on the topic of Dependent Co-arising. There it is said that all kinds of suffering are born from clinging to "I" and "mine". Is that always the case? If attachment and obsession is developed towards some kind of feeling, is always the idea of a self involved in that process? Couldn't be the case of some obsession to, for example, a pleasent feeling without thinking about it as "mine" or "me"? Couldn't we just attached to a past feeling on itself? Or to put it in other words... Is the arising of the idea/perception of self always necessary for the arising of dukkha? I'm not sure if I'm expressing my doubts correctly. Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

In meditation, I seem to have great difficulty with the breath. Having some stability and mindfulness, but very little concentration, vividness and sharpness. However, loving-kindness works for me in deep ways. **Is compassion meditation a kind of concentrative practice? How far could it bring me along the concentrative path?** Also, would interspacing anapanasati and metta (e.g. doing one one day, and the other another day) beneficial, or **should one try sticking to one type?**

I've heard a few pieces of advice the Buddha gave to arahants, but not much. What are some teachings the Buddha gave to arahants to guide them towards further growth? (Edit) I want to clarify a bit what I mean for I feel I didn't do an adequate job of explaining my question. After enlightenment, there is nothing more to be done, but a phenomena seems to occur. The self is known to be illusory. The bodymind (the forms within experience that was previously identified with) continue to appear and slowly seems to embody the enlightened perspective. This is outlined in this quote from [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/20103/254) which was posted here on this forum in the past. > A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. He has achieved abiding nirvana. Therefore, although they are free from the conception of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there. So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions). > > A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings). Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). He wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is the attainment of a buddha. > >A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an unmistaken way, etc. He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities are uninterrupted. This is apparently a quote from a zen master that illustrates the same thing. > A zen monk was once asked, “How’s your enlightenment going?” And he replied, “Fine. My body is having a hard time keeping up with it though.” I am hoping to find content of this nature that describes how this process of going from an arahant to a Buddha unfolds.

This morning I read many posts on this site. I felt like topics on Buddhist doctrine were somewhat clear to me, but those on meditation seemed complex, difficult to me. I wondered: **Does meditation *practice* increase knowledge about meditation? Is this what is meant by direct experience?** I feel this may seem as a naive question; I'm mainly wondering how something experienced (i.e. meditation) might affect cognition / knowledge about the *topic* of meditation. For example, I'm unsure whether a person hammering nails all day would necessarily *understand* their task conceptually. **Does meditation necessarily give one conceptual knowledge of meditation?**

Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, in a video, describes how some beginners exert themselves too much at once and then skip sessions. That is precisely my situation. Upon meditating for much longer than usual in one sitting, I skip subsequent days. Yet, recently I found myself wishing to meditate more, but not doing so because I feared that phenomenon would happen again. **How can this limitation (exertion then skipping) be overcome?** Would for example taking longer breaks between short sessions (15 min of meditation) inhibit overexertion? What would be the ideal length of such a break?

I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon is that he needed to teach it for those who were not ready to accept the Mahayana. But do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths, etc., as they appear in Theravada? Or will / have some Buddhas taught only (their own) enlightenment? ---------- I'm asking because I'm *confused*: whether or not it's logical to be! How can there be a Buddha without Arhants? If some or all Buddhas teach an enlightenment without Arhants, who in turn teach an enlightenment without Arhants, ***how this is any different to Arhantship***, just under a different name?

As seen in the title of this question, I'm not sure whether everyone is able to attain enlightenment. As far as my study and introspective analysis have shown to me, it seems that in order to uproot ignorance permanently, one has to be able to correct the distortions of the mind (perceptions, thoughts and views). And the only way to do that effectively is through right understanding about reality (dukkha, the illusion of the self, impermanence, and the Dhamma in general). But what happens when one is factually limited to exert that right understanding? What happens when one cannot exert self-control, or when one is handicapped to use logic, language, cognition or the capacity for thinking abstract thoughts properly? (I'm really sorry if I'm using some words in a rude fashion; english is not my first language) I'm talking about biological or physical limitations that may impede a normal use of mental abilities (lack of cerebral structures, disease or anatomical abnormalities, lack of development of faculties, etc.). What do the suttas tell us about this? What is your personal experience in with this topic? What does scientific research tell us about this? I'd appreciate any kind of answer. Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

I have heard in the past a kind of argument to show that there is no self along the lines of: are you your body? No, your cells regenerate all the time. Are you your emotions? No, they come and go. Are you ... ? The questioning goes on and on like that till there is nothing left. Is that argument actually found in the sutras? If yes, in which one?