Do the Pali texts on jhana actually mention Samadhi and/or One-Pointedness by name in the jhana descriptions or is this mention apocryphal?

Several years ago I did something that was totally legal, but very much against my upbringing, my world-view, and my ethics. It was a spur of the moment thing and I have regretted it massively ever since. However, it has haunted me mentally (and to an extent physically, due to tension) ever since. I might add, this event didn't hurt anyone else. What can I do from a Buddhist perspective, to completely cancel out this action and its resultant negative thought-stream once and for all?

There are those who not only deny one's faults as a "Dhammic" approach, but also are very anti-social (absence of gratitude and dutyfullness), with tendencies found in "[I don't like people but I like buddhism](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/30692/i-dont-like-people-but-i-like-buddhism) " and certain answers. This attitude seem common given modern consumerism and individualism, yet ignores the fact that material goods have no goodness but are dependent on people's voluntary or forced sacrifices. So is it with some "Buddhists". There is no Buddhism without gratitude for people who sacrificed a lot that is not possible to repay. How can such an attitude of "I don't like people but I like 'food'" ever justify itself? What might be the long term effects for people of such wrong views and trained to consumerism/householder-equanimity? What will be the bill to pay, sooner or later, for grave wrong view? *(note that this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or nourishing bonds to the world but for liberation)*

This is a request for sutta references. I'd like to know the sutta's that describe how one can dedicate offerings in the name of a dearly departed one so that (s)he can, hopefully, have a better rebirth. Does anyone know of sutta's describing dedicating of offerings? Thanks.

I've noticed (and have been told) that formal sitting meditation is required and beneficial, as opposed to merely being mindful or compassionate in daily life. **What aspect of formal sitting causes this?** Is it the relaxation? The recurrent location or time? The stillness? The consistency? Thank you

I am looking for references to any (obviously modern) practices that might be described as "mindfulness of brain" or "meditation on brain" -- using the brain, part of the brain or nervous system, or any neuroscience concept as a meditation object or theme. An example might be using Daniel Goleman's idea of "amygdala hijack" for meditation on fear or other problematic emotions -- thinking about the amygdala during meditation or even trying to visualize it. This might include subtle body techniques (chakras, channels, winds, etc) that make explicit reference to brain or neuroscience concepts (which would be highly speculative, scientifically speaking, but that’s ok for my purposes). I am seeking references to established teachers or meditation systems or programs -- online or in books or papers -- *not* just ideas about how to do it, or the pros and cons of the notion. I'm also *not* seeking programs -- which abound -- that talk conceptually about brain or neuroscience but don't integrate that material into specific meditation material or themes. ---------------- addendum -- 2/28 As I said, I am not looking to discuss pros and cons of "mindfulness of brain". I just want to know if anybody is even attempting it. This is a small part of a larger research project on the consequences of current neuroscience for Buddhadharma. In fact, if nobody is doing it, that would confirm a hypothesis. But there are a lot of people drawing connections between neuroscience and meditation, so it's conceivable that someone is attempting "mindfulness of brain". If so, I'd like to know the story. If nobody responds, that's fine. It will be some evidence of non-existence, though obviously not definitive. It's all but impossible to do an online search for this idea because all the conceptual material on neuroscience and meditation gets retrieved first. That's all -- I'm not advocating it. Thanks.

Did the Buddha address the idea of making amends for past wrongs? I understand that we really only have the present moment in which karma is made, and where past karma manifests. But say one was a thief in this lifetime, stole much, but then found Buddhism and the path. According to the Buddha, should this person make an attempt to repay the victims of his/her theft?

If something is both relatively and ultimately correct can it still be false in the center ? I'm looking for a "yes" from any extant or historical tradition.

I realized that, when I meet *new* people and especially people I have a romantic interest in, to value and idealize them disproportionately. This seems very ingrained in my personality. Here, cemetery contemplation seem less pertinent as its novelty rather than lust. **What does Buddhism have to say about such novelty? What are the potential ways to reduce it or alter one's perspective about it?**

In this article http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/logic-of-buddhist-philosophy/ Philosopher/Logician Graham Priest talks about some of the differences that Western logic has with Buddhist logic. Quickly said: Western/Aristotelian logic doesn't tolerate contradictions (principle of non-contradiction) and everything has to be either true or false (principle of the excluded middle), but Buddhist logic follows a system called the catuskoti which implies that statements can be true, false, true and false, or neither true nor false. Tibetan philosopher Gorampa even included the 'ineffable'. My question is this: In buddhist logic, where does "hey man, that's illogical!" fit in? I mean, it pretty much seems everything can be valid in Buddhist logic, and there's just no place for the illogical, which pretty much points to the inefficacy of that system.

I'm a bit confused. I had a rather crappy childhood. Very disfunctional family and lots of bullying and abuse both at home and at school. It kind of made me very distrusting of people. I learnt at a young age that people would hurt me, let me down, abandon me and could not be trusted. Many people seemed to not like me for no particular reason other than that I was not a stereotype of how a boy should be in the culture in which I grew up. It really knocked any confidence out of me and I ended up hanging out with other misfits, fell into the wrong crowd and had a drug habit for many years from my teens to my late 20s. I had a string of failed disfunctional relationships and seemed to have an inability to form healthy supportive ones not only on an intimate level but also friendships. I eventually met someone who stuck around for longer but they left in the end which really broke my heart. Half way through that relationship I started practicing insight meditation the kind that Joseph Goldstein and others of that ilk teach. Its been approx 7 years now I think. So anyway I thought that buddhism might help me to be a happier person, more compassionate, more kind, more accepting etc but the truth is I don't feel any of those things. I'm actually a recluse now at 50 years old as I cannot tolerate most people. I've cut out any friends I had and I can't stand my family at all. My niece is getting married but I'm not even going because I don't want to be around people and all the crap that is involved. I'm actually very lonely and think about how nice it will be to die sometimes. I hate my work because I feel im capable of so much more but because of my lack of confidence and self belief I don't try to do something else. I have been this way for so long that it's virtually impossible to get any decent work now because I have this really sketchy work history and people don't give me a go and so I never can get anywhere financially. No money, no friends and hate my family. So what is the point really in continuing on. It's all just this never ending uphill struggle and I'm sick of it. What im confused about is how I can appreciate the teachings of Buddha and practice meditation but at the same time be this miserable lonely misanthropic person. I realise I have created these conditions but they are the result of my reactions towards people and how I felt and still feel so unsafe because of abuse etc. I have lived with maladaptive coping mechanisms that have protected me on the one hand but ruined my life on the other. I wish I could leave the city and live on some beautiful land somewhere surrounded by nature but it's not possible because of money. I feel like a caged animal just waiting for my time to end. I do have some nice calm moments and feelings during sitting sometimes but I don't feel free. I don't even want to practice metta etc because I just don't like people. Only being honest. I feel completely different about animals. I love animals and feel very kind and compassionate towards them but people just annoy me with their egotism, vanity, superficiality, stupidness, ignorance, need I go on. So my question is how can I utilise buddhism and meditation to effect some real positive change because so far it's not working. I seem to be getting worse.

Once, when I went to a Buddhist meditation center, an experienced meditator said: "Sometimes, for meditation, all it takes is five minutes [in a session]." I'm wondering what is the meaning of such a statement. **Does this refer to relaxation? Insight? Or something else? What is the most plausible meaning?**

I heard that the monk candidates outside of Sri Lanka have to make two trips to Sri Lanka in order to get an extended visa. I would prefer just making one trip to Sri Lanka(in the future) being enough to get an extended visa to be able to ordain as a monk. Is there a special way that don't require the foreigner monk candidates to make two trips to Sri Lanka? Note: I would like to ask the same question for the foreigner monk candidates in Thailand but I heard that they don't accept foreigners to be monk there anymore. If anyone has any informations about the foreigner monk situation in Thailand I would be glad If they inform me.

Is there any meaning given to dreams of the Buddha? For example is it considered an omen a sign or meaningless ...? EDIT: Sorry i have to change the edit back to the Buddha instead of Bodhisattva.My question is about someone dreaming of The Buddha.As in **Buddha,the fully enlightened** being.Not a Bodhisattva.Not a dream about Sidhattha.But a dream of the Buddha. My question is,Is there any meaning given to dreams of the Buddha in Buddhism.For example if you dreamt of The Buddha would it be considered an omen,a sign or meaningless. Thank you

In the discourse on the four Divine Abodes, what is meant by "... no limiting action remains there, none persists there." > Here a bhikkhu abides pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with > benevolence, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the > fourth; so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to > himself, he abides pervading the all-encompassing world with a mind > imbued with benevolence, abundant, exalted, immeasurable, without > hostility, and without ill will. When the deliverance of mind by > benevolence is developed in this way, **no limiting action remains > there, none persists there**.... http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/bd_dhammatalk/dhamma_talk/subhasutta.htm MN 99

As per the Wikipedia article "Arhat" : > In Theravada Buddhism, an **_Arhat_** [...] is a "perfected person" who has attained _nirvana_. And I saw somewhere that one is not allowed to say one is an Arhat. So my question is: how do you identify a person/monk who has achieved Arhatship?

I just don't understand how morally good actions, can reliably change the state of mind positively over time, in the case where the mind state is negative. For example, let's say there was a hypothetical girl who wanted to purify her mind, but was always agitated, resentful and frustrated. How would practicing the five precepts, make her calm and peaceful?

Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen? So total celibacy, vegetarianism and non violence to any life form, complete abstinence form alcohol, etc.. For the laity without a zen master.

I don't meditate often, and I've never had an experience like the following while meditating, but I feel that the following experience probably has a proper name in Buddhism (or Hinduism for that matter). A few days ago, I woke up to a horrible bout of depressive thoughts (deep depression being something I have been struggling with for almost as long as I can remember). I have gotten better at combating it recently, but this particular time, after the storm of bad thoughts had been beaten back, I had this feeling that my awareness somehow expanded. I felt as thought I could see my emotions and opinions and thoughts pass in front of me, almost like I was standing in the middle of a carousel with different lenses passing in front of me, those "lenses" being my notions and emotions through which I viewed the world; it was as if I had somehow "stepped back" 15 or so feet to view from a more removed vantage point. I noticed that my ability to "manage" my emotions went through the roof, and I was much, much happier all day. I also noticed that it was hard for me to say words that I felt were untruthful, or to say things I didn't know were true or not, as I could feel in my stomach whether they were truthful or not. I also (weirdly) felt as if I could tell when others said something they didn't actually believe, or if they were lying. I felt as if most "talk" was mainly chatter, not in a condescending sense, but more in a "not worth it" sense. I felt as if many things I used to take stock in just became... *flat*, totally uninteresting. I felt this state until I went to bed that night. But now, a few days later, I'm back to the way I was (as far as I can tell) and I also had a depressive bout as well (I'm guessing somehow brought on in part by this experience). The things that didn't matter that day, the opinions and expectations of others, their ideologies and so on, suddenly popped back up, are no longer "flat" so to speak, and are "real" again -- though not as "real" to me as they had been previously. Is there a proper name for this state of consciousness?

I recently read an answer on here referencing a sutra that states "animal arts" such as performing any form of divination constitutes wrong livelihood which should be abstained from. What I'm wondering is which of these possible interpretations is most correct: 1. Only monks need to abstain from engaging in these activities, and laypeople can do as they will. 2. Laypeople should also abstain from engaging in these activities to make money, but using them for fun / as a pastime is fine. 3. Everyone should abstain from these activities, regardless of any other factors. Or is there another interpretation altogether?