Although I find this topic interesting, I wonder if study of it, e.g., the various worlds and universes and the beings that inhabit them, what they did to get there, where they go once they leave there, etc, is part of developing the eightfold path? All of the details can overwhelm me and lead toward doubt, so I recently found myself asking if that information is necessary for right view.

Growing up in a conservative family, I saw my community elders choose a good day for events or celebrations. Including, a good day to travel, a good day to start a business, a good day for haircut and much more. Do they adopt animism? Or is it related to Buddhism?

If somebody does sin or bad karma, harms other living beings, but that person doesn't believe in karma and believes that karma is just an illusion. then how does his bad actions will harm him? For example, if I kill a mouse but I totally believe that nothing will happen, karma or religion is just people's belief, then will I ever be punished for that karma and such believe? Because there is also one saying that everything is just our belief? And also if I later ask for forgiveness to god for my bad karmas then will my bad karmas be forgiven?

I have never meditated before. I really want to get into meditation to explore the benefits, especially trying to understanding who I am and how my mind affects my perception of reality (looking for spiritual growth etc). So, for the past week I have spent an hour a day, what I understand as meditating, on my own in a quiet room. From my very first session onward, my mind has simply been completely blank during meditation (after allowing 1 minute to adjust to such a state). I don't experience any form of brain chatter (I hardly ever do), I sit easily for an hour with only a handful of thoughts occurring to me, although I feel completely focussed, awake, present and aware. I don't force a blank mind, it simply goes quiet when I focus on breathing (perhaps due to my inability to multitask). In short, I simply feel I get no benefit from this, other than experiencing some sort of longish-lasting blissful state (but I thought there is more to it). From my limited understanding, I understand that the ideal meditation state is getting your mind as still as possible, then simply observe (non-judgmentally) any thoughts passing by, realising it's all conceive by the mind and learning from what you witness as a kind of 'outside observer'. Since I don't observe much, I feel I don't learn anything at all. **Can anyone perhaps please shed some light on my situation and tell me what benefit I can get from meditation when I find my mind is already completely blank and I have no thoughts during meditation sessions.** ----------------- *Just to give you some background context in the event that it might help ... I have immense focus and no ability whatsoever to multitask. e.g. I literally have to stop a conversation when I plug a plug into a wall socket. On the other end, I can easily sit still and concentrate for hours and hours. In general, my mind is overflowing with ideas whenever I want it, but I simply find that my mind goes offline when I meditate and I don't find it helpful in my deeper spiritual search.*

I have come across a reference to the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) noted as MN 1.436. In my own book (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A translation of the Majjhima Nikaya by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bikkhu Bodhi) there are 152 suttas and each sutta can be sub-divided into a number of vaggas but I can't figure out how one arrives at the aforementioned reference (just newly started to take an interest in the literature). Kind Regards Bo

I have read a sutta where the Buddha says that there are elements from other religions in his dharma and certain elements from his dharma in other religions as well. I'm looking for that sutta.

I've just answered a question referencing Alan Watts . I'm aware he isn't a straightforward figure though I've always found him provocative and interesting. At one point I though he was a Buddhist having written books such as The Way of Zen . I'm pretty sure that isn't the case now. So the question is what kind of relationship did Alan Watts have to Buddhism. Was he a practitioner at any point in his life or did he just use the ideas in a kind of heady new age type of mix that he was pushing at the time?

Sometimes I see comments like, "the Buddha never taught the four noble truths to laypeople". - Is that so? - If so, why didn't he? - Aren't the 4NT the best, most succinct and most helpful, part of the Dhamma? - Isn't that difficult to reconcile with the teacher's not having a "closed fist"? I know that the first sutta was only to the five wanderers (who were not house-holders); but doesn't the [Kalama sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html) , for example, warn against greed -- and the precepts, and suffering, all in one sentence? > And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering. Isn't that the first two or three noble truths right there? So if someone says that he didn't teach the 4NT, are they (more specifically) saying that he didn't teach the noble eightfold path? But the noble eightfold path is a.k.a. the three trainings. And he definitely taught virtue, so ... is it saying that he didn't teach wisdom nor concentration? So is it saying, and is true, that he didn't teach e.g. meditation to laypeople? [Can lay people be enlightened](https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/Lay_arahant) at all -- if so, how without the 4NT? And is it true to say that the 4NT are certainly taught to laypeople now? Even to children? I'm surprised to find that they're not mentioned in the introduction to the Jataka Tales ([here](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits009.htm) and [here](http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits010.htm)) , though it does summarise Dependent Origination. I don't remember such a book in detail but I imagined that the 4NT would be included in any kind of popular introductory book, such as one that mentions [the four sights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_sights) . [This answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1492/254) says that the 4NT is part of the doctrine shared by all schools of Buddhism. Is it true to assume that every Buddhist in every country (including lay people) knows what the 4NT are?

What is the manner in which those meditating on emptiness actually bring their contemplations into a practical, experienced form? In other words, how does insight (on emptiness) become effective in every day life?

What does Buddhism say about polyamory? By polyamory I mean a consensual romantic relationship that involves more than two adult people, which may or may not involve sexual contact. Is it wholesome, unwholesome or neutral? Is it any different than a romantic relationship between two people? Do different branches or traditions have different views on this subject?

As a practical observation, if one were staying below arhat for the initial aeons, could monastic living limit the efficacy of a bodhisattva? Since that goal heavily rests on seclusion, and both the wandering and monastic models were developed to enhance seclusion, shouldn't a different, more open model of monkhood exist? They should be able to have kids at least for example, since it would help them to help more beings.

I posted yesterday here for my first time and received many very helpful answers. I'm so grateful for having found this site because I always have questions. In continuing with yesterday's question regarding the Buddha's path to enlightenment, during his 6 years of searching he practiced extreme fasting, which I've heard of. But there's one mention that I've come across that states the following: "Another way of torturing his body was to hold his breath for a long time until he felt violent pains in his ears, head and whole body. He would then fall senseless to the ground." (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/14lbud.htm) Does anyone have any thoughts on the holding of the breath practice? Not that I'm interested in trying it myself or anything, that is, I'm aware that the Buddha eventually found these extremes to be unskillful, thus the middle way became his goal. I'm just curious as to its roots and the thought behind it. Thanks! Kevin

Is it possible for states/beings of that of hungry ghosts to gain path? Is it possible to help them? Or is providing food, in the case they had done merits before, all what one could do for them in their state? For context and understanding, see also: [Escape possible for internets “hungry ghost”?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/31148/escape-possible-for-internets-hungry-ghost) and [What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22380/14871)

I'm in a strange situation right now (weird for me, at least). These past few days have been intense days of reflection on the Dhamma, which generated two effects at the same time in my overall life: 1) I feel like I'm seeing things clearer than ever before. Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha are no more just simple intellectual statements, but they are the filter of most of my experiences. This is not a declaration of attainments nor anything alike, but rather an oportunity to share how true is the Dhamma and how much freedom can it bring to our lives. I feel more at peace than ever before, and people around seem to be benefiting from these changes (or so it seems from the outside). But... 2) I feel more isolated than ever before, which is not a bad thing in itself. It is rather a kind of peaceful loneliness, but loneliness nonetheless. I feel like quite a few people could understand these feelings, and that I have few people around me to get advice from. And so it seems be noticed by some close friends and acquantances. Some of them seem to think that I'm becoming something like a robot. I don't think that's the case. Maybe "equanimous" is the word I'd use to describe such state. One of my friends asked me if I talk to her just out of compassion instead of out of real feelings of friendship. That question really freaked me out, especially because it seems to be pointing to some truth, but I cannot put my finger on it; I don't know if there's a real difference between those two motivations. One part of me wants to keep going along this Path, because all of the peace it has brought to me. The other part is not so sure if it's ready to lose its bonds, relationships and wordly goals and ties, feelings which can be ascribed to still being in love with Samsara, and still having ignorant tendencies. I feel in a kind of crossroad right now. Have you experienced something like this? Is it possible to balance these two goals? I'd really appreaciate any piece of advice, whether from personal experience or from suttas. Thanks in advance for your patience and understanding!

There is a pithy saying for keeping fit that goes > The 'best exercise you do' is the exercise you do i.e. the most important thing is to find something you enjoy and you can stick with rather that do the scientifically proven 'more effective exercise' that you maybe don't enjoy as much. So I was wondering is the same true of meditation i.e. > The 'best meditation you do' the meditation you do So to fill it out - is it more important to find the meditation that suits you personally and perhaps adapt and tweak it until it really suits or is it better to pick a tradition and follow their methods to the letter and force your way through it?

I have found a page in which a sravaka seems to object to a mahayanist that, if those that aren't ordinary people have no cognition, then it's ultimately correct to have sexual relations with a forbidden woman > If he says: Madhyamikas make statements such as the following: > "[Cognition] is not in the eye, it is not in form, and it is not > between them or in both of them. Wherever it might be present, it > neither exists nor does not exist". So no cognition is apprehended. The footnote says that the source of the quote is unclear, and not from MMK or Aryadeva. Bhavaviveka then seems to explain that the sravaka's conclusion, that forbidden women would then be ultimately correct to have sex with, is not proven, because it is no different to saying that all women can relieve desire: both are examples of improperly denying all things. Bhavaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents p129 So, I *think* the general argument is that ultimate reality does not deny conventional reality. Even if distinctions do not ultimately exist, but do conventionally, that does not mean ultimate reality denies the truth of conventional distinctions. The difference is about being and not truth. It may be worth noting that "non conceptual cognition" crops up a lot in the book, I think as the goal of Buddhist practice. ---------- I'm not sure if I've misinterpreted the argument: did any Indian Mahayana Buddhists, such as Bhavaviveka, have non-cognition as a goal? And, would that mean they do not seek knowledge, or just that cognition is empty of svabhava?

It's well documented in psychology that the cessation of any type of addictive behaviour causes a period of withdrawal. During this period, less pleasure is experienced overall as well as mental difficulties. **Does Buddhist have any advice about such periods and way to help the recovery process?**

As a duty of children, how to transfer merits to parents after their death?

In SN 12.65 , we read about the cyclic relationship between consciousness and name-and-form, which has been asked in this question . However, this sutta also has the curious phrase in bold below. What does this phrase mean? "*This consciousness turns back; it does not go further than name-and-form.*" How does it fit with the rest of sutta? As translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does birth come > to be?… existence?… clinging?… craving?… feeling?… contact?… the six > sense bases?… name-and-form? By what is name-and-form conditioned?’ > Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a > breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is consciousness, name-and-form > comes to be; name-and-form has consciousness as its condition.’ > > “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does > consciousness come to be? By what is consciousness conditioned? ’ > Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a > breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is name-and-form, consciousness > comes to be; consciousness has name-and-form as its condition.’ > > “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘**This consciousness turns back; it > does not go further than name-and-form.** It is to this extent that one > may be born and age and die, pass away and be reborn, that is, when > there is consciousness with name-and-form as its condition, and > name-and-form with consciousness as its condition. With name-and-form > as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as > condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of > suffering.’ As translated by Bhikkhu Sujato with Pali version included (from here ): > This consciousness turns back from name-and-form, and doesn’t go > beyond that. > > *paccudāvattati kho idaṃ viññāṇaṃ nāmarūpamhā na paraṃ gacchati.*

I heard a talk by Ajahn Amaro that says that wherever I encounter dukkha, it is a sign that there is an attachment involved, that I can let go of and this way free myself from the dukkha. https://youtu.be/-h_O_SuKOKE?t=2823 But this way, what prevents me from laying down and dying from hunger or thirst - if I feel hunger, it may be dukkha from my attachment to food, or to survival... What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs? Thanks for answering a noob question.