I have tried meditating on public transport. There, I find I meditate as sharply as when sitting formally. Yet, I find this suspect. **Is it possible to *believe* one is concentrated and meditating efficiently, but actually not? In other words, should I trust my experience that meditating on public transport is equally efficient as formal sitting?** Thank you.

What can you say to someone whose loved one (e.g. spouse or parent) is dying? Assume if you can that in the West, e.g. Europe and America, although people (strangers) might have heard the first thing about Buddhism, but they **haven't formally** practised it nor intentionally studied its doctrines in any detail (what if they've just seen some "fake Buddha quotes" for example). So, although a simple catchphrase (perhaps just a few words of Dhamma) might help a Buddhist as a "reminder", someone else (a non-Buddhist) might not recognise/understand that. Or I would ask, what you could you even say to a layperson who does know some Buddhism -- except that most of the people who I'm likely to contact don't, and I doubt it's a moment to begin to lecture them (uninvited). For example a simple statement like, "Don't be attached", might sound like, "Don't be ill" -- or, "abandon that person" -- which might seem impractical, too academic, or even cruel if you don't understand the context (and might need more explanation than is possible in the context). Or for example, saying, "Buddhist doctrine says that..." sounds like they're being lectured, and at a moment when they're concerned about something other than Buddhism (so maybe that too is not the right way to frame or to open a conversion). I don't want to talk too much about what I think the difficulties are, so I'll try to stop; if you have questions (about this question), you can a comment to ask. But as well as being **reluctant to lecture** someone unasked, I'm generally not sure what to say if someone tells me that they're suffering somehow. For example if someone is mentally ill and tells you something about (or something based on) their delusions or hallucinations, I think I've read that maybe people shouldn't encourage (nor perpetuate nor even argue against) those fantasies (e.g. "yes" and "tell me more about that" or "that's untrue"), and instead you're supposed to talk about consensual (maybe conventional) realities. So I worry that "tell me about your suffering" (or even "yes that's sad" or "I'm so sorry") might only reinforce the suffering, especially if I've nothing to add, nor even understand how to steer their thinking (steer the topic) by asking questions -- possibly (at the risk of being prejudiced) it might be good for them to experience "brahmaviharas", or "recollection of virtue", or even just some "calm" etc., but I'm not sure how someone might get there by my asking them questions -- so maybe that (asking questions) is not the right approach either, or is it? I quote [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31451/254) as an ideal -- slightly out of context, because that was posted as an antithesis of "fear" or aversion -- but perhaps this is an example of an ideal: > ... basically leave all Dharma-Theory home and dive into the world, while learning to be authentic and helpful. The end result of this is an image of someone very warm, strong, and open, who has enough inner power and confidence that he or she can be very down-to-earth, very real, without formalities and artificial boundaries that come from fear. This is very different from the aloof ascetic image cultivated on the previous stage. It is someone very warm and very *real*. The absence of overt Dharma-Theory (in relating to others) might be appropriate (though perhaps you're informed by theory, or practice, even if you're not teaching it formally/explicitly). I guess I'm looking for answers from personal experience (your own or someone else's) -- what kind of thing can you say that actually works in the circumstance, is helpful? When I've tried to do this in the past, it was by trying to share (recollect, recount) what might have been helpful in retrospect from my own experience (of a relationship with a dying loved one). My doing that might depend on making assumptions about the people I'm talking to, so, and I've only limited experience -- perhaps you can tell me more experience or even generalise from experience ... or not? It happens and will happen a lot (that I meet people in this situation), it would be good to be better prepared for that if possible. --- At the risk of being off-topic (maybe delete it if it is), here's a story -- as an example of what seems to be a beneficial effect of a kind word (i.e. it "kept me unexpectedly calm"). Someone posted a question on Twitter -- *What is the kindest thing a stranger has done or said to you?* -- which has thousands of replies. And one of the answers to that question, which I thought was remarkable, was [this one](https://twitter.com/JohnFPfaff/status/1102754618562564098) (quoted here): > One of my twins was born with multiple heart and esophageal defects. Had open-heart surgery at 47 hours old, weighing only 4.5 lbs. When the surgeon described the procedure, it sounded impossible. But the surgery went well. He has more to go, but we let our guard down. > > 24 hours later, get a call that he's failing (he was at one hospital, my wife and his twin at the other, and I'm running back and forth). It looks grim; Plan A is an untested long-shot, and there's no Plan B. I race out of Hospital 1 to grab a cab to Hospital 2. > > Get in cab, driver asks me how I want to get there. Exhausted and angry, I snarl "my son is dying at Hospital 2, so whatever way you think is faster." > > We drive in silence for a very long time. > > As we get near, he starts to ask me what is wrong, and I tell him. He replies, as we pull into the hospital, "I am Muslim, and tomorrow is Friday. I will pray for him all five times tomorrow." And as I hop out of the cab, I hear him start to pray, "bismallah ar-rahman...." > > As I raced thru the hospital, that one small act of kindness, after I had been so surly to him at the start, stuck with me, and for some reason kept me unexpectedly calm during a night of staring at the Plan A machine, hoping it would defy expectations and work. > > (It worked.) > > It wasn't some huge thing. But that small act of compassion made such a huge difference as I spent the night alone w this insanely strong but insanely sick little boy--and who is now quite healthy. > > It's one of the few things that still chokes me up when I think abt those days. I suppose the bits of Islamic doctrine which a non-Muslim might know are "[Inshallah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inshallah) " (something to do with awareness that things happen according to God's will i.e. not always our will) -- and "[bismallah ar-rahman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmala) " (which the OP quoted and remembered) i.e., "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" -- maybe any outcome is "a mercy". Please don't answer that that's not Buddhist doctrine, that isn't what I'm asking -- I quote this as an example, because I'm impressed with the effect[s] it had on the person to whom it was said. My question might be, what could a Buddhist (instead of a Muslim) possibly say in that situation? It might be difficult if the person you're talking to knows even less about Buddhism than about Islam -- so they might not "recognise" what you say. But Dhamma is "evident", isn't it, so maybe there's always some common ground already, whether they've ever studied Buddhism or not. What might you say that could help a stranger? Or help a friend who you're not going to see again, maybe someone who lives far away? What if it's just a short conversation, in person -- or, what if you're writing a personal letter to distant family or an old friend in another country (or maybe a phonecall would be better)? One other thing I see in the story above is that a person who is suffering will make things worse -- "Exhausted and angry, I snarl" and "after I had been so surly to him". So it might be important to help, it affects everyone, even including those they're trying to care for; but it can also be difficult, a time when they might be more troubled, less tolerant and less outgoing or communicative themselves -- i.e. more "surly" (or if not surly, more guarded).

What is the difference between *sati* (mindfulness) and *sampajañña* (awareness, clear comprehension)? Please provide examples.

My limited understanding of Buddhism has already helped me in many ways and I am very glad to have found it. With that said, I have always wondered about this title question. If there is no 'I', then why do 'I' do anything? If we can consider ourselves to be just part of everything else, where does the motivation to do anything come from? Surely we admit that there is a self whenever we perform an action (and thus reveal a motivation that must have originated from a self). If there truly is no self, surely we would all just freeze motionless, die and return to nothingness. Apologies if this is an ignorant question. I am still feeling my way around this whole concept.

After attaining Nibbana, did the Buddha still have intention (*cetanā*)? In SN 12.2 , intention is part of name in name-and-form. In SN 12.38 (quoted below), it sounds like intention is removed in an arahant. For example, in the Udana 6.1 quote below, did the Buddha have the intention (*cetanā*) to go and sit at the Pavala shrine on a sitting cloth with Ananda for the day's abiding? How does the Buddha's apparent intention in Udana 6.1, not conflict with the quote from SN 12.38? From Udana 6.1 : > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near > Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the > morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes — > went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after > the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda, > **"Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the > day's abiding."** > > Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda > followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth. > Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat > down on the seat laid out. > > Seated, the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, "Vesālī is refreshing, > Ānanda. Refreshing, too, are the Udena shrine, the Gotamaka shrine, > the Sattamba shrine, the ManySon shrine, the Sāranda shrine, the > Pāvāla shrine. From SN 12.38 : > “Bhikkhus, **what one intends, and what one plans and whatever one has > a tendency towards (yañca ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti)**: this **becomes a basis for the maintenance of > consciousness**. When there is a basis there is a support for the > establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and > has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed > existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, > future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, > and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of > suffering.

What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar?

Can anyone follow a Buddhist life-style or philosophy even If the person has been violent or ate non-veg in the past or has drank wine. If yes then what are the beginner steps?

Today, I sat for a 30-minute meditation session, and towards the end of the 30- minutes (since I heard the timer bell ring a few minutes after the start of the experience), I started to feel an intense acceleration in the mind, and just after that, everything else clearing out of my mind. At the same time, I felt my heart beating faster and I am making heavy breaths. I could really pay attention to the heavy breaths and I was keeping my mind there. And then, I saw some soft, satisfying light, lighting up from beneath my eyes (like lighting a torch from below when your eyes are closed). I got really scared of the entire thing, I tried to continue, but I couldn't because I felt I was going to blow up and ended the session. The whole thing was not a calm experience. It was like a free fall. Is this something normal or something that I should be worried about?

I have recently tried meditating for 15 min at a time, at least once per day. I'm wondering, however, if long sits have a *qualitative* benefit. In other words, I'm wondering **whether longer sits have a benefit other than *more* of those of shorter sits, perhaps uniquely different benefit/s?** (Here, longer sits would mean about 1h-1h30).

Read page 295 here . Also refer to the editorial note on p.289 “*this is the well known island of Ceylon, both direction and distance are extremely correct*”. **A Summary.** Until 1890 the world knew Buddha was from Sri Lanka. In addition to Marco Polo, Pre-1890 historical references from Robert Knox, a Bible commentary and Sir, Henry Charles are provided. More here -> https://jambudipa.quora.com How the history was allegedly distorted is mentioned here . Does this sound credible?

In commenting a post , I have just been introduced to the *"two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other" Sutta*. The comments have just been moved to chat and I hope it would be kept for awhile since I notice most chats are just rubbish bins to collect "hazardous" information in this forum and later deleted. From Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288 it has this verse: > ...譬如：**三**蘆立於空地，展轉相依而得豎立，若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立，展轉相依而得豎立。**識** 緣名色，亦復如是，展轉相依而得生長。 > *Translation* > ...For example, **three** reeds standing on the floor, they > relying on each other so are able to stand up. If one is removed, the > other two cannot stand; if removed two, one also cannot stand. [Only] > by relying on each other they are able to stand up. **Consciousness** > correlating to name-form, is also the same, [they] relying on each > other then are able to develop. *~ Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288* > > >Remark: Chinese 識 has multiple meanings, depends on the context of the text, it either just refers to consciousness - the faculty of cognizing, or the total of mind However, Pali Sutta Nalakalapiyo Sutta : Sheaves of Reeds reads: > "Suppose there were **two** bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease.” *~ SN 12.67* The Chinese Agama said **three** reeds can lean againist each other, but the Pali Nalakalapiyo said **two** reeds can lean against each other. My questions are: 1. Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?1 2. If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate? 3. They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds? I welcome non-dogmatic, non-sectarian answers, and thanks in advance. Reminder, this is a professional academic comparison, please appeal to logic, reasons and facts. That would be much appreciated. ---------- Footnote: 1. From my knowledge, Chinese Samyutta Agama has two versions, one is from Ceylon (Sri Lanka). But also from my knowledge, there wasn't any script of Pali Canon being brought back from Ceylon to China by the ancient Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the Chinese Tripitaka. 1.1 Just excuse me rumbling, the Chinese pilgrims took scripts from other sects in Ceylon, not the Mahavihara sect - called Theravada today, who kept the Pali Canon.

I've been practicing Vipassana and reading "The Art of Living" by S.N Goenka. My questions is, I have obligations. When I wake up in the morning I have a thought to go to the bathroom and brush my teeth. Then I follow with that thought and perform the actions. How is this different from me craving that action? If I simply observe the thought of brushing my teeth, and mentally note "thoughts", it will help the thought fade but now I do not accomplish anything in my life. How do I know what thoughts must be left to "fade" and what thoughts I must act on? If I'm acting on a thought, isn't that due to aversion/craving? Where do you draw the line?

When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies what do they mean: do they mean that conventional desginators like "I" only refer to different concrete things (a baby, an old man) but they also mean something different? Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man? > “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the > Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders > through the round of rebirths, not another.” > > “What is that consciousness, Sāti?” > > “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here > and there the result of good and bad actions.” > > “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in > that way? Hope I haven't misread it! He then goes on to describe dependent origination.

The first effort states **to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states** How is this done? How can we prevent something beforehand? By avoiding situations? By trying to be in a rational and/or 'dhammic' frame of mind? If there is contact with an object, either ignorance or wisdom arises subsequently in response, and AFTER THAT, we can use sati-sampajañña to get rid of the unwholesome state (2nd factor of right effort). But how is the first factor to be practised?

Read somewhere that Buddhism does not advocate to go away from the beliefs of a person. Or in a way accommodate one's rooted beliefs from childhood. The main objective of following the path of Buddha is for self-realization. That too not disturbing others and their beliefs. - Since Buddha advocated for education to all humankind without considering race or color, will it be like a revolutionary thought came before centuries (_like communism, socialism ..._)? - But most of the world refers to it as a religion. Is it because of the transformation to idol based community from a spiritual community created by Buddha? - Does Buddism has more affinity towards a free-thinking society based on modern science OR towards a ritual-based society based on fears that remind the mind to do good acts?

I am reading a transcript of a talk given by a Tibetan lama, and the word 'sur' is used. What is it? Does it have something to do with food offering?

My loving grandma passed away on 1st April 18 so we want to have death anniversary. So I want to ask when should we arrange ceremony, on first April or first March? We tribute a person with chanting **Refuge** and **Panchashila**. So is something missing?

I am only getting fake and/or altered versions of the Dhammapada. This is a serious problem. They get changed regularly, sometimes a verse is just completely false as it describes something that is not Right View, other times the translations are poor, some verses seem untouched. Is anyone else experiencing this?

I find this troubling. My poor relationship with my adult children causes me distress. Logic and the dharma would suggest that severing ties with them would be a positive for both sides. But I cannot get over the feelings for neglect and guilt. Plus I may be causing them some current discomfort. They neglect me because they don't understand me seeking the jewel so I try to respect that BUT how do I get past this guilt and sadness?

I am interested in Buddhism and the book Tao Te Ching, written by Lao-Tzu in c. 600 BC. Is there common ground between these two Eastern philosophies? link to audio of *Tao Te Ching*