Should I do reflection before eating if I don't plan to keep it? There is an issue I'm aware of that you shouldn't say stuff you won't be able to do - I mean sometimes you can but that its better not to promise stuff you probably will fail doing (I don't want to give examples but it is a thing in Buddhism I hope some will know what I'm talking about) So my question is should one say a reflection on food ("I use this almsfood not for beautification but for supporting the holy life etc etc...") when he knows he probably isn't going to keep it? What about when he thinks there's a tiny chance he will? What about most likely will keep it?

When you don't do akusla actions you do kusala actions? And I'm aware of the middle way - harming yourself is not. And another question (you can answer whatever you like or both) When you don't do stuff for fun do you do good things? .... of course with 2 important exceptions: you have right view and you don't avoid fun stuff (meaning not to do on purpose stuff cause they are fun but you can do stuff that are fun if it serves you) And my main question is: if I avoid doing bad stuff (akusala) will I do only good stuff (kusala) or neutral ones? Because I'm pondering a way to advance in the path after trying many many ways as to just focus on avoiding doing bad and cause I have right view more or less I will be pushed to do good. Also many things for fun are akusala (bad) so it seems avoiding them I am pushed to do good. (And yes I know there are "levels" and you can look at actions in general or moment by moment - and I ask this on each level - also in the big picture of actions and also moment by moment) Sorry if it's a mess of a question - but I hope the smart people here can give their opinion on this line of thought nonetheless - you don't have to answer the question directly.

In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta. I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain? In particular, is SN 5.10 included: > “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’? Māra, > is this your theory? This is just a pile of conditions, you won’t > find a sentient being here. > > **When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘chariot’. So too, when > the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.** > > But it’s only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then > disappears. Naught but suffering comes to be, naught but suffering > ceases.” I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature. It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge of anatta. Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is merely a convention. So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta? How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King? Are there other Suttas which take precedence? What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?

What does Buddhism think about/or is it accepted in it that we influence everything with our (un)conscious thoughts and emotions and impressions (because these are also some form off thoughts right?) and can't not influence the universe we live in. Lately I have the fear that my thoughts influence everything around me and happening in my live. Last night I couldn't even watch a movie because I was paralyzed by the fear or thought of having a negative influence on it and making it worse. Then I came to the thought that maybe our universe is refreshing every millisecond and that everything we do or think generates another outcome. The thought is making me crazy because this would mean we have an immense responsibility on ourselves that everything we do does has an influence. I have this fear lately sometimes to watch the live news also fearing that I might in some way influence the newsspeaker with my nervousness. I can still imagine that this all is BS and not true. But there are so many weird impressions that I've had that my awareness like when watching a movie does have an effect on the scene. Or is this all an illusion and I'm I suffering from delusions? Also does Buddhism believe in different dimensions? And also Buddhism does accept consciousness is non-local right? So it's entirely possibly that my awareness does influence a news speaker?

Yesterday during my meditation I had a very persistent intense itch in my ear for what felt like the entire 40 minutes. I tried to just notice the itch and not react by scratching it. As soon as the bell went I had a good scratch. Afterwards I just really couldn't see what the point was of sitting doing this. The itch was just a distraction and I felt I would probably have been better off just scratching it to begin with instead of wasting 40 minutes resisting it. Can somebody please help me get some clarity about this. Meditation just feels so pointless a lot of the time for me.

I have been suffering with addictions. Addictions are complex. Both that I suffer from are in abatement. I am in recovery as they say. I am getting medical support. Besides the addiction I have bad habits in relation to being abusive to people when angry. Verbally abusive. Textually abusive. I realise the self is false but it's very hard to shake it off. Before I know it I'm operating from an ego state. Any advice?

Sutras says that there is nothing to attain: but is there a beginning to attaining nirvana? See e.g. the heart sutra > No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also > no attainment with nothing to attain.

How does a mindfulness practitioner use judgment? I don't know if that is clear about how to judge or not judge in the Eightfold Path. Is it not clear because different Buddhisms disagree?

I am looking forward to develop 7 factors of enlightenment. The 7 factors of enlightenment are factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy (viriya), rapture (piti), tranquility (passaddi), immersion (samadhi), and equanimity. I have understood how to develop factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles and equanimity. However I am not sure how to develop the following: 1. Energy (viriya) 2. Rapture (piti) 3. Tranquility(passaddi) 4. Immersion (samadhi) (I guess Tranquility can be developed by becoming independent. If the answer to samadhi is to enter the first Jhana then my question will be how to enter it?) So my question is: How to develop energy, rapture, tranquility and immersion? If you know answer to only one or few of the above factors then please post that as an answer. I will combine them.

Retired Oxford Professor Richard Gombrich is an indologist and, scholar of Pali, Sanskrit and Buddhist Studies. He also founded the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies . He wrote in this biography : > I begin with a brief historical account of my early life, because I > agree with the Buddha’s analysis that **we are a bundle of processes, > and every moment are remaking ourselves, using the materials inherited > from our past.** If we should summarize the Buddha's teaching with respect to the nature of our reality as beings, would this make an accurate summary? If not, what would be a more accurate summary?

If you live in Australia and can be my teacher please get in touch. I feel I'm at a stage where I need one. Or perhaps you can recommend someone for me?

According to the suttas, the then Bodhisatta Gotama discovered by himself that ascetic practices of his contemporary India were not enough (or were even wrong) to attain complete enlightenment. Then, after trying his own methods and intuitions, he reached Nibbana. However, many so-called saint men from other religions and traditions are said to have reached enlightenment in their own terms and according to their own definitions of enlightenment. We even have people within Buddhism itself claiming to have awaken, but still showing signs of craving and unethical behavior. Considering what I've written, why should we deposit our trust, time and effort in the Buddhadhamma, when there are so many other practioners assuring that they have reached their ultimate goals following their own practices? The most common argument for following the teachings of the Buddha is that when put in practice by ourselves we'll see how effective and accurate the teachings, analyses and practices actually are. But the same can be said about most other religions. We have a lot of examples of men and women through history telling stories and personal experiences of feeling the supreme love of god, or attaining Moksha, or becoming one with the Universe, and so on. Can you help me to find new perspectives to solve this problem? Thanks for your time!

Can a person decide to do X action and be able to do it forever... from a mental point of view - if physically he can do that action? What I'm trying to say is many times I decided to not do anything for fun or to meditate Y time every day but even when it was 5 minutes every day I didn't do it. Every time either I didn't want to sit to meditate or even be mindful of actions - or I wanted to watch a YouTube video and pass the time with YouTube videos etc. Is it possible to decided to do something and not break it at all? I mean for example I keep the 5 precepts by default and will probably keep them at the future hard for me to see a situation I won't - but for example if I decide to keep the 8 precepts and never break them (again mentally) even if I never have to face something like a physical injury or even friend begging me to go to a movie etc but just in dealing with my own defilement - can I decide not do break it in advance and guarantee myself I won't break it in the future (again if physically it's possible to avoid it).

According to Buddhism, how would the end of times look like? Would it just be the end of a pre-defined period, or would it be something different like the **Rapture ** in Christianity?

Should concentration improve? I sit for an hour in the mornings and most days my focus does not stay on the breath for more than 2 breaths before I notice thoughts again. Is this normal? I find my mind full of doubts because of this. I think to myself that after 7 years I thought concentration would improve but maybe I'm incorrect. When the doubts arise I usually mentally note them. Yuttadhammo Bikhu says to mentally note the rising and falling of the abdomen on the breath then if pain arises for example then to note pain until it goes then gently bring awareness back to the breath. But many times for me the pain does not go. It remains for the entire hour sit. Do I just sit there noting pain the whole time? Another practitioner told me that if I can't seem to focus then to try not focusing on anything. I tried this but find I just become lost in thought even more.

Many times I hear people say it's neccessary to have a teacher. I'm a bit lost as how one finds one. I've been to sanghas, talks, retreats but haven't met anyone who ive felt I could approach and ask to be my teacher. The Buddha never had a teacher. If he became enlightened without one then I presume anyone can. I find that the more people I talk to the more confused I become because so many people have so many conflicting condradictive perspectives. From what ive heard and read if you sit and practice mindfulness of breathing etc you will gain insights into the true nature of reality.

I have almost finished reading D.T. Suzuki's 'Essay's in Zen Buddhism'. There are many stories of disciples attaining state of Satori (which according to book is akin to Nirvana) when the Zen master does something illogical like twisting the nose or giving an absurd answer to what is asked. As I am thinking about this it must be that the disciples mind must be in certain state that when the push is given by master it attains Satori. Do we have any analytical understanding of this state? Its psychology? Is it a silent persent moment awareness for a long time? Is it something special to the culture and/or mind. Do we have any such examples of monks attaining Satori in present times?

While contemplating both terms I could not find a difference between mental elaboration and mental fabrication. Aren't they one and the same?

In the essay "Buddhist Reflections on Death ", V.F. Gunaratna wrote: > The terminal thought goes through the same stages of progress as any > other thought, with this differences that whereas the apperceptive > stage of complete cognition known as *javana* or impulsion, which in the > case of any other thought occupies seven thought-moments. At this > apperceptive stage the dying person fully comprehends the death-sign. > Then follows the stage of registering consciousness (*tadalambana*) > when the death-sign is identified. This consciousness arises for two > thought-moments and passes away. After this comes the stage of death > consciousness (*cuti-citta*). Then occurs death. This is what happens > in this existence. > > Now let us consider what happens in the next existence. Already the > preliminaries for the arrival of a new being are in preparation. There > is the male parent and there is the female parent. As explained > previously a third factor, a psychic factor, is necessary to complete > the preliminaries for the arising of a live embryo, and that is the > relinking consciousness (*patisandi-viññana*) which arises in the next > existence in the appropriate setting — the mother's womb. On the > conjunction of these three factors, life starts in the mother's womb. > **There is no lapse of time, no stoppage of the unending stream of > consciousness.** As I understand, the last consciousness of a lifetime (*cuti-citta*) and re-linking consciousness (*patisandhi-viññana*) are terms coming from the Abhidhamma. They explain the continuity of the stream of consciousness from one lifetime to the next. This together with *bhavanga* and *javana* (see here ) explains the continuity of the stream of consciousness between thought-moments both in this lifetime and the next lifetime, and between the two. On the other hand, MN 38 seems to imply that there is no continuity of consciousness and that consciousness arises conditionally based on dependent origination. > The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following > pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught > by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and > wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?” > > “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the > Blessed One, it is this 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? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness > to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no > origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have > misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored > up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a > long time.” So, how does the Abhidhamma reconcile the concept of re-linking consciousness (*patisandhi-viññana*) with MN 38 above? Also, even in the current lifetime, is there any real continuity of consciousness or does it merely appear so?

They seem to be both elements that promote a healthy perception about things in life. I have a hard time differentiating between one and the other.