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.

I am in the habit of getting the concepts samatha and samadhi mixed up. To me they seem like related or even similar concepts. Is that correct? My understanding is that samatha seems like the process of integration and samadhi seems like the result of integration. Is that the correct interpretation? As a related point are the underlying concepts related if you consider the Pali origins of the words i.e. do they have similar roots in the language?

The new Sutta Central translations have translated the Pali word "abhinibbatti" as "reincarnation", as follows: > *And what is rebirth? Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti?* > > *The rebirth, inception, conception, **reincarnation**, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various > sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings.* > > *Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti **abhinibbatti** khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.* > >*SN 12.2* What evidence is there in the Pali suttas that the word "abhinibbatti" means "reincarnation"?

How does Buddhism define “self?” I read in some book that Buddha would avoid such questions, but I wonder why.

This was a birthday gift I received a couple of weeks ago. I'm trying to figure out where it came from, what the images mean, and about how old it is. It's at least a hundred years old.

I feel like focusing on the feeling of my feet on the ground is easier than focusing on the sensations of the breath. Is this a viable object for access concentration/jhana?

A close relative of mine who I shared the living space with has passed away recently from an unrelated injury. The relative was a good person but inherently "bossy", always getting their own way and intruding my personal life and space in ways I was not a strong enough person to continuously tolerate. At a certain point I've "had enough" and decided that severing all communication was the best course of action for us both to avoid painful arguments, so I did that. I did not feel contempt to that person and understood a lot of their antics were due to their very old age and difficult childhood, I was wishing them well, and was hoping they would make a first step and apologize eventually, which they never did. As a longer term solution I was hoping to move out and live alone, confident that would help me regain my bearings, but there were setbacks in my apartment search, so I did not make it in time either. Now that they're gone, I wonder how a person following the Buddhist precepts would have handled this. Showing compassion every once in a while is one thing, having your life and personal space invaded with petty commands, requests and criticism day after day, even when you're trying to meditate, seems like another.

What prompted the great BodhiDharma to go to China to spread his teachings- why not at home in the first place. Was he the founder of kalari payattu which has become somewhat unknown to us?

May I use this Tibetan flag above door and will this protect house from negative and bad energy? I know importance of chanting **OM MA NI PADME HUM.** So is it helpful or just ***feng shui*** thing? I thought to ask before having one above the main door.

Vipassana-style meditation has been adapted to treat patients to prevent recurrence of depression and anxiety through MBCT, and to treat chronic pain and stress through MBSR. More info on this can found in this answer . On the other hand, there have been some reported cases (see here ) of people who attended the 10-day Goenka vipassana retreats and became psychotic and suicidal. I have also heard that such negative effects may be a normal part of a meditator's progress, called the "dark night" or "death of the ego" (according to this answer ). These could be part of the sixteen stages of insight (according to this page ), namely bhaya nana or "knowledge of the appearance as terror" and adinava nana or "knowledge of the contemplation of disadvantages". Questions: 1. Are episodes of psychosis resulting from 10-day vipassana retreats the result of something not right (e.g. pre-existing mental conditions, the side effect of combining other techniques such as mantra or tantra with vipassana), or is it a normal part of progress in vipassana meditation? If the two are different, then what is the difference? 2. For lay people, are the Goenka retreats considered too intense and thus out-of-moderation? Is it better for lay people to attend weekly sessions and spend less than an hour daily in meditation, rather than the intense and rigorous Goenka retreats? 3. Is it better for lay people to practise in such a way that they will not reach the "dark night" stages because these stages are more suited for monks? 4. Is it required for lay people to find a teacher who can determine what is moderate for them, or can they just follow generic instructions?

In this previous question, I listed the results of my investigations into how each nidana (link) in dependent origination appears to be 'singular', except 'sankhara', which is plural. The 'jati' ('birth') link also appears to be singular. However, what is unusual about it is the singular 'birth' that occurs appears to have 'plural' components. It is translated as follows by Bhikkhus Bodhi, Thanissaro & Sujato: > *Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti (singular)? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ (plural) tamhi tamhi sattanikāye (plural) jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ > pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.* > > *And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various **beings** (**sattānaṃ**) into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent, production, > the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. > This is called birth. (Bodhi)* > > *And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of > [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, > that is called birth (Thanissaro).* > > *The rebirth, inception, conception, **reincarnation**, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various > sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings. (Sujato)* Now, each link of Dependent Origination appears to apply to the sense experience of an individual. Or, alternately, the Buddhaghosa interpretation over 3 lifetimes appears to be about the reincarnation of an individual. This being so, why does 'birth' ('jati'), seemingly a singular process, seem to refer to the birth (yā jati) of multiple beings (sattānaṃ) into the multiple orders/groups of beings (sattanikāye)? Why is the plural Pali word 'sattānaṃ' contained in the definition of what appears to be a singular process called 'jati' ('birth') in Dependent Origination?

'Om Mani Padme Hum' (translation: 'Hail the jewel in the lotus') is a six syllable invocation (mantra) of Avlokitesvara, one who is invoked as the Protector from danger. Does it mean protecting from danger as purifying **:** - **Om** (Pride / Ego) - **Ma** (Jealousy / Lust for entertainment) - **Ni** (Passion / desire), - **Pad** (Ignorance / prejudice) - **Me** (Greed / possessiveness), - **Hum** (Aggression / hatred)

I found a clay tile outside on the street that appears to depict the Buddha. It has a man in lotus position on one side and four scenes along with some text on the reverse. It is roughly as broad as my thumb. I'd be curious to know what scenes are depicted, the meaning of the text, what this tile is called, and what the function of the tile is. I'm guessing it shows his youth, becoming enlightened, being a teacher, and his death, but I don't know if it's more specific or different than my interpretation.

What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana? Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya Bhava)? And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana? --- I read the topic https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/17746/254 but that does not answer my question -- I want answers which specifically discuss this in line with three categories of Tanha with Upadana in Dependent Origination. Please give me a practical answer than a technical answer which are found in many places.

In dependent origination after sense-contact occured, craving is the next condition, which in turn forms attachment at its basis and so on... Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving? Similarly with unpleasant feelings; Suppose I have a bike accident and I fall down the ground and my immediate reaction is: "Arghhh", and no other cursing; Is this considered aversion to unpleasant feelings? Furthermore, if I go to toilett to take a pee is this good feeling connected with craving? It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving, pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically. no thoughts were coming. mind itself can be seen.is this anatta?

Would zen Buddhists agree with this quote from Chih-I? Quoted in T'ien-t'ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika p110 I've not read the original material, so am not sure where Chih-I makes these points (about the four alternatives) from. But they do seem to make sense to me, and (potentially) be what matters most about meditation etc.. But I have no means to really study tendai, only some local zen schools.

If all that has a beginning and an ending is impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory, then (with binary logic) that which has no beginning and no ending is permanent and satisfactory. Is this right or wrong? Why? And how does it change when applying catuskoti logic?

In the Salayatana Sutta in the last paragraph it says; > Not percipient of form internally, he/she sees forms externally. This is the second direction. What does this mean? Does it mean you do not react? OR Is related to reification, like look at things and don't try to make sense of them?

In an effort to understand the concept of lovingkindness it would help me to see how the Buddha explicitly described lovingkindness and specific acts of his unconditional compassion. I've [heard]( https://dharmaseed.org/teacher/334/talk/7816/) from secondary sources that he'd throw out his "net" of compassion to walk 200 miles to teach someone, but I'm looking for **references** to primary or well known secondary (e.g. Bhikku Bodhi, Analayo) sources, please.