Back to basics. If asked, “why meditate,” perhaps responding with the question, “why breathe,” may get to the heart of the question? Recalling some worthwhile answers: — In order to properly respond when required — So as not to miss the tiny flowers on one’s walk — To see things as they truly and actually are

"Not doing" in this sense is to mean the absence of any form of action that originates from thought (for instance physical form like speech, bodily movements) in such a way that reduces the physical forms impact upon sentient beings in its environment. I realise that I'm heading into one of the unconjecturables here but for practical purposes. I don't think it'll lead me to vexation. This curiosity has arisen through partial insight into karmic laws in which the knowledge of karma became demystified into a rather obvious, almost mechanistic natural working of things. I wanted to try to understand at least from the periphery of the insight, from what Buddha said and from what others practising Buddhism understand so that I can cross-reference the three. **Additional** In an example from the Buddha, he chose not to be a father to his son, Rahula (not doing) in favour of seeking his own liberation. His thoughts were of himself. I imagine this would have caused considerable discomfort in Rahula and this discomfort would have been further compounded when Rahula learned of the meaning to his name: fetter or ball and chain. In an example from my own experience, a person became quite angry with me last week. I remained calm and non-responsive, guarding the senses - essentially watching after myself. I still gave a portion of my attention to the person via eye contact. Because of my "not doing" they became more frustrated. I recall thinking, "this person is lost in their emotions". I received a message from them later that day saying they had cried and let it go. *As I write this addition, Andrei's answer below seems to resonate here.

I think I have to tolerate memories of previous lives. And I know many of which memories are combination of true and false memories.Part of the memories are scientifically superimposed by army or any research department of the government.It is pointless to try to get rid of these memories.Are scientific memories good or bad for me? or are these cinematic experiments artificial intelligence based?

Suppose I am really serious about following the path of Vajrayana Buddhism o the point of studying texts in their original and I speak only English. I assume that the best language to learn would be Tibetan. Is this correct? What other languages would be relevant for this? For example, if you would like to study the various forms and schools of Christian thought, I would recommend learning mostly Greek, Latin and Hebrew, but also some Aramaic, Russian and German, in their ancient versions. If, instead of Vajrayana, I wanted to follow the path of Mahayana, I would assume some kind of ancient Mandarin was the way to go. I assume that this is analogous for Theravada and Pali. For each school of Buddhism, what would be the best languages to learn in order to be able to study the bulk of the canon associated to that school in its original and why?

Does a cause depend on its effect? If so then it seems especially difficult to think about nothingness being made or created. This is almost the exact opposite of a question I have asked recently (I'm locked out and looking into that), but not quite. It's usually said that the cause does depend on the cause, in some way > Nāgārjuna argues that cause and effect cannot be substantially > distinct. This is because the effect depends existentially on the > cause (if the cause did not exist the effect would not exist) and > cause depends at least notionally on the effect (if there was no > effect the cause would not be called “cause”). The kind of > independence demanded by substantial existence, by existence by > svabhāva, is simply not available for things which are cause and > effect. But what this notional dependence means I'm not totally sure. I'm not asking about nothingness, and am not saying that sunyata is nothingness! That could only be the case if the absolute truth is that nothing exists.

Buddha says in saṃyuktāgama : > “One who craves for and delights in bodily form, craves for and > delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha will not > attain liberation from dukkha. In the same way one who craves for and > delights in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, craves > for and delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha > will not attain liberation from dukkha. Clearly Buddha did not hesitate to say "One who craves for dukkha will not attain liberation from dukkha". The "One who craves " should not be a valid statement because Dhamma says we can not frame statements like the above. We can only ask or say depending upon what the craving arises or ceases. Following is what Buddha had to say on the matter : > “Venerable sir, who craves?” > > “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One > craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a > valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus. > Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with > what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid > question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition, > craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with > clinging as condition, existence…. Such is the origin of this whole > mass of suffering.’ There is some contradiction is framing the statements above. One statement statement says 'One who craves'( a self is implied) and the other statement says it is invalid to ask 'who craves' instead we should ask depending upon what the craving comes to be(no self is implied)? My question is : Is it correct to say 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self?

I've noticed reference to the 28 Yaksha Generals in several texts. To my current knowledge, the Mahāmāyūrīvidyārājñī Sūtra and the 卍新纂續藏經 Vol. 02, No. 183 (二十八夜叉大軍王名號) are the only text that explicitly lists them. Are there any other extant material that lists the names of these generals? Many thanks.

I recall reading or hearing, I don't know how long ago, that the Buddha knew the God that many religions believe is the creator. The story is that this powerful, long lived God was around when the universe came into existence and believed he was responsible for the creation. But I've not been able to recall or find the the source. Is there such a story in any of the Buddhist writings or commentaries?

I often hear it being said that with meditation/mindfulness we observe the thoughts and feelings coming and going but I'm not sure if this is a clear explanation of what occurs because in my experience of practicing for over 6 years I don't think I have ever actually seen a thought arising. What happens with me is that I recognise that my mind is lost in a thought and once I do then the thought ends. This is different to noticing the arising. So I'm following breath, lost in thought, come back to breath, lost in thought etc. I can intentionally say to myself "ok now I'm going to think about ...." And in this way I can observe the process of thinking but unless I do this I don't see how its possible to see a random thought arising. Is this correct? If this is not correct then why in 6 years can I still not do this? The recognition of random thought is always in past tense.

I believe in karma and rebirth but I don’t understand one thing. How does five precepts give you merits? Isn’t it only preventing bad karma? If you don’t kill any living beings or don’t steal anything then how do you get merits when you are not doing anything. You are only preventing bad karma.

What is meant by the “threefold bliss” in the verses of sharing and aspiration: > Through the goodness that arises from my practice, May my spiritual teachers and guides of great virtue, My mother, my father and my relatives, The Sun and the Moon, and all virtuous leaders of the world – May the highest gods and evil forces; Celestial beings, guardian spirits of the Earth and the Lord of Death; May those who are friendly, indifferent or hostile; May all beings receive the blessings of my life. **May they soon attain the threefold bliss and realise the Deathless.** Through the goodness that arises from my practice, And through this act of sharing, May all desires and attachments quickly cease And all harmful states of mind. Until I realise Nibbana, In every kind of birth, may I have an upright mind With mindfulness and wisdom, austerity and vigour. May the forces of delusion not take hold nor weaken my resolve. The Buddha is my excellent refuge, Unsurpassed is the protection of the Dhamma, The Solitary Buddha is my noble Lord, The Sangha is my supreme support. Through the supreme power of all these, May darkness and delusion be dispelled. via http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/monastic/imina.htm

I have heard that Buddha explained how the world is recreated after a destruction, in *Aggan̄n̄a Sutta*. > One tale told by the Buddha in the Aggan̄n̄a Sutta describes the process of recreation on this grand scale. An old world-system has just been destroyed, and its inhabitants are reborn in a new system. To begin with they are spirits, floating happily above the earth, luminescent and without form, name or sex. The world in these early stages is without light or land, only water. Eventually earth appears and the spirits come to taste and enjoy it. Their greed causes their ethereal bodies to become solid and coarse and differentiate into male and female, good-looking and ugly. As they lose their luminescence the sun and moon come into being.Gradually the beings fall into further wicked habits, causing themselves - and the earth itself - to become less pleasant. **Source- BBC** However, the modern science describes the creation of the world in a different way. According to scientists, the first life on earth started in water. Later these water animals came to land and evolved to the types of animals that we see today. It is said that the humans evolved from monkeys. It's evident that Dinosaurs lived on earth before humans. **Which explanation is true? Buddha's or Scientists'?** Did Buddha lie When explaining the creation of the world because the people at that time didn't understand these scientific facts? Very sorry for my bad English.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking because I consider myself a great person etc., Chakravartin , but why didn't the Buddha take solipsism seriously, perhaps before his complete enlightenment? If he's so great then how can it be that we, everyone else, are so little? Was it, perhaps, because he was born a prince, or there was no history of solipsism in India at the time, or what, really? I think it *could* just beyond the powers of imagination to get inside a mahasattva's head, so to speak.

Is it always wrong to consider oneself wise? I don't mean consider oneself an important Buddhist, or one who has attained such and such a level of absorption or success along the path to enlightenment, but something more mundane, being wise and able to tell e.g. what is a fake way of behaving, or the difference between right and wrong.

The Kālāma Sutta is often cited with approval by Modernist Buddhists as affirming a Libertarian ideology in which one need not take cognisance of anyone else's opinions or group norms, but one can simply decide for oneself what is important and meaningful. > "Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement." (As good a definition as any) The part of the text so often cited is the negative criteria for decision making: > “Here Kālāmas: don't use revelation, don't use lineage, don't use quotations, don't use tradition; don't use speculation, don't use inference, don't use signs, don't use understanding based on views, don't uncritically accept what seems likely; don't use respect for a *sāmaṇa*. When you know for yourselves "these things are unskilful, offensive (sāvajja), criticised by the wise, these things undertaken and accomplished result in harm and misery‟ then you should abandon them.” My translation The negative criteria are phrased in Pāḷi as, for example *mā anussavena*, i.e. the prohibitive particle (*mā*) with an noun in the instrumental case and no verb. So in fact it is difficult to tell what the prohibition refers to except from the context. Buddhaghosa supplies the verb *gaṇhittha*, the past participle of *gaṇhati* "to grasp". So his view seems to be that the first criteria is "don't be gripped by revelation". The context shows that these are various means for making decisions about how to behave. They are not used for testing the validity of beliefs. - Does the Kālāma Sutta really encourage libertarianism? - Why do people read the negative criteria as referring to test beliefs? - Do the Kālāmas themselves embody Libertarianism in their own lives, in this or any other sutra?

What, if anything, did the Buddha teach about following the most secure path vs venturing out on an unknown but possibly more fullfilling path? To start off, I am very new to Buddhism but am putting great weight into its teachings. This means I am unfamiliar with many teachings. This question is meant to be general but the context in which I began meditating on it was this: - I work at a company which has been stable and provided decent livelihood for my family - I have been all but offerred a job at a new employer in the same field - It is possible that it will provide me with more opportunities for my family in the long term - It is also possible that it will not degrade but not improve our situation The internal debate I am having is over the right course of action in these situations. I tend to favor safe bets/routine against taking chances. This is where I would like some guidance if it can be provided.

Recently sloth and torpor has been a huge hindrance in meditation; my biggest hindrance as it happens. I've managed to reduce the bulk of it but I find that it's still hanging around in some sessions. For the most part, I can see sloth and torpor trying to engulf me and thus am able to take evasive action by refocusing my meditative state. Sometimes though, it gets me even to the point of falling asleep. It's been with me now for months on and off. 18 months previous to this it hasn't really effected me like it has now. Here are some descriptions of the hindrance in question: Heaviness of mind, like wading through oil. Tiredness when I don't appear to be tired outside of meditation. Falling asleep. Dullness of mind. Sinking into a gloop. The Buddha compared it to (I'm paraphrasing here) being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell, unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. The largely recommended antidote by my sangha is to rouse energy by exerting myself outside of meditation. This has not been helpful or perhaps I'm not receiving the message correctly. It seems to be more of a mind thing and that is the route I'd like to take to address it so I've been sitting and watching and trying to evade it. I just can't seem to eliminate it completely. I have some sessions where I am free of it and some sessions that start out with meditative potential only to be confronted some-way through the session with the dealings of sloth and torpor. Things I've tried: bright light from a light box and also from daylight, light exercise before meditation, opening my eyes in mid-session, water on my face before a session.

I'm interested in Event planning & if I take up that job I'll have to make necessary arrangements for liqour & meat to be served at events upon client request. I'd like to know if that is considered as a sin according to Buddhism? Thank you, May the nobel triple gem bless you!

After reading Ajahn Brahm , Leigh Brasington , and Ayya Khema's books on meditation, I have not been able to reach the jhanas through breath meditation. If I stay with the breath long enough to reach "access concentration", or at least, if the breath does become fine and imperceptable, I do not experience any bliss or pleasant feelings, and my mind asks, "Now what? Nothing is happening." Are there stories of the Buddha recommending different styles of meditation (for concentration leading to jhana) depending on the individual disposition of the listener? I've struggled with aversion and craving not to be. So would the Buddha, for example, prescribe metta meditation here? Please give references. Thank you.

I am only 2 months into meditating and I've been having some problems. I am unsure whether I truly have the behavioral/thought patterns that are considered ADHD and/or OCD, but for a while I've been noticing symptoms for a while now. The problem I am having during meditation is I overthink things to the extreme. I start thinking about whether I am doing it right. Then I overthink so much that I can't even focus on anything else anymore. I have this problem with reading as well. I start thinking about whether Im reading properly and then my mind starts going into overdrive trying to make sure I do every single detail perfectly but instead my brain just fries up and I can't do anything anymore. Then frustration and doubt sets in and it gets even worse. I know that this is an overall problem that I need to work on and fix. I am working on it. But I would really appreciate any tips on this for now as I feel it is quite a barrier in my process. EDIT: I came to the realization that I need to remember that those "symptoms" or behavioral patterns are just thoughts accompanied by strong emotions. As with any other thought, acknowledge and let go.