I am using a (medical) bright light therapy lamp in the morning for 30 minutes during the darker months. I have also been meditating for about 30 minutes a day. I lately noticed myself almost reaching a meditative state during this activity anyway. So, I thought about combining the two. The difference to meditation as I am used to would be that instead of sitting with my eyes closed, I would look at a really bright light (not harmful to the eyes), which usually blocks out everything else, visually speaking. Has anyone tried this or can anybody offer thoughts on why or why not this is a good idea? (The reason why I have not tried it yet was that I usually listen to a news broadcast programme of about 20 minutes during my bright light therapy.)

If they exist, then how are they connected to the God(s)/Lord Buddha?

I was raised in a Catholic environment, however I'm adding more and more Dhamma in my life, currently I spend much more time with Buddhists practices than Catholics. the point is that I still keep the habit of praying to God before going to sleep (and before flying too), but if I'm not mistaken this is seen as something bad in Buddhism (wrong view/attachment to rituals) Can someone explain what are the bad consequences, from a Buddhist's perspective of praying to God? If any.

I find myself in conflict with the Buddhist idea of letting go. If someone insults you, is rude to you, insults a loved one, harrases you or a loved one and so on. According to Buddhism, we should forget about it. Past is past. But then on the other hand Buddhism also mentions that we should be courageous. And sometimes being courageous can lead to further pain. Say that you confront people who insult a loved one and then they stab you. I'm having a problem to decide when to confront and when not to. For now, I always let go and I feel like a doormat sometimes. Thank you.

I'm doubting if I will be able. Not even a single breath my mind stop talking. I start with metta and try to sit for at least half an hour to an hour a day. I don't skip even a single day. It's a huge effort and I am starting to feel disappointed.

I am a Muslim living far away from Myanmar. I always hear about the prosecution of Muslims in Myanmar. The Rohingya people are classified by the UN among the most prosecuted minorities in the world. There is a rich history of Muslims prosecution by Buddhists. I have read about Buddhists not liking Muslim rituals of animal slaughter. I have also read about individual cases of crimes supposedly committed by some Muslims. However, what I have read does not justify this *massive retaliation* by Buddhists, what makes me think that maybe there is something in Buddhism clearly against Islam and Muslims. Maybe it is not only a political issue. I would like to know how Buddhism sees Islam and Muslims? How is Islam pictured in the eyes of Buddhism and Buddhists?

For the record I'm new to meditation. I'm trying to observe my breathing without controlling it. That was the guidance from someone I met at a buddhist meeting. Though sometimes I just ralize that I do change the frequency and deepness of it. I don't want to do it, just happens. Is it just me or it will be better with practice?

I noticed I rarely get mad at people, but when I engage in a task, I get extremely frustrated when things go wrong. My head hurts, I despair (e.g. this is pointless, worthless), and often avoid the task. **1) What is this? What is it caused by?** **2) What is the remedy to such frustration?**

I just found out what seems to me as a contradiction under Theravada tradition: When Siddharta Gautama meditated under the Bodhi tree, I understand ho achieved illumination, he reached the Nirvana. But Theravada tradition says that one cannot reach Nirvana while the five aggregates exist, since them are *dukkha*. Theravada traditions says that when one reaches Nirvana, one ceases to exist. Obviously, Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree. My understanding is that after that meditation, Siddharta Gautama reached full understanding of the Samsara, and the path to liberation, but chose not to reach illumination, because he wanted to share what he learned. Is that the case? Or how otherwise do Theravada explain that Siddharta Gautama did not cease to exist after the meditation under the Bodhi tree?

In other words, did they exist first, and then Śākyamuni became a Buddha later on?

In a recent comment in a blog I've read the following remark: > "(...) Not the physical lama, not anything or anyone outside of yourself, but your own nature of mind, the true nature of reality. That’s the real lama; that’s the essential point in the vajrayana ‘system of practice’, and that has nothing to do with a bully on a throne teaching you. His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, (…) > >(...) His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, once you have that recognition, you no longer need the physical lama.(...)” I asked in that blog for a source of this (in case it is more than a personal idea, of course) but it seems I could not find the attention of the writer so far. So I ask in this forum: >Q: is this a statement which I can find in some scripture? Or, something from which it follows more or less immediately? Or is it merely the expression of an individual's conclusion? Motivation: I've nearly no knowledge of tibetan buddhism (I like the reading in the pali-canon, in some older zen-literature and feel strongly connected with the way of Thich Nhat Hanh), and am getting in contact with it currently only initiated by my following of some blogs which concern themselves with the recent revelations of misuse and misconduct by teachers (and their inner circles). The above statement surprises me in recollection of all what I've heard and read of guru-orientated buddhism and makes me curious, whether this is really a basic or at least derivable conception. (Ahh, nearly forgot: just for reference comment-in-blog )

I have a silly question following... I have a passion for film making and also I like to meditate to attain peace. I am the cat on the wall right now. I have just a single life, so what should I choose between these both. Go out and follow my passion or just be calm and meditate????

Is there an obvious or well-understood difference between "contemplation" and "meditation"? I'm reading a book -- modern, probably Tibetan-language originally, translated into English -- talking about the "lack of fixation" and "realization of the nature of the mind". It says that all the Buddhas have taught this and, > There are two ways we can come to know it: through study and inference or by knowing it directly. The way we need to know it is through direct yogic experience in meditation. We need to develop the discernment that knows this. This discernment is not the intelligence of either listening or contemplation; it is the intelligence of meditation. I don't know how to distinguish "contemplation" from "meditation" -- or "direct yogic experience" as opposed to an[y] other mental experience or phenomenon.

For instance if I go to a forest and a dog bites me on my leg while there. How do I know whether: example 1: a) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka from my intentions and actions from the past or from a past life or b) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka for being in that forest ? example 2: I do something bad and something bad happens to me 2 days later. How do I know whether: c) The bad thing happening to me is related to the bad thing I did. or d) The bad thing happening is not related to the bad thing I did. ?

In the Dīgha,jānu Sutta, *accomplishment of diligence* leads to the joy of ownership. Isn't "joy of ownership" just clinging onto one's wealth? What do other Buddhist schools say about this? A possible equivalent to this in Kabbalah is *Bread of Shame*, defined as not earning what we receive, or in other terms, receiving without giving. Yehuda Berg states, "As the ancient kabbalists teach us, it is part of human nature and the nature of this world that no matter how much is given to us, as long as we are the ones who are receiving and not the ones who are giving, we will always feel Bread of Shame. We will always be the vessel and not the Creator. We will always feel powerless. We will always find someone to blame for our unhappiness." It is said to be the cause of all darkness in the world. Another Stack Exchange user, Ian Taylor, states that it "refers to the fact that unearned attainments are not rewarding the same way that things you work hard for are. Part of noble eightfold path is exerting effort to attaining enlightenment— i.e. YOU must work for it." While the purpose of both teachings is a bit different, I think the Kabbalastic notion of "bread of shame" wants to make people less selfish by attributing the feeling of shame when just taking for the self alone whereas the Buddhist Sutta reveals how to find joy in one's wealth--both of which stress the importance of effort. But, isn't being stuck in the concept of receiving and giving just another way of saying "I" and "them" - a dualistic notion that shames others or yourself. Also, "working hard for something" is a concept: one can just claim to have worked hard for it, but in reality earning something is a reflection of cultural standard. Someone can work hard but not earn what they deem to be the equivalent of their work. Is that feeling wrong, or should one accept the "joy of ownership"? The concept of earning is only rewarding insofar as it feeds our pride vis-a-vis the notion of achievement, the idea that "I" earned it-- a form of spiritual egoism when enlightenment is "attained."

How does one know if one is destined to attain Nibbana? (In future lives)

 Any information I would be grateful for. I have no idea be am very curious about this any a few other items I purchased recently. 

I have heard that the 5th precept was not a core of Buddhism, it was created later by the Buddha after some monks returned drunk from alms because they had something with alcohol (accidently I believe) My first question is: Is this story true? Many Buddhist school claim that the problem with alcohol is that it can cloud the mind and make it easier for breaking the other (more important) precepts. Based on that some schools are ok with lay people drinking in moderation, with the commitment of not getting to a point of losing control of their acts or doing something they will regret. So, is drinking with moderation (socially) breaking the 5th precept?

I'm not firm in tibetan buddhism, but my old daddy had wanted to make a spiritual gift to me 12 years ago- I'd put it into the bookshelf after I'd read a handful of pages, and was a bit puzzled why this might have such a big reminescence as I've heard somewhere (and expected because of having got it by my father as a special birthday present). Recently I was beginning a small research, especially about Padmasambhava, and there it occured to me that he was said to be the autor/to have been the spiritual background of the "tibetisches Totenbuch" (german name). I was surprised and saw now, that the book of my father was "tibetanisches Totenbuch" - which is a suspicious change - at least suitable for better business. On amazon I've found both titles and that of mine was looking color- and playful and that what I don't own looked more serious. > Q: Are the books at least related? Is the "tibetanisches Totenbuch" something like "tibetisches Totenbuch for dummies" or is it a complete different work *(possibly just profiting from the extreme similarity of the titles - but what do I know...)*? ***Addendum***: in the book they say: subtitle "...or The after-death-experiences on the Bardo-stage" and then "... after the english edition of Lama Kazi Dawa-Samdup, published by Evans-Wentz, (...) newly edited commented and introduced by Lama Anagarika Govinda" On the next page they write: "the title of the original edition was "the tibetan book of the dead". But I do not find yet any reference to Padmasambhava (may be deeply in the book itself?) which was irritating me. ***Addendum 2*** Ah, now I find something which looks relevant. The first 150 pages are simply introductions (which made me silly when I read into it and tried to make any sense of what was said), on pg 148 Padmasambhava is first time mentioned and then on pg 159 it seems that the traditional text does really start. So I think this answers my (stupid?) question ...

Is something a lie if I don’t have bad or evil intentions but what I said turns out to be false? I’m trying to protect my five precepts but sometimes when I say something it turns out to be false but I just said what I know at that time. I wasn’t trying to deceive or tell lies. I just said what I know but I found out later that I was wrong. So is that a lie? I didn’t have any bad intentions. I just said what I know and I found out later that it was false.