I practice the Theravada tradition. There are a lot of suttas, and I don't know how to go about studying them. Can I please get some pointers or guidelines on how I can study them? For example, which suttas to start with, or maybe some kind of overall introduction on the suttas, or perhaps a technique in studying the suttas.

Im in the process of trying to 'wake up' I made a grievous error with a colleague recently. I sent a nasty email about something she was involved in. I was trying to manipulate her-even perhaps bully her with my views I was drinking a lot at the time. I have since realized the error of trying to control anybody or not to take the views of others to heart. I have realized my error after reading various guides to Buddhism. I have offered an apology but now a considerable amount of my colleagues hate me.I see it in their eyes and way they communicate with me. How does a novice Buddhist deal with this?

I have asked questions many times here, and I have come to the conclusion that my mind easily tricks me. I speculate and doubt to a very great extent, and feel aversion to fear and effort; I will easily try to avoid such states. I feel these are all symptoms of an ungathered mind. For example, I often feel afraid of getting hurt from running as exercise, or just that it is too effortful; the consequence is that I avoid it. Similar with meditation, wherein I find sitting too effortful. But with meditation, there arises another problem: I also doubt, but I doubt all aspects of meditation. I doubt mostly the breath, and whether it is the right object, and whether I am meditating correctly. Ironically, I have read in meditation texts that the breath is *the* object best used against speculation and delusion. But, no matter how I examine the matter, I'm still uncertain that breathing meditation is right for me; I always tell myself "Maybe it represses my emotions," or "Such a person advised against it," or even "Maybe I'm meditating all wrong." Are these obviously just doubts which, despite seemingly seeing this, I cannot shake? Does anyone have other advice on this?

Inspired by this comment and this answer I wonder, can the first bhumi be gained via the complete cessation of conceptualization? ie, if one achieves the complete cessation of all concepts is this equivalent to the direct realization of emptiness? If so, then what of someone who arises from meditation and *continues* to have no conceptions... is this a Buddha? Is the complete cessation of conceptualization equivalent to complete and perfect enlightenment? If not, then what has been achieved with the complete cessation of conceptualization? Anything? It is my understanding that at least Je Tsongkhapa does not agree that this is equivalent to realizing suchness. From the Lamrim Chenmo Volume 3 page 16: > It is said that the Chinese master Ha-shang (Hva-shang), having seen > this sutra’s very clear and undeniable explanation that insight is > discerning wisdom, exclaimed, “I don’t know how this can be a sutra!” > and kicked it. He did this because the sutra’s statement did not agree > with his claim that since all conceptualization of any sort involves > an apprehension of signs, you should dispense with discerning wisdom > and meditate on the profound meaning by not bringing anything to mind. > This approach has a great number of adherents. There are many other places where Je Tsongkhapa points out sutras that seemingly do not agree that the complete cessation of conceptualization is the same thing as discerning wisdom or the direct realization of emptiness which is said to unlock the first bhumi. In my understanding, the direct realization of emptiness is a mental direct perception that does not involve conception. Perception is defined in contrast to conception where the latter is elaboration, proliferation of an object that generally takes place subsequent to perception. Still, it is said in my tradition that even with the complete cessation of conception and engaging only in direct perceptions that the appearance of inherently existing objects persists in sentient beings. It is said that other than a Buddha, only in an Arya being's meditative equipoise on emptiness does the non-perception of inherent existence occur. Is this a matter of disagreement within modern traditions of Tibetan Buddhism? What are the other viewpoints?

A friend of mine has decided to move to Nepal,to study there. In his country there are no Nepali embassy should He contact them online? Links would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

What is the difference between "cessation" and "nirodha"? How would it be experienced during meditation?

I have noticed that there are perhaps two main different approaches to experiences/sensations in vipassana. One of them (e.g. Mahasi Sayadaw) describes experiences/sensations through words: - Mahasi Sayadaw, Kenneth Folk, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu: pick a word that describes the experience accurately The other (e.g. Goenka) asks to focus entirely on the experience/sensations: - Goenka: Feel the sensation. Not visualize, not name it, but feel it. At the retreats of Goenka, in one evening talk, he explicitly says that there is a misunderstanding. That is, the Buddha meant not to name experiences/sensations but to feel them. So the questions are: - how relevant is this difference? - Is there any relevant consequence/effect/repercusion on our progress if we decide, say, to describe with words rather than focusing on the experience, or the otherway around? Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

What is the relationship between the three poisons of attachment, aversion, and delusion (Pali: lobha, dosa, moha) on one hand and the three links of ignorance, craving and clinging (Pali: avijja, taṇha, upadana) in the chain of dependent origination on the other hand? Does mindfulness have an effect on that?

*Anicca*, *dukkha*, *anatta*. I've listened to plenty of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis talk about these characteristics at length. Take for example anicca. I am asking the same thing about dukkha and anatta. Suppose one has not yet seen for oneself how all phenomena are impermanent, but has an intellectual understanding of it from listening to the Dhamma. Is it *possible* that such a person could, for instance, recognize anicca, but not understand that they have recognized it, thinking, "Anicca is yet to be grasped", when in fact anicca has already been grasped? To clarify, the person might even reap the benefits of understanding anicca. They don't fret about illness, nor about building a career, nor about global warming, for instance. (I have picked a few things from my own life that I am still learning to deal with). Yet the person still thinks, "Anicca is yet to be grasped." If it is possible, how is it possible and what should one do about it? If it is not possible, why not? As a guess, does the answer lie in the person's actions? As another guess, is this a more specific case of asking how to know one's own mind?

Some Buddhists like to say Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!, usually 3 times. There is some info here and here on this. How did this practice originate? Are there any references to the Pali Canon or other texts for this? Is it specific to a particular tradition? Why is it necessary or useful to say this?

I set up a routine to do my meditation where i just watch my thoughts. After some days i found a peace after meditating which continued through out my day. I enjoyed the calmness inside me. Following a stressful period for 2 or 3 days my peace was lost but i am continuing my meditation still. I try to be detached from the results of meditation but the peace was so good, i am searching it now. Did anyone felt this kind of experience ? Any suggestions for me or encouragement to continue on the path ?

I have noticed subtle thoughts (sankharas) can spontaneously pop up but mindfulness can quickly cut off & end those subtle thoughts so craving does not arise in relation to those thoughts. I have also noticed the mind via subtle craving can be drawn with some attraction towards an external sense object but mindfulness can quickly cut off & stop any attachment & becoming arising towards the sense object. Are there any Pali suttas that say the sankhara (2nd condition) and the craving (8th condition) referred to in Dependent Origination can arise without the further arising of attachment (9th condition), becoming (10th condition), birth (11th condition) and aging & death (12th condition)? Must every arising of ignorance, sankhara & tanha (craving) result in the Dependent Co-Arising of all twelve conditions of Dependent Origination?

Do thoughts have energy or they are in a energy field? During meditation when thoughts are there experience high energy and when the mind is calm experience less energy.

Does Buddhism uphold and/or advocate the theory of Evolution, the theory of Charles Darwin? Does Buddhism believes that our ancestors were monkeys and apes? I as a Christian don't believe in Evolution, I can't believe this that my ancestors were apes and I am a MUTANT APE! If you tell a child that he or she is an animal, gradually they behave like animals! But, What Mahatma Gautama Buddha and his Dhamma say on this issue? Please help with a Nichiren Buddhist point of view.

no rise of ill will towards other beings and sankhara disappears after samadhi nimitta has been seen. Sometimes when other person have scold ,dukka appear as a cloud and disappeared. What is the state of this?

I read a view on the internet that Samskara in Pratītyasamutpāda a cohesive collection of memories or imprints. Is this view or idea taught in the Pali Suttas? If so, please provide some quotes?

Was it the Buddha's intention that all beings to be free from suffering i.e. enlightened? > As the Dalai Lama acknowledges , “Buddhism has evolved differently > in different times and places and yet the essential Dharma remains the > same. **The Buddha’s prime concern was that all beings should find > peace and freedom from suffering**. Did he say whether it was possible for everyone to be enlightened, so that there was no one left unenlightened? Would there then be no further (re)birth?

I am wondering if alertness is best sustained in terms of: 1. Attempting to sustain alertness in meditation, not meditating when too lethargic. In other words, always exerting oneself and keeping sharpness when in meditation, and stopping when the mind becomes unclear. 2. Or, engaging with meditation even when lethargic, continuing one's meditation despite the mind being unclear and hazy. In other words, waiting for the mind to clear up. Which is more accurate?

I read on the Internet that Experience (Vijnana) which is really nothing but reification of Recognition (or Interpretation) of new observations in terms of internalized old observations. Is this view or idea taught in the Pali Suttas? If so, please provide some quotes? > *Reification is making something real, bringing something into being, or making something concrete.*

I'm having trouble truly understanding nimattas. I use visualization for my jhana mediation. It's what focus my mind best and allowed me to almost enter jhana. But if i do visualize, will the nimatta still appear? How would i recognise it? And once it appear do i move off my object to it? Also i read this passage explaining what a nimtta means in the modern day. I wish to know does this do a great job explaining it. > Now certainly it is true that if you become VERY concentrated you might see an image that looks like "a star or a cluster of gems" or "chariot wheel or the moon's disk," etc. And it is also true that you can with sufficient concentration absorb into that experience so deeply that you no longer hear sounds, or are aware of your body, or are even aware of the passage of time. This is not what is described in the suttas; however, this is indeed what the later commentaries mean when they use the word "nimitta."