Is something along those lines somewhere to be found in? I am aware of the drawbacks mentioned in MN.19 , but could this way of thinking, that is, the shortness of pleasure not lead to isolation/life rejection? The Buddha frequently used the word dispassion towards the world, but I HIGHLY DOUBT HE HAD AVERSION to worldly things. This is a common phenomenom that many monks also display ,that is, that they feel aversion to the world. How does one deal with such a (mind) problem to not to drift into negativity to wordly affairs?

Namo Buddhaya. This question is regarding Anatta. Form is not considered worth identifying as Self because Form is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering. But can we identify Form as non-self ?

Which sects or schools of Buddhism make the least reference to reincarnation and memories of past lives ?, also the least likely to talk about deities ? Which texts are the most accurate records of what the Buddha taught ? Thanks

I am looking for canonical passages regarding the 13 Dhutanga practices in particular Nesajjika dhutaṅga, the sitter's practice.

As part of my charity action I was going to donate to Against Malaria Foundation. But after reading that 100% of the money is going to buy long-lasting insecticidal nets for the prevention of malaria, I am not so sure if that conflicts with my buddhist practice. For those who don't know, insecticidal nets are mosquitoes nets that are sprayed with insecticide, which is said to be twice as effective as unsprayed nets. Against Malaria Foundation website: https://www.againstmalaria.com/ Wikipedia on Against Malaria Foundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Malaria_Foundation > The Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) is a United Kingdom-based charity that provides long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) to populations at high risk of malaria, primarily in Africa. As of July 2016, the foundation has raised $86.6 million and distributed or committed to fund 19.3 million LLINs since its founding in 2004. Wikipedia on insecticide-treated nets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide_treated_nets > Mosquito nets treated with insecticides—known as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) or bednets—were developed in the 1980s for malaria prevention. ITNs are estimated to be twice as effective as untreated nets, and offer greater than 70% protection compared with no net. These nets are dip-treated using a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide such as deltamethrin or permethrin which will double the protection over a non-treated net by killing and repelling mosquitoes.

My understanding is that Kamma depends on intention and as long as the three poisons aren't involved I'm "good to go". Does this mean that if someone did something reflexively, (without much reflection), but their action caused suffering, this person's Kamma would be neutral because there was no intent to cause harm? Does it follow that, if, sometime later, upon reflection, this person came to the realization that this action was the source of suffering (such as something unwholesome, or greedy), from then on their Kamma would be affected if they perpetrated the same act? Is this right? Does is apply to all cases? For example someone who chooses to be non-materialistic (in order to not be greedy) or vegetarian (for ethical reasons) but had for some time prior to this choice behaved differently. Would they have to change their behaviour after the realization, but not be affected by their prior behaviour?

The 10 perceptions in the sutta are meant to be meditated upon? Aniccasaññā is then not to be understood as empirical seeing the 3 characteristics, but contemplating on impermanence, right?

I have been experiencing energy flow on my head,especially at the tempels, even after meditation. I have only started on Breathing concentration. What is it? I have stopped meditation for fear of something wrong might have happened. Thank you.

I have a problem that I am currently facing. There is a certain person in the family that triggers me and due to their actions I feel very angry and generate negative mind-states. The strategy I have adopted is to avoid this person all together , to the point of not even seeing them. I find that this helps me to keep calm and avoid negative mind states. Is this a good way to go about this situation? Can we avoid all triggers that generate negative mind states. Does that help in spiritual development?

I am noticing some pattern in my recent practice. I find that mental exertion, as directing attention to the breath, is quite easy for me; yet, when it comes to devoting an amount of time to formal practice, or even sitting formally and upright, I have trouble. For example, I will tend to meditate in a slouched or even lying position. **EDIT**: There is no pain, or specific problem when I meditate upright, just a sensation of general discomfort, or an unpleasantness. But, I feel maybe it is more of an aversion towards sitting upright than an actual physical problem. My question is: **How can this resistance best be explained? What is the best way to counter it?** Thank you.

Namo Buddhaya. For my survival I work but I do not like the work. I am always thinking of escaping it. But if I escape from it then how will I eat ? It is my only source of income. My question is : Should I do what I don't want to do especially if it is required for survival ? Should I start clinging to my work ? Or Should I start loving my work? If I should start loving my work then will it not automatically create clinging to the work ? In other words will I not miss the work when the work is gone ?

I saw a comment in another post suggesting that these are two different things. Can anyone explain or refute?

I have noticed most of the time third precept is interpreted as sexual misconduct or adultery. But third precept emphasize all the misbehavior and misconduct using all six sensual spheres. "Kamesumichchara" in here kama means involvement of all six sensual spheres. E.g in this answer; One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind. My question is how fair or correct to narrow third precept to sexual misconduct or adultery? Does over-thinking violate third precept because its a misconduct of mind due to uncontrollable and misuse mind?

Namo Buddhaya. Yesterday a person came to me and said he was bit by a dog and then he asked for money to buy medicines as he had none as he was poor. I gave the money to him.But I wonder whether people fake suffering to win sympathy and/or money ? Should I compromise my pride in honesty to help these fake people ? How should I respond to people who fake suffering ?

American Buddhist teacher Joseph Goldstein says1 that in order to cut through identification with consciousness, or the knowing mind, that Zen traditions say that in looking for the mind, there is nothing to find. He gives the following Zen dialogue to further this point: > Huike said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.” To > which Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.” > Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.” Bodhidharma > then said, “There, I have pacified your mind.” I do not have faith in that saying, and in Buddhism, faith comes from clearly seeing, not blind belief. Can someone give a logical argument for why this Zen saying must be valid? And, if the body can be found, do we identify with it? 1 in his book, [_Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening_](https://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Practical-Awakening-Joseph-Goldstein/dp/1622036050)

> [Chakravartin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakravarti_(Sanskrit_term)) (Sanskrit cakravartin, Pali cakkavattin) is a Sanskrit > term used to refer to an ideal universal ruler who rules ethically and > benevolently over the entire world. Such a ruler's reign is called > sarvabhauma. How does one achieve such a venerable state ?

It appeared that most students learning Buddhism will automatically assume Vipassana Meditation taught by Mr. S. N. Goenka synonymous with Buddhist meditation, methods taught by the Buddha, is it so? ===== **Remark Added 15/03/2017** The knowledgeable Suminda (@Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena) pointed to an article which attempted to establish the *"U Ba Khin Vipassana method **told by** Mr. Goenka"* its connection with Mahayana (of the Chinese Lineage), this should definitely be refuted. Mr. Goenka himself with his entire Insight Movement is completely unrelated to the Mahayanist teaching. In the article Ven. Analayo wisely drew inspiration from the Mahayanist Sutra however, it's uncertain under what circumstance someone provided him an incorrectly translated work: > 念諸息遍身, 亦念息出入, 悉觀身中諸出息入息, 覺知遍至身中乃 至足指遍諸毛孔, 如水入沙, 息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔亦, 如水 入沙. Mindfulness [during] all breaths pervades the body, [while] being as well mindful of the out- and in-breaths. Completely contemplating the inside of the body [during] all out-breaths and in-breaths, awareness pervades and reaches inside the body up to the toes and the fingers and pervades every pore [on the surface of the body], just like water entering sand, aware from the feet to the hair [while] breathing out [and in], pervading every pore as well, just like water entering sand. This should read as (translation is mine): > Set the mind to all the breaths be aware of their permeating the whole > body (念諸息遍身). Also be mindful of the breath going-out and going-in > (亦念息出入). Thoroughly observe all the out-going and in-going breaths > inside the body (悉觀身中諸出息入息), be conscious of their permeating from > inside the body unto the toes and fingers even pervading all the > pores, as if water entering sands (覺知遍至身中乃至足指遍諸毛孔, 如水入沙). [When] > breath going-out, be conscious of it from feet unto the hairs > pervading all the pores, also as if water entering sands > (息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔, 亦如水入沙). It definitely has nothing to do with Mr. Goenka's "body-scanning" technique. Here *breath* *息* is not simply the air coming in-out the nose-mouth that we do in breathing. Ānāpānasmṛti (Pali: Ānāpānasati) meditation taught by most of the general media is incorrect. There are at least 3 stages: counting, following, stillness; progressed gradually.

For a layman who wants to overcome behavioral addictions (i.e. any "*addiction that involves a compulsion to engage in a rewarding non-drug-related behavior – sometimes called a natural reward*", such as food, sex, pornography, gambling, internet, video games, etc.): - Which meditation techniques are the most recommendable? - Additionally, given the fact that an average layman cannot afford going full-time monk, what would be a recommendable frequency (in terms of minutes/hours per day) to see palpable results in a reasonable time? Furthermore: - Is a single meditation technique enough to overcome behavioral addictions? Or would it better to practice multiple meditation techniques at the same time? Or maybe different meditation techniques for different situations? For instance, are there any special meditation techniques to handle strong, compulsive urges in the presence of addiction cues/triggers? Finally: - Is meditation as a whole enough, or would one need to complement it with other non-meditative practices or measures? For example, positive affirmations, hypnosis, or maybe going to a therapist, exercising, sleeping 8+ hours, etc. I'm just throwing some ideas around.

According to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople " by Bhikkhu Ariyesako: > The Buddha suggested that the basic source of food for bhikkhus was > that received on the morning alms round (pi.n.dapaata). This daily > dependence on alms food reminds both the bhikkhus and the lay devotees > of their interdependence and prevents the bhikkhu from becoming too > isolated from the lay community. He 'meets' them every day and eats > the food that they share with him. Several important rules are > concerned with this as well as a major section of the Sekhiya Training > rules. On this page , āraññika dhutaṅga refers to: > "the one who has the habit to dwell in a country side lodging remote > from villages", that is to say the one who lives remote from inhabited > areas. And the ukkaṭṭha āraññika, the noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is defined as: > The bhikkhu who is a noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is > resolved to dwell and dwell into a forest monastery (remote from > inhabited areas) a all the time, during the three seasons of the year > that are summer (from March to June), the monsoon (approximately from > July to October) and winter (approximately from November to February). The "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople " also states: > In the Buddha's time some ladies were ambushed and raped on their way > to give food to bhikkhus living in a dangerous jungle area. Their > family criticized the bhikkhus for not warning them of the hazards. If > lay people intend to give food to a bhikkhu(s) in such a danger zone > then they must announce that to the bhikkhu(s) beforehand so that the > bhikkhu(s) has a chance to warn them or reduce the threat. > > The rule can be summarized: "Eating an unannounced gift of staple or > non-staple food, after accepting it in a dangerous wilderness abode > when one is not ill is [an offence of Acknowledgement.]" > (Paatidesaniya 4; BMC p.488) So, how does an ukkaṭṭha āraññika get his food? Only from lay people who dare enter the potentially dangerous forest area to give them food or can they eat food that they can find in the forest like fruits? If they eat fruits etc. in the forest, wouldn't that be a violation of another rule requiring the monk to get his food from alms? Here, I assume that an ukkaṭṭha āraññika does not go to inhabited areas for alms, by the very definition of "ukkaṭṭha āraññika".

I would like to ask a question from a Theravada Buddhism perspective. In the Sutta it's said having sex with particular people is considered as sexual misconduct: He has no intercourse with girls who are still under the protection of father or mother, brother, sister, or relative; nor with married women, nor female convicts; nor lastly with betrothed girls. My question is, why prostitute does not include in the prohibited person? Does it mean having sex with prostitute does not considered sexual misconduct? Second question is, from my understanding for married people having sex with their partner is not an offense but how about having oral sex or sodomy with your own wife or husband? Is it true that oral sex and sodomy will make you take rebirth as an animal?