After reading several articles and a book about Buddhism, I now feel a bit uncertain about what Buddhism actually is about. Am I not allowed to dance? To sing? To fall in love? Is the purpose of Buddhism to become a munk or nun? To meditate and never get a taste of life? Is it "bad" to want to travel? Is it "bad" to want to be happy and/or content? Is Buddhism about finding happiness in Nirvana? Is that really it? Is it not about being happy where we currently are? Are we not allowed to truly _live_ in the moment? I am quite new to everything about Buddhism, and I apologize if anything I've said in this question is insulting or rude. I don't know who else I can ask questions like these. I hope someone can explain to me.

I have practiced meditation for the better part of a decade now. I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, but that's immaterial. I've experienced and practiced many kinds of meditation (energy, dream, mindfulness), and all of the meditations I have practiced I have a logic for. I can understand the goal of the meditation and why the meditation works. One meditation that I've always been troubled by is visualization meditation. The type where repeatedly visualizing a very complex scene leads to certain goals. How is it that by visualizing a certain scene I enact unique changes in my psyche? Obviously there are many different flavors, but recently every path I turn to has resulted in some kind of visualization meditation and I quite honestly doubt the very fundamentals of such a meditation. When I have such a strong doubt I certainly won't be able to practice effectively. Are there any resources on this subject?

Namo Buddhaya. During various discourses , monks after hearing Buddha delighted or did not delight. This is one discourse in which Monks did not delight at the end. In almost all other discourses , monks delight at the end. There are various places in which Buddha has given directions to the monk on when to delight and when not to delight. For example: One should not delight in sensual pleasures,One should not delight in any form. etc. Modern day Gurus like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar say one should always delight or be always happy. Honestly I take delight in posting to this forum.But should I take delight? My question is : Is there any direction given to Monks by Buddha on when to delight and when not to delight ?

I just read somewhere by Dhammadhatu's posts that it is Mindfulness with Breathing. Can someone explain the difference? So I don't pay attention to the in-and-out breaths? I'm now quite confused. Sati means to keep something in mind and now in the case of Anapanasatti the breath is something which must be held in mind as well as the other three objects, correct?

What is the purpose or significance of devotion in Buddhism? Are there differences in acts of devotion in Mahayana and Theravada tradition?

What would be considered a religious experience in Buddhism in the same way,for example, Moses' experience with the burning bush of God? Would it be the Buddha's enlightenment itself or a bodhisattva's interaction with Buddha?

I'm referring to translations in accesstoinsight.org; what is the word in Pali that is translated as "being" by John D. Ireland and "becoming" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu? For example, in *Itivuttaka: The Group of Twos - 49. Held by Views.* links and sample translations are given below. John D. Ireland translation > "Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and human beings > hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see. > > "And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy **being**, > delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to > them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or > acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. > Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back. > Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation > > This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have > heard: "Overcome by two viewpoints, some human & divine beings adhere, > other human & divine beings slip right past, while those with vision > see. > > "And how do some adhere? Human & divine beings enjoy **becoming**, delight > in becoming, are satisfied with becoming. When the Dhamma is being > taught for the sake of the cessation of becoming, their minds do not > take to it, are not calmed by it, do not settle on it or become > resolved on it. This is how some adhere.

Namo Buddhaya.I have a habit of playing involuntary songs in my head which spoils my mood. I am a living library of songs. I have been hearing music since my childhood days. My question is : how can I cure the music influence on my mind ? Should I stop listening to songs ?

Continuous meditation will calm the mind, when eyes open there is a difference felt, this difference means the soul has change, is this change an incarnation ? Similarly when hungry, thoughts are different & when satisfied with food there is relief, so this change from hungry to being relieved can be called an incarnation or change of soul ?

I recently saw a remark that implied that Stephen Batchelor no longer meditates or at least not very regularly. If true, this seems important. Batchelor is prominent, even central, in the contemporary, so-called Secular Buddhism movement. He has a long history of different phases of belief and practice, from Tibetan, to Zen, to a form of agnostic/secular "Buddhism" that he has almost come to define on his own. Can anyone supply a pointer to that assertion or related material? I did not capture it at the time.

Namo Budhhaya (I would like to begin by paying homage to Buddha...I don't think that will violate the rules of the forum please). I oppose science for its wrong views on the origin of Universe , origin of consciousness and existence of God. However I everyday use science to make my life simpler. I am indebted to science for giving me all the comfort. But here arises the question of integrity. How can I use the services of science if I oppose its values ? Am I a man of integrity? Is Integrity Anatta too ?

when lay person attains enlightment he has to die that same day within 24 hours or else become monk if not there is destruction of life what is the future of such person ?

Namo Budhhaya. I had bookmarked many Suttas from SuttaCentral but most of them are showing page not found error. For example : This link and this link . I wonder why are many links on SuttaCentral showing page not found error?

I have completed 10-days Vipassana course and I would like to keep on practicing back home. Goenkaji's discourse tells us to practice Vipassana 1 hour each morning and evening every day.Is there a need to practice Anapana along with Vipassana if so how often?

I've completed 5 10-day Vipassana courses, one Sati, and I've served a 3-day and in various other smaller capacities. I'll be serving my first 10 day in about 6 weeks, and began regularly sitting 2 hours a day after completing my last course in early December 2017. I sat a total of 28 days in 2017, and hope to do a similar amount this year as well. So in short, I feel absolutely certain that this is the path; it's crystal clear to me. I also have a clear sense of my purpose in this life as a householder, as an aside, but sense that I'll spend large portions of my life sharing with others about my experience with Vipassana to try and help to make them aware of it. Recently, I've been noticing that my ability to feel the feelings of others, to see where they are, has become sharper and sharper. I can really feel their pain, and transmute it, and I also see what could be done to really help them. I feel love for them and want to help them, mostly, with occasional feelings of being negatively impacted by their pain creeping in, but that has lessened as my Vipassana practice has deepened. The challenge I'd like to understand has to do with learning how to communicate these notions to people in ways that are helpful to them, in ways that aren't perceived to be self-righteous on my part, of know-it-all-y, or whatever. I suppose this will come to be with more practice, eh? I feel like that was always Goenka's answer to every question and I understand more and more so what that was the case. That said, if anyone out there can relate to this and is open to sharing his/her thoughts and experiences, I'd love to hear them. I am interested in replies from people who have practiced Vipassana and can relate to my experience here. Thank you!

For example, in this answer , we find Buddhists insisting that the mind is not a "byproduct" of the brain, i.e. the mind does not arise neurologically in the brain. By neurology, I mean that according to that view, the mind arises by the electrical and chemical interactions happening in neuron cells of the physical brain. I have also seen Ajahn Brahm stating in a video that even a person with dementia would have a moment of clarity of mind, just before death, proving that the mind is not neurologically originated. My understanding is that Buddhists have this view, because without it, it does not seem sensible that the mind stream can be reborn into another life. Is this right? That's my first question. This answer is interesting: > Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are > magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each > conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither > exists independently. To me, it does not matter if the mind arose neurologically in the physical brain or not. My analogy is that software or data is composed of the bits of 1s and 0s on the physical media of a computer, for example, harddisk and RAM. So, it is electronically and chemically originated. However, software can be copied or transferred to other computers or other physical media over networks. So, while software depends on physical media, this does not impede it from moving to other physical media. So, my second question is, does it really matter (in terms of holding the Right View ) if the mind is neurologically originated or not? I think if the mind is neurologically originated, it does not matter and does not impede the notion of rebirth or continuity of the mind stream, just like in the case of software.

I return to this site after a long absence due to various causes. My current question is whether some meditations are more suited to certain contexts than others, for example: 1. Would mindfulness of breathing be as easy as other meditations on public transport? 2. Would mindfulness of sight be more appropriate in such a context? 3. Is mindfulness of breathing suitable to walking, or is it preferable to practice mindfulness of stepping and so on? I am mainly asking this because my formal meditation is almost impossible, as I live at home and noises are continuously occurring. I'm specifically talking about television noises, or discussions, which in addition to being loud also distract from my practice. Thus, I search for other situations to meditate in, like transport and walking.

I am wondering whether anyone can give me information on the correct way to practice non-judgmental mindfulness. The way I understand it, different attitudes towards experience can imply: 1. Attachment: Participating in an experience or indulging in a desire or fantasy through action. Or, even, clinging to and believing thoroughly a thought or idea, i.e. in a non-relative way. 2. Aversion: The opposite, which is aversion towards an experience, shunning it, denying it, avoiding it by removing oneself from it. Denying realities and ideas, considering them as entirely wrong or false, or undesirable. 3. Equanimity: Finally, having *equanimity*, holding experiences in oneself without acting upon them or avoiding them, and considering the relativity of ideas and emotions, etc. I believe the third point is mindfulness, but when I practice meditation very little seems to arise. I am caught in the breath. Outside of meditation, even, I often act out of anger without time to think, or fail to experience different emotions and affects. **Is it possible I am meditating wrongly, in a way that inhibits non-judgmental awareness of inner experience, and instead prevents these experiences from arising? I.e should these experiences (lust or anger, emotions, etc) at least *arise*?**

The question is straightforward as it read, but to elaborate I will give some examples. I think most people will agree that reason is what is special about human beings, and most religions and philosophies are directed to human reason to persuade or redirect human reason to what is deemed correct/true, but human reason have a set of premises that it works from, in other word discernment in human requires approval by reason itself, it cannot be otherwise. So, to convince what is reasonable philosophy employ dialectic thus it cannot be blamed for misology. Most religions, however, use faith in addition to dialectic and when faith contradict with reason misology is visible and human reason succumb to confusion. Now, Buddhism is no different from these religions, although it claims that no faith is need beside direct knowledge, it avoid explaining the basic building block of the idea it propounds. For example, it seeks to eliminate ignorance to end suffering but it avoids to give an explanation how in the first place ignorance arise? Some sect of Buddhism also teach a Buddha nature in every being but fail to explain how a perfect Buddha nature get deluded, to begin with. Buddhism also fail/avoid to explain how it’s possible that an endless liberation is possible. The above is not uncommon to other religions even in India the Jain’s teach a True Soul that get liberated from karmic element but they fail to explain how this ever going ebb of liberation can be true, how is that even possible to have a never filling bucket? Why are all souls not liberated if the Jani’s cosmos progress or the Buddhist idea is to be believed? ---------- This question is marked as a duplicate, but I don't think it is directly related to my question. What I'm asking is not a bias towards conceptualization, but avoidance to explain idea's within Buddhism, not of individual conceptualization Mr.Ethan would want to keep, but a reasoned explanation for Buddism itself.

As far as I understand, Vipassana meditation trains attention and equanimity. Which makes sense because you are basically doing body scans all the time and remaining equanimous to bodily sensations, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant. Cool. But ... how can you develop love, compassion and sympathetic joy by doing that? How can "watching equanimously your bodily sensations" make you a more loving and compassionate person? At best you should become a very neutral, equanimous, cold person with a very high level of awareness, but then how would you cultivate sympathetic joy, loving kindness, compassion? Does one need to complement vipassana with other techniques to develop those qualities?