I try to become a kinder person. Sometimes I feel bad ( guilty) after not doing a service for someone, even if it's not in my benefit to do that thing. How can I understand when it's kindness toward another and when it's "stepping over me"?

In the dependent origin co-arising , ignorance came before consciousness and self.In fact we begin with ignorance. This ignorance is the ignorance about the 4 noble truths . My questions are : Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness? How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?

How would Secular Buddhists and other Buddhists who reject rebirth, interpret the following suttas, which describe: 1. An ocean of tears? 2. Everyone being someone we have know in the past? --- From Assu Sutta (SN15.3) : > At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable > beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, > though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are > transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is > greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this > long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is > displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in > the four great oceans?" > > "As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is > the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering > this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is > displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in > the four great oceans." > > "Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand > the Dhamma taught by me. > > "This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & > wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined > with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not > the water in the four great oceans. > > "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The > tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & > wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined > with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are > greater than the water in the four great oceans. > > "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the > death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... > the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with > regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have > shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering > this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is > displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than > the water in the four great oceans. > > "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A > beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance > and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have > you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, > swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all > fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be > released." I think that rebirth scenarios are usually explained as different states of mind e.g. animalistic state of mind for animal rebirth -- but how could tears the size of an ocean and everyone being someone that we have known in the past, be explained in this way? This sutta seem to make sense only if rebirth was actually true. --- Similarly from Mata Sutta (SN15.14-19) : > At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable > beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, > though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are > transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at > one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been > your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your > daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. > > "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A > beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance > and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have > you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, > swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all > fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be > released." How would you explain everyone being someone that we have known in the past?

Where on Earth or online are future retreats or classes for an insight practitioner to get Dhamma guidance and/or guidance through some version of the stages of insight meditation? Are there teachers who might guide an insight practitioner on a one on one basis, given the right situation?

I have been following your (yuttadhammo) videos for some time. I had a question that I wanted to ask to someone who is experienced and familiar with meditation and Buddhism. I went to a 60 day meditation retreat in Myanmar last year. I had a great experience there and so as a result I am planning to go back again for 4 months at the end of this year. I have had some experiences during my last trip which puzzled and scared me a bit. I was disturbed on a couple of occasions by beings from other world at night. These were scary experiences that scared me to the core during the retreat. It was difficult for me to meditate and to fall asleep at night as my mind would always stay in that defense mode where it wouldn't relax and fall asleep. I talked to the teachers about it and they said to practice metta meditation and to ask these beings to not disturb my meditation. They also asked me to not be afraid and simply watch the fear. It did that and it did work for the time being but the fear overpowered me during the entire retreat although I am glad that I was able to make some good progress. I want to be better prepared this time around when I am going back again. My question is what can I do better this time so I can be well prepared and so the fear of being disturbed again does not overwhelms me? I would like to practice meditation this time by leaving fear behind. Thank you for reading this.

I have started mindfulness from past 3 days and am experiencing reduced anxiety. I have allocated a half an hour time at 9 PM to reflect on the thoughts which may have occurred to me during the day time. So, during the day time I do NOT dwell on the past emotions. I question myself is there a problem to be solved or the thought is only about feeling bad or good. If there is a problem to be solved, then I solve it otherwise I list the thought in a diary to reflect on it in the night. Since mindfulness is always about being in present, my fear is that with this attitude I may forget how the person x behaved with me in the past and I may allow the bad/toxic behavior to continue. I want to learn from the past mistakes, I also want to remember what wrongs did the person x do to me - is there a pattern in them, so that I keep that toxic person away from me. **Will mindfulness help or allow me to recognize patterns and learn from them?**

I've read that this sutra is one of the most direct routes to enlightenment and one of the most important, yet because future generations cannot handle this sutra, its disappearance was foretold. I can find only a few English versions of this on the web and they each vary considerably, as if to indicate the prophecy is coming true. Among Buddhist teachers of certain (esoteric?) sects this is a favorite, but most teachers largely ignore it. Can someone shed light on its relevance to the modern aspirant? What are its criticisms? Why is it not more popular if its dire warnings are true? Are there reliable or canonical versions to follow? What is the history of this sutra? > Within Buddhism, there are very many important sutras. However, the most important sutra is the Shurangama Sutra. If there are places which have the Shurangama Sutra, then the Proper Dharma dwells in the world. If there is no Shurangama Sutra, then the Dharma-ending Age appears. Therefore, we Buddhist disciples, each and every one, must use our strength and our blood, sweat, and toil to protect the Shurangama Sutra. In the Sutra of the Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma, it says very, very clearly that in the Dharma-ending Age, the Shurangama Sutra will be the first to disappear. The rest of the sutras will follow. As long as Shurangama Sutra does not disappear, then the Proper Dharma Age is present. (Extract from introduction to Sutra )

Don't monks have any urge to be an activist against for example all the violence against animals and human rights where they can help other people for their needs. How do they deal with those feelings of injustice, how can they justify themselves not to declare or demonstrate or be active in other way to stop these cruel things if they have a heart for the world. How can they just sit and meditate in a monestary?

In relation to a question lately ask in regard of usuals in practicing body gestures (ones appearing) as a part of training as well as a certain voidnes of such gestures on internet as support and help, aside of the use of emos, in how far might it be of use or of distruction to receive and perceive not only words but also signs as teaching? What is the disadvantage of being taught the Dhamma without relay on body or form, remebering here that certain existences do not allow understanding the Dhamma? Is a dismay of certain form and signs and preference to relay on certain perceptions, if possessing them, (e.g. avoding ugly and beauty in regard of eye contact), not working on it, a way to get Dhamma rightly? ___ To add a sample: times ago my person used to give a * *schmunzel* *, something between * *smile* * and * *smirk* * within text, given that there are usually no emos exressing that well. Now, althought text, some people go attached, some very annoyed, some untouched, according to their preoccupations on forums. Now, following the way to give even lesser changes to find achors for unskilful socialising, by appearing merely unmoved, not giving certain signs, people got likewise attached, very annoyed, some untouched, according to their preoccupations and kind of attention. Yet, as for a monk (even formal for Bhikkhus), showing signs of emotions is regarded as improper conduct, such as showing teeth by smiling, moving arms, using body to express. Such kind of behaviour, giving certain favor and socialize improper way, has [leaded right practicing monks in troubles](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch05_en.html#Sg13) once. Now people are often very lost if not finding pleasant things within the senses, no way to identify and tend to it. ___ Where to draw the border between "giving" beauty and ugly, neutrality and being touched with signs and bodily gesture useful for every one? What if perfect or void of such contacts to learn how to distinguish and approach? Is it a case to case issue or should it be regarded as natural "chaos" not worthy to but, make merits on it? ___ *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]*

I attended a meditation event that included morning and evening chanting at a Theravada monastery/temple. It was a wonderful event but I couldn't follow the chanting book as it was written in Lao characters. I recognized some basics like taking refuge and eight precepts, but other than that I was lost. Does morning and evening chanting follow a set pattern or does each monastery just pick out what they like? If it is a set pattern, what might it include? I'd like to print out some in Pali/English if possible. Thanks for any help.

Check out my reasoning and tell me where it's flawed. 1) To know that nothing stays the same you have to have a reliable, permanent memory. 2) If memory is impermanent, then it cannot be used to measure change. 3) If you cannot measure change then you can't know if anything is impermanent. 4) Impermanence is impossible to prove.

It seems like you're supposed to do the dishes, drive your car, etc. and always be mindful of the present moment, but when is it okay to think about something like a work project or a hobby or something besides the moment? Even when you're meditating you're supposed to not be thinking... It feels like the only time you're allowed to think about things is when you're sitting alone in a dark room.

What are differences between these entities? I understand they all are entities that they posses some abilities that normal humans don't have. Are there any other similar entities that might be easily confused?

In this question I'm asking about posture -- holding the body straight, for example -- not especially asking about posture *during formal meditation*, which was the topic of previous questions. --- I was surprised to read [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/24013/254) , which includes, > ... walking straight, aware of body posture, like a king/queen, straight, not like a cowboy or a pig, awareness of the body and correct it. Sometimes (though, not often) I see something similar in other answers, [for example](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/14092/254) : > You need to develop a good posture, good grace, and good gait. You should sit, stand, and walk conveniently, with good energy flow. I was surprised to see that because: - I don't remember that's being a doctrine in the suttas -- at most maybe I remember comments on (or descriptions of) the Buddha's or Rahula's physical appearance, e.g. "like a lion" etc. - Buddhist doctrine emphasises view, and knowledge, and wisdom and so on -- if there is a mind-versus-body dichotomy, I'd expect Buddhism is more on the "mind" side of things. - Some doctrines seem intended to deemphasise the value of the body -- meditations on the foulness of the body, contemplation of corpses, etc. --- So -- *what* is doctrine about posture (from suttas, from what you've been taught, and/or from your personal experience)? And, do you know, *why*? And what is *difficult* about that practice? And does that affect your *social* relationships, somehow? How does it interact with practicing prostration?

Some buddhist teachers say anger is inescapable, or even necessary and healthy, are they not enlightened ?

It was said in a book by my spiritual master that 'breaking unloyalty to one's spiritual master is worse than breaking a kapala', of which I deduce that breaking a kapala is a really bad sign. Is there any root text explaining what is particularly bad about breaking a kapala and what is the meaning of it?

A recent [answer on this site](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11673/254) was as follows. > To make a strong commitment, you want to cultivate right effort by making a continuous effort, by hanging out with wise spiritual friends, by balancing energy with concentration and by **not doing things that suck the energy out of you like reacting to your arising defilements**, eating too much and getting lost in mental proliferation. I would love an explanation, specifically, about the part in it which I **highlighted in bold** (i.e. about "sucking energy" and "reacting to defilements"). My questions include: - What are all the things that "suck our energy" ? - Why does reacting to defilements suck our energy ? Everything else people want to add about this subject will be welcomed.

One of my favorite lines from Vasitha's yoga "I am not, nor is there other, nor is there nonexistence." In what ways does this parallel with Buddhist thought? In what ways does it differ?

A core teaching of Buddhism is 'anatta' or 'not-self'. Does the word 'atta' refer to both 'self' & 'soul' or can these two ideas (self & soul) be different in Buddhism to give them different meanings? In other words, are the ideas 'self' & 'soul' (be they used in Buddhism or non-Buddhism) necessarily synonymous in Buddhism?

Lineage is important to teaching by gurus and the succession of teaching because it helps ensure that the teaching is complete and intact, and that the teachers are sincere. One must be granted permission to teach by one's Guru, which means that by using Induction, we can see that all lineages must go back to the Buddha himself. But I wonder, in the modern world, if this has not become irrelevant? Any person can find the teachings now, in various translations, and so the issue falls on that person to determine what they feel is legitimate. Modern people are unlikely to become monks, and I have never seen any definitive statement that laypeople never can achieve enlightenment (rather the opposite). One need not join a community, follow a guru or even know another person with the same 'theories' to practice and make progress. So, is lineage still important? Can we not fix down a translation of the books, make them public, offer opportunities for retreats or guidance and just allow people to choose and go forward for themselves? There is no particular lineage in science, even if some persons are well-regarded and often referred to. Anyone with access to a library could become a Physicist, regardless what schools they go to, or whom the teachers studied under. The knowledge is the guru, not a person. In fact, the Buddha said, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." Is this not what he meant?