Have disappeared the body and thoughts,there is remaining awareness with the knows during practice.what is this stage of practice?how to know whtere this is stream entry?

I read an article that included the following - "Through careful, mindful observation of this process of sensation overlaid with cognitive evaluation, it’s possible to tease apart the raw sense data from all the mental activity about it. And when you do this, you may notice that the raw physical sensations, which until now you had always assumed to be continuous, are actually absent much of the time. What’s happening is that raw sense data arise and pass away rapidly in little chunks, with gaps in between the passing away of one chunk and the arising of another. Some of those gaps can be quite long, relatively speaking, but normally you don’t notice this because all that mental processing about the sense data fills them in, giving the illusion of continuity." I have been meditating for about 6 years and attended several retreats but I still don't understand this on an experiential level. I dont think I have assumed them to be continuous. It just seems obvious to me that sensation isn't always there. I get an itch and then it's gone. I have a pain and then it's gone etc etc. maybe I'm misunderstanding this concept?? Does it mean that for example an itch that lasts for 10 seconds is not continuous for the 10 second duration? And same with a pain? Perhaps my concentration is not strong enough to ever notice this. I try to examine a sensation sometimes but an itch just seems like an itch to me. I feel I'm not making much progress,if any at all, with this stuff. I read about what is apparently supposed to happen, things you're meant to notice and experience, insights etc but my meditation just seems to be the same thing every single time. Sitting, noticing breath, thinking, noticing breath, itch, thinking, notice breath etc. It feels more and more pointless everyday. I don't seem to be learning to see the "true nature of reality" or heading toward "enlightenment" Why not? Where am I going wrong?

If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat? > Killing an Arhat (enlightened being) is one of the ānantarika-kamma actions.

Usually i do a short metta after vipassana - saying good wishes to myself than to someone close than to people i like lsess and less and in the end include all beings i want to do metta before sleep so i can sleep better- but it usually takes me a long time to fall asleep no matter the stuff i tryed --- so in case i have an hour maybe two before sleeping - or even 10 minutes is a long time for me to do metta how do i extend the metta time ? - just repat the metta cycle again and again and again ?

Buddhists say that everything is empty. Is mathematics empty? I thought that "empty" meant conceptually constructed. But how can the fact (not the expression) 2 + 3 = 5 not be a fact which is true regardless of how we are counting?

'Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak.' (Zen aphorism) Lots of posts on SE Buddhism seem to hover around the question 'what is your original face', or 'what is Buddha' etc. It shouldn't be so difficult to answer these questions straightforwardly with a sentence or two, so why is it that teachers (who supposedly know) tend not to?

I think I somewhere read that the Buddha said that when you meditate (on breath) for 30 minutes in the morning and in the evening, you will be accompanied by happiness and peace throughout the day. Is that true and if yes, can you tell me the sutra? Thank you!

Are you suppose to try and eliminate all the hindrances at once or slowly elimate them one by one? If this is the case are you suppose to eliminate them slowly in one meditation session or slowly rid them until they are all gone During multiple sessions?

I tried to read [Kamma & the Ending of Kamma](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-b) but I don't wholly understand it, perhaps especially: - The paragraph which begins with "The truth of the Buddha's understanding of the processes of kamma" (which tries to connect kamma with fabrications). - The last 7 paragraphs, including "Only a person who has mastered the skill of release has the mental skills needed to comprehend such matters"; and, "This is why the Buddha insisted repeatedly ... that conviction in the fact of his Awakening necessarily involves conviction in the principle of kamma". I'd like to ask, what is meant by "ending kamma"? My understanding is that the doctrine says that - Kamma is intention (*cetanā*) - An arhat generates no new kamma - "No new kamma" implies "no rebirth" and is an essential feature of enlightenment So what is kamma and how can it be ended? Here were some of my theories (which may be wrong or unsatisfactory), for what they're worth, in case reading these help to correct my views: - An arhat has eliminated identity-view. Kamma is associated with identity-view ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator"). An enlightened person acts, but unselfishly, and so etc. (?). - Like it is possible to have a "[desire to end desire](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html) ", it's possible to have an "intention to end kamma". If the only "intention" you permit yourself is the intention to end karma, then etc. (?). - Maybe [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19901/254) implies that all *cetanā* arise, by definition, only with ignoble mental factors (e.g. ignorance, restlessness, greed, etc.); so action without ignoble mental factors is (by definition) without "intention", and is therefore not new kamma (?). Contradicting this, [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/19843/254) says that *cetanā* are responsible for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Do Right Speech and Right Action create new kamma, if not why not? The [Ariyamagga Sutta (AN 4.235)](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html) says they result in kamma which leads to the ending of kamma. - "From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma" (AN 6.63), so kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact ... does "no contact" imply "Jhanas"? But for example *sukha* (happiness) is associated with the first jhana, which is a form of contact (mind-contact)? So anyway, maybe it's something to do with attaining mastery of the jhanas ... I think someone wrote that the Buddha moved back into some kind of jhana state between each word he spoke? - [This](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part1.html#part1-b) says, "In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes." So apart from not paying attention to "who", it also focuses on "the immediate present" -- maybe kamma only happens when you intend/want something to happen in the future? But I think the Buddha still acted on (present) cause and (future) effect -- e.g. decide to go somewhere in order to spend the afternoon there, or to go to Sarnath in order to find the people to give his first sermon to. I guess that deciding to act (deciding to go to Sarnath) would cause the stress (e.g. knowledge of people's need to be taught) to cease, and so the action itself (actually going to Sarnath) would be relatively stress-free and without attachment (except perhaps attachment to continuing to do the right thing) ... but even if that's so, I don't see how to relate that to "not creating new kamma". It also says, "when there is ignorance of the four noble truths ... the feeling that results from kamma gives rise to craving ..., clinging, and becoming; and these, in turn, form the conditions for further kamma". Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not motivated by sensuality, doesn't create new kamma? If so, if this is the answer, is the difference between *sankappa* and *cetanā* significant, somehow? It also says "because good and bad kamma, consisting of good and bad intentions, simply perpetuate the ups and downs of experience in the cosmos, a way must be found out of the mechanism of kamma by mastering it in a way that allows it to disband in an attentive state of non-intention". There's a joke in English (actually an American Blues song) which says, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all". Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu saying "if it weren't for 'good' and 'bad' kamma I would have no kamma at all", i.e. that kamma disappears when desire and aversion disappear? The main topic which I misunderstand is what it might mean to "have no intention" or to "live without intention". It seems to me (using some ordinary English-language meaning of "intention") that "be or become enlightened" and "be harmless" and "keep vinaya" and "go on alms round when hungry" and so on are all examples of "intention" ... if that's so then how can even an arhat live without intention? What the appearance of someone who is "without intention" or "not generating new kamma": are there visible characteristics, it it possible to recognize that state when you see it (or conversely to recognize the absence of that state, to recognize when someone *is* generating new kamma)? Is kamma closely related to fabrications, somehow? I guess that a pathological example of "lack of intention" might look something like [catatonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catatonia) ... but descriptions of arhats in the suttas don't portray them as incapable -- capable of Right Speech etc.

Are there ever situations where practicing mindfulness is not recommended during Buddhist practice. Could it ever have undesirable side effects or cause hindrances on the path. Or is it always the case that the more one practices mindfulness the better? The motivation for this question comes from my own practice. I've really felt recently that mindfulness can have a negative effect on me. Perhaps swelling the ego and a lot of time contemplating what my emotions are, what I am doing and what I am thinking. This has ultimately seem very inward looking and counterproductive. I don't really expect or want someone to diagnose my own particular quirks (you can have a go if you really want). But I do want to know if there is general advice from established teachers about the possible negative side effects of mindfulness practice and when it might be contraindicated.

Is dana (or has it ever been) considered taxable in some countries?

Is there a holy book for buddhists as the Bible is for Jews and Christians and Quran for Muslims? Is that the Tipitaka? A book where you can find all the teachings of Buddhism, and how to behave, rules, etc. Where can I read it translated to English or Spanish? In the same way I can read the Bible and the Quran online.

From what I understand, the Panchen Lama is supposed to choose the next Dalai Lama. If he has been captured, is there any hope for another Dalai Lama to be chosen?

According to David Chapman, [modern Zen was basically invented by D.T. Suzuki](http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/zen-vs-the-u-s-navy/) , and doesn't have much to do with original Zen or even with Buddhism in general. Is this true? Is modern Zen closer to other Western Buddhist traditions than to original Zen?

Okay, I know that anything that come into existence has a cessation.. So, how did this world of suffering begin? Or, if you say it never began and it's ever existent, why would it need to exist? What's the cause that's made this material world? If you say that the cause is the Karma of a being, how come Karma come into existence? (By existence, I mean to ask why does Karma exist?) What's the ultimate cause or factor for existence or emergence of corporeality? I'm not trying to argue or quarrel, but I'm searching for answers from the point of view of Buddhism. I accept that these kind of questions and answers doesn't lead to cessation of pain or suffering, as the Buddha said, but I'm just eager to know :)

I read this [in another answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3949/254) on this site: >"and later I regretted" -- remorse is a klesha, an obscuring emotion. my person thought it's worthy to lift the question if shame and remorse (before, while and after a deed be mind, speech or body) are generally unskillful, therefore to be abandoned, or if certain shame and remorse is actually skillful and very needed, therefore to develop and relay on it. (Note that remorse/*kukkucca*, as a hindrance, falls by abounding sense-desire, end of reason for ill-will) Feel invited to reflect, and possible share even Buddhas view on this mind qualities: An invitation of shameless making merits, so that one might not feel remorse, having not done, later. *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]*

I have been struggling to find a single English word for "metta".Think I have failed. Once I read "what Buddha thought"by Walpola Rahula Thero mentioned as Universal Love which I don't agree as universe is man made theory. Also love is an attachment. so if someone mention a single word for "metta" please. So are there any single word? If there is not single word,what the reason?

Why do we not remember our past lives? If it is possible to recollect one's previous lives by deeply concentrated thought,is it not possible for us to visit the hermits living in Himalaya area and verify the truth of doctrine of rebirth?

Having read translations of suttas in English and also in my native language, I noticed that every single one of them renders the phrase '(this or that person) etadahosi (quoted thought)' (but see the ETA footnote below) as 'then the following thought occurred to (this or that person)'. If I was left to my own devices (i.e. no easy access to the Commentaries - I have the texts, I'm more or less all right with Pali grammar, but my Pali vocabulary is not very good, making reading slow and skimming over Pali text in search of a topic an impossibility), I'd surely come to the conclusion that this construct means something akin to the modern slang 'then (this or that person) was like: ...'. In other words, the literal meaning seems to convey an outsider's perspective while the - assumedly canonical - translations give sort of an inside view of what happens in - or rather: to - the mind of the person in question. So my question is: why is this particular translation chosen, apparently every time? I assume, of course, that it is chosen because an explanation to this effect is found somewhere in the Commentaries, and in that case I'd also like to know where can I find it? ETA: @ChrisW drew my attention to the fact that the original phrase is actually '(**to** this or that person) etadahosi', the person is not in nominative but in either dative or genitive. ETA2: I ended up being convinced that the meaning is clear from the grammar alone and not coming from commentaries. The person to whom the thought occurs is in Dative (or Genitive - Dative is my bet, though), and that it is a thought that occurs to them is clear from the fact that a thought follows the construct. So I'm accepting the answer which draws my attention to the fact that the subject is not in nominative.

Is selfless charity to the non-monastic poor and needy, recommended for Buddhists as part of their practice? How do the different Buddhist traditions differ from each other on this topic? Quotes from scriptures to support this, would be appreciated. The target recipients include the hardcore poor, the homeless, victims of natural disasters, abandoned old folks, orphans, shelterless disabled persons, victims of human trafficking, refugees of war, victims of oppression and other displaced persons. Animals can also be included. "Selfless" here means "concerned more with the needs of others than with one's own".