Assuming one has to operate in the temporal sphere, but seeks to diminish the karmic implications of action, what are the characteristics of karmaless actions? Is this distinct from right action?

I was wondering something. Basically, I was wondering whether sensations, such as suffering: (1) naturally occur within the person, as pleasure and pain, or happiness and suffering, and it is their *exacerbation* which people call, for example, suffering. So, a person in mundane life experiences a plethora of sensations which, when a single feeling dominates, becomes joy, suffering, etc. Here, suffering and sensations *always* exist. or (2) involve an underlying neutrality which is the absence of sensation, and experiencing suffering or happiness generates a corresponding feeling. Here, suffering and sensations *cease*. So, (1) implies a variety of different and co-existing sensations, while (2) implies a neutral basis wherein sensations arise and dissipate. ---------- This might seem like a metaphysical or trivial question, but I think its quite significant. In (1), diminishing suffering might involve tolerating its presence, more and more. In (2), the ideal is neutrality, and suffering is diminished by elimination. So, I think this question wonders whether Buddhism advocates (1) the *existence* of sensations and phenomena, positive or negative or neutral, but the equanimity *towards* them. Or, does it advocate (2), the equanimity towards sensations as in their diminution, and the return towards neutrality? Does Buddhism *experience* suffering with tolerance, or *diminish* suffering by elimination? Thank you.

I have read much about meditation and stress and anxiety, but I'd like to have an experiential perspective from people on here. 1) What's the Buddhist view about stress? What are the solutions to stress? [I don't mean suffering as in *dukkha* but the physiological reaction of stress linked with cortisol, or just the feeling of being *stressed*.] 2) Same thing, but with anxiety. 3) How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice? Thank you.

I have three simple questions relating to pleasure. I have tried meditation many times without generating pleasure. Thus: 1) What level of skill permits meditation to release pleasure? How advanced must one be for this effect? 2) Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the *only* meditation conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations *more* conducive to pleasure? 3) Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal? These are my questions, Thank you.

I've heard there's a rumor saying that lord Buddha was born in Sri Lanka and ancient "Dambadiwa" is not India but Sri Lanka. There's a "sal" tree in Sri Lanka which matches to the exact tree that we believe which was there in the birth of baby prince "siddhartha" . I dunno whether they're true or not I just wanna know whether there's a truth behind it, whether what we believe so far is just a lie?! (Ps not Buddhism but the life story of Lord Buddha)

When I was on a Self Inquiry retreat last year, I was explaining why I wanted to help other people. One of the two teachers looked at me and said, "**There are no other people.**" That sort-of made sense to me. The next day I had a realization which made it make sense completely. But the other day (is there another day?) I saw it in a different way: that it simply does not matter whether there are other people or not, because I can never have real insight in to them, so I am completely alone in my path. My image of two people is like spheres touching at one hypothetical point (Indra's Net). I cannot see much through a point-sized window on to (hypothetical) someone-else's world. This is like **Vivekacudemani #515**: > *I am Actionless. I am Changeless. I am Partless. I am Without Purpose. I am Eternal. I do not require any prop. > **I am One, without a Second**.* If I am One, can I know anyone else? What does Buddhism say on this point?

I gathered some ideas from different previous replies, but I thought I'd synthesize these ideas into a question. Is it (1) more sensible to cut down on addictive behaviours *in order to* liberate one's time for meditation, or (2) meditate despite addictive behaviours present *as to* cause their diminution. In other words, will addictive behaviours diminish naturally from a meditation practice? Or, will diminishing addictions and procrastination and such enable meditation? Personally, I feel my attempts at diminishing attachments have generated very few effortful and beneficial behaviours. It seems the other way around: meditation, exercise, reading all *lead* to more efficient time-spending. If this is so, then it seems to imply diminishing *all* attachments is less beneficial than tackling gross aversion to effort. Any thoughts? Thank you. (Extra thought: can we say expending effort involves a process of *becoming*, given there's an investment producing effects? In this sense, effortful activities like those I mention have a karmic -- i.e. efficient -- effect, while detachment involves removing oneself from karma. For example, I could exercise and produce a good result, but by avoiding junk food I am *avoiding* negative consequences. Just a thought!)

It can happen that one gets scared or nervous by just sitting there, one can't for example sit still. But is this a good or bad sign?

Mindfulness has been getting some bad press of late , seemingly fallout from a wave of people selling mindfulness products that make all kinds of claims. Note that this is not the only article on this subject I've come across. It bothers me that in these valid critiques (the clinical analysis on mindfulness is still in progress, so the conclusions promoted by profit-motivated hucksters is warranted,) I never see mention the mundane benefits of the basic practice of mindfulness. Meditation and concentration on breathing are all well and good--I utilize them myself, and find them particularly helpful in times of stress or extremity--but my most common practices of mindfulness are not related to the present experience of suffering, but avoidance of suffering thought mindful interaction with in the mundane sphere: - I haven't lost my wallet or car keys in decades because I am always mindful not to put them on a table when I'm out, and always put them in the same place when I come home - I always check for traffic before crossing the street, particularly bike lanes, a mindfulness habit I've been cultivating since I was a small child, but especially since a close call with a hurtling bus - I am aware of where my body is in space and it's relationship to other bodies, on the sidewalk, in venues, etc., which allows me to navigate efficiently and reduces the probability of being attacked **What gives? Are the practical, mundane benefits of mindfulness simply not emphasized, and if so, why?**

It is true that there is no permanent identity of self and there is no identity of self which doesn't result in suffering. Nirvana is permanent , full of blessings, and is unchangeable. We humans can reach to the state of Nirvana by following the Buddha and his Dhamma. So my question is : Why can not we call Nirvana the true self of ours? (As an example I can say that I am not form,feelings,perceptions,volition,consciousness but I am the permanent , pleasant and unchangeable state of Nirvana)

Of course, after getting enlightened, One is free from worry: now the person is in higher dimension and is always happy, as he knows how perfect everything is. But still Buddha's family was there; I mean, wasn't his family his responsibility? I remember when the Buddha came back to the palace and met his wife: she asked, "just tell me, if it was possible to get enlightenment in the palace." How necessary is it to leave our families to practice, and if it is not necessary why didn't Buddha just come back? I always feel sad when I think about Siddhārtha Gautama's wife Yashodhara. If one is enlightened, he can not hurt anyone feelings: but Buddha hurt Yashodhara's feelings? I know I am incorrect somewhere, because after all He was enlightened, so he can not take wrong decision.

What is the different between living in present and the mindfulness? I experience living in the present without thinking but often not with mindfulness.

I noticed aside from gross sensory pleasures such as eating, or sometimes writing, I don't feel much pleasure or joy. It is as though the emotional spectrum of joy and pride, and other such positive emotions, is limited in myself. This considered, is there any likelihood of success to any meditations or practices given I am doing things without happiness and joy? I feel like I'm trying to move forwards while something is inherently lacking. Thank you. **QUESTION: Also, what are the wholesome pleasures and joys usually implied in the Buddhist path?** EDIT: I would like to say that it feels as though such positive emotions are unFELT, but not unSOUGHT. Basically, I am drawn to positive situations and joys, e.g. listening to music, but the FEELING seems absent. Anyone have any idea what is going on?

I wanted to ask you whether it is ethical for a person with schizophrenia to have biological children. Do any Buddhist traditions teach anything in that regard? When one parent has this illness, the chance that kid would have it too is about 17%, as compared to 1% in general population. The doctor says that it shouldn't prevent one from having children, as similar situation is for many diabetics, where there is also hereditary factor, and they decide to become parents. And some other illnesses have even greater factor than 17% and those people decide to have children, who are in many cases healthy. Some may suggest that it's better in this situation not to have biological children, but to adopt. However, mental illnesses are one of the main reasons why adoption is impossible. According to some statistics (I don't know how accurate) one person with schizophrenia in ten commits suicide; three or four in ten have at least one suicidal attempt. Nonetheless, the illness can be treated so that there is full remission, i.e. no symptoms whatsoever as long as one takes medicines. And we may expect even better understanding and treatments in the future.

The biologic construction of our brains leads to diferent behaviour and personalities. Like different antennas or generators, we can process signals diferent ways or receive them diferent ways. Our brain is very bad understood, and it is more evident that behavioral patterns can relate to the presence of brain tumours, or chemical unbalances. If our construction affects our behaviour, and that we were born with those, how can those people follow the Noble Eightfold Path, if their biology is made to go out of those principles. Examples, a pornstar can love sex because the hormonal level is naturally calling that need. However in other living aspects can be very compassionate. Or a good man who worked all his life get a tumour that transform him in a violent person and eventually kill someone. How can budhism "criticize" these behaviours if they are natural ocurances?

I'm wondering whether it is ethical to work as software engineer for financial company that develops software for exchanges and banks. When we consider exchange, different things are traded there, i.e. commodities, currency, money and equities. Unfortunately some of commodities are pork bellies (dead hogs), however there are hundreads other goods which are not meat. Moreover, markets are not only for speculators (who risk their money by "gambling") but also hedgers (who want to manage their risk by using financial market, so it's good reason). Also, exchanges make it possible for companies to acquire money for further investments. Furthermore, implementing new legislations makes markets more secure against financial crises, e.g. MIFID II.

I have two simple questions. 1) What is the Buddhist view on procrastination, and its solution ? 2) What is the solution to a specific lack of motivation, e.g. school work ? Something not related to an overarching goal, or even linked with spiritual values. In other words, how does one prime oneself to do something ?

What role if any do *javana* play in learning and entering the jhanas? I'm reading a book on jhana and javana was brought up but i couldn't really understand the role it play in the jhanas.

I am curious as to how Buddhism deals with demotivation, in the sense of lacking goals and aspirations, and with nihilism, in the sense of feeling things are dissatisfactory and devoid of reasons to crave them. I am aware the second aspect of my question is intimately tied with Buddhism, but I am somewhat asking: for someone lacking craving, what is there to be done in life? From the Mahayana point of view, I feel compassion is a noble aim, but I have trouble developping compassion. From the Theravada point of view, spiritual development is a goal, but without much obvious suffering to propel our spirituality we can get caught in cycles of lethargy, complacency. How does Buddhism deal with lack of motivation about *mundane, every day* things? What should one do in the worldly sense, when one isn't practicing? Thank you.

Supreme Buddha once mentioned… >“These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done.” — AN 2:118 **1. So my question to you is should Gratitute be on a par with Loving Kindness?** In other words, asked from another view point... **2. Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary for the path development?** Or even otherwise asked... **3. Is it possible to gain path and fruits for an ungrateful person, a person denying his/her duties?** **4. Could it be that the seldom appearing of gratitude is direct connected with the seldom appearing of people reaching path and fruit?** **5. What in particular are teaching on gratitude mentioned in the suttas? (References of Dhamma-Dana in this regard)** *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*