It strikes me that it is very fortunate that meditation can be pleasurable. If there was no fairly immediate rewards then surely hardly anyone would make any kind of progress towards enlightenment. It almost like it is designed to have little pleasant staging posts where the practitioner can rest before continuing onward with the journey. But why is meditation pleasurable? Could it be insightful but barren or is there something inherent in the practice that is pleasant and the pleasant quality of meditation is a necessary quality? What do the texts say about the pleasant qualities of meditation? Is there any accounts about why it is pleasant perhaps mythic accounts or explanations?

Thoughts stopped when seen them. Either happy or sad feelings of mind disappears by seen them. Is this impermanence?

I've been meditating fairly regularly for the past 5+ years, but have really only begun to follow Buddhism the past year or so. As such, my meditation practice has changed. I admit, I am not presently working with a teacher or monastery, though it is on my radar. I meditate every morning, from 20-30 minutes, and then usually a short one at night, around 5 minutes. Yes, I'd like to meditate more often, I'm working towards that. I wonder if my meditation is too 'busy'. I begin with focus on the breath, generally counting up to 10 a few times. I also throw in the "I have arrived, I am home..." mantra during this period. I then move to a short 'prayer' routine that I developed in recovery from drugs/alcohol - this is only about a minute or so. I typically then spend a bit focused on non-self, passing through the body and saying 'I am not any singular part - I am not the senses, the flesh, bones, blood, organs, etc'. This often leads to contemplation of the 4 Noble Truths, with which I sit for a bit, maybe 5 minutes or so. I wrap up usually with metta, going through the various people (myself, an honored person, loved, disliked, etc.). Writing this I'm like "wow", I do all that in 20-30 minutes??? So that's why I pose the question here - might it be wiser to just stick with one of those? Abandon all? Center on just a few of them? I feel like it works for me, I do enjoy it, but I do wonder if I'm sorta 'cheating' in the sense that I'm doing too much, keeping the mind too occupied in order to pass the time 'quicker'.

I read there are 3 realms of samadhi: realm of desire, realm of form and realm of no form. If I read correctly, Samadhi is one-pointed focus. But if I achieve samadhi by, let's say, the desire to win a sports game: I'm locked in, well doesn't my mind have to be focused on many aspects? There isn't a single-pointed focus, of having only one object like a kasina, in mind. Same for form. Can one still achieve one-pointed focus with multiple things in mind, if he is only focused on them and nothing else? Can I still reach happiness and the other jhana factors?

How do you recognise the different factors associated with Jhana and the level of Jhana you are in? (Not necessarily when you are in Jhana.) More particularly how do recognise the factor of applied thought as such, factor of sustained thought as such, factor of rapture as such, factor of happiness as such and factor of one-pointedness of mind as such. How does the experience and correlate with the named factor such that it can be properly ascertained that this is infact this factor, and that factor has arisen and not something else or miss evaluation?

I had begun writing a question, but it was so long I needed to re-frame it simply in fewer words. The basic theme of my question was: aren't some Buddhist techniques mutually exclusive? The simplest idea which comes to mind is traditional techniques of avoiding and analyzing detrimental states (e.g. Vitakka-Santhana Sutta ) versus the modern notion of mindfulness (e.g. Jon Kabat-Zinn ). I feel it is difficult to combine these two aspects. Similarly, I thought the way of emptiness as found, for example, in the Dalai Lama's book *The Middle Way* alters completely all reference for reality. With Nagarjuna's philosophy, nothing exists intrinsically in itself, but as dependently originated. *Dhammas* as ultimate and essential realities are invalidated. I cannot help but feel all these aspects of Buddhism are somewhat exclusive, to a degree. I could conceive their unity through a kind of symbiotic compromise, but I have trouble understanding at a mundane level (i.e. conventional reality) how these can interact. Thank you for your time.

I do not know how extensively body scans have been studied with brain-imaging techniques, e.g. fMRI. Body scan is a meditation technique developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn . It was derived from a meditation practice ('sweeping') of the Burmese U Ba Khin tradition . > "It involves systematically sweeping through the body with the mind, > bringing an affectionate, openhearted, interested attention to its > various regions, customarily starting from the toes of the left foot > and then moving through the entirety of the foot [...] From there, the > focus moves into, successively, and slowly, the entirety of the pelvic > region, including the buttocks and the genitals [...] and finally, to > the face and head." > > "We are systematically and intentionally moving our attention through > the body, attending to the various sensations in the different > regions. That we can attend to these body sensations at all is quite > remarkable. That we can do it at will, either impulsively or in a more > disciplined systematic way, is even more so." > > "We might describe what we are doing during a body scan as tuning in > or opening to those sensations, allowing ourselves to become aware of > what is already unfolding." I found it quite easy to practice and had interesting and unusual experiences (mostly pleasant). My question is: **Would any brain and brain-imaging expert - given this description - dare to guess roughly how a body scan may look like in a "brain scanner", e.g. recorded with fMRI?** I am not such an expert, nevertheless I dare to guess. Presumably, a body scan will - mainly but not solely - take place in the areas of the cortical homunculus in the primary motor and sensory cortices. I would guess that it is here that most of body scan related neural activity will occur. But in which manner: how will activity evolve and literally move around, how will it look like in the "brain scanner"? Five possibilities come to my mind: 1. Experts and laymen will see nothing but a generally increased, enigmatically billowing activity of the cortical homunculus. 2. An expert would see some significant patterns, but only vague and hard to communicate. 3. Even the layman could see something: - an overall increased activity of the cortical homunculus with somehow changing peaks of activity (highlights, representing the body region the attentional focus is currently on) - a mostly "dark" cortical homunculus with a *wandering* spotlight of activity - a mostly dark cortical homunculus with a fading-in/fading-out spotlight every now and then Which of these possibilities do you - if you happen to be a brain and/or brain-imaging expert - consider the most probable one? Other possibilities are welcome! And of course hints to studies where this question has been experimentally attacked. (I found one study but didn't delve deeper into it: there are too few images in it.)

I know Buddhism promotes skeptical investigation, and finding things out with a personal conviction about them, i.e. not believing the Buddha on hearsay but rigorous examination. I wonder: how is such a certainty achieved? I would think the combination of shamatha and vipassana is the answer, but I wonder what EXACTLY is the closest determinant of a feeling of certainty, whether sensory (seeing something and *feeling* quite certain of the perception) or cognitive (*feeling* certain of some analytical reasoning). Personally, I feel like I often achieve a feeling of certainty, but it usually fades into doubts and alternate hypothesis. I can't seem to generate a sturdy sense of truth. I appreciate any answer to this question. Thank you.

I am asking this question, for I try to follow much of *Stoicism* , and I can see that there are certain similarities. But there are also many differences. Could some aspects be the same or at least alike? For example, Stoics assert that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If one is cruel, it is because he is unaware of his own universal reason. If one is unhappy, it is because he "forgot" how his true nature actually operates (these concepts seem to me very similar to the Buddha Nature, which belongs to all living beings, but is often in a latent state). PS : I am sorry if the tags are wrong, I am new here.

I'm not exactly a Buddhist, just a meditator. However, I was wondering if there are alternatives to just sitting and watching the breath? Especially, are there things I can practice throughout the day to accomplish the same effect? The fact is I, and many other people, will not have time to meditate consistently and see its benefits. I appreciate your responses.

In *Upanisa Sutta* Suffering is noted as a supporting condition for faith, I have a faint idea of how this could be, but I have a hard time following it as I did all other supporting conditioned listed in a successive order. Could you please shade a light. Thanks a mil > Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not > lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for > faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply. Upanisa Sutta: Discourse on Supporting Conditions_translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi

My significant other is an extremely busy person who constantly lives life on the road and rarely has moments to himself. He's an incredibly stressed out person and because of this I've recommended meditation to him. I've given him a pair of mala beads and well wishes but I'm not sure how else I can help him. What are some tips that I can offer him? It pains me to see him so stressed so often and I would like to help him relax and reflect. Thanks so much in advance!

I would like to ask a question about the psychology of emotions in Buddhism. I am aware, from reading books on this topic, that emotions are complex phenomena distinct from *vedana*, or feelings. But what exactly are they? And how does one process such emotions? Similarly, I wonder which method is most conducive to either processing an existing emotion, or release and allow unfelt (repressed/suppressed) emotions to arise. I am particularly curious about the relationship of these meditative techniques towards emotions: (1) breathing meditation (2) visualization (3) body awareness (4) reappraising/re-framing cognitively. Lastly, I wonder whether it would be more beneficial to focus on feelings (vedana) or emotions themselves as an emphasis. Thank you for any response.

I heard one needs concentration to abandon the hindrances -- however to have strong concentration, you need to have [already] abandoned hindrances, so that nothing can stop your focus. Which one is it? How do I abandon the hindrances: one hindrance at a time or all together?

I had read occasionally on internet that [Tirupati Balaji](https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=v9bsWODMNKfT8geD94_QAw&gws_rd=ssl#q=tirupati+balaji+) was a Buddhist Shrine. So Was Tirupati Balaji a Buddhist Shrine ?

SN 22.59 states experiencing Nibbana requires the dispassion (*viraga*) that occurs from completely realising the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self of every type of consciousness & the other four aggregates. > *Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?* > > *Impermanent, O Lord.* > > *Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?* > > *Unsatisfactory, O Lord.* > > *Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?* > > *Indeed, not that, O Lord.* > > *Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or > near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, > according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is > not my self.'* > > *O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, > gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. > Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he > is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is > emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, > what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this > becoming.'"* > > *This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this > exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were > freed of defilements, without attachment.* > > *Indeed, at that time there were **six arahants in the world**.* Many suttas describe Nibbana as the ending of the perception (*sanna*) & *asava* (defilement) of 'becoming' (MN 121) and the calming of all formations (MN 26; *sabbasamathosankhara*). Therefore, can the thought of or belief in 'rebirth' in the mind result in Nibbana? Is the belief in 'rebirth-reincarnation' not a type of 'becoming' & not a 'thought formation'?

I have found hard to get stories and teachings of Buddha in the book Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence. Is Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence, a good book to study Buddhism?

Meditation instructions generally reiterate focusing ones attention on the sensations of breath but attention can mean several things. It can mean placing attention on what you feel but what about what you see? What I notice a lot is, what I can only describe as my "inner eye", wants to see or visualise something so it generally sees various images either from the past or fantasises about the future etc which is very distracting. Where am I meant to place this eye? I don't know how to just not see anything. I can place my attention on the sensations of my abdomen rising and falling but that is a felt sense not a visual sense. I have not come across any instruction about this. Do I place the visual sense on the abdomen? Or do I visualise an object or Buddha etc?

Is there a Buddhist tradition or practice, which involves developing or showing metta towards a non-sentient entity ... for example, towards a jar of rice? If not, why not? Is it theoretically possible (according to Buddhist theory) that such a practice might have an effect, an effect not only on the mind of the practitioner but also on the object ... for example, might speaking kindly to a sealed jar of cooked rice cause it to rot more slowly (as suggested by Masuro Emoto's rice experiment)? --- Masuro Emoto's rice experiment was to put cooked rice in three sealed jars: then say hateful words to one jar, loving words to another, and ignore the third. Allegedly the rice jar to which were said loving words does well (rots more slowly), and the ones you ignore and say bad words to will do less well (they rot or grow mouldy more quickly than the other one). Edit : the experiment didn't work - i also added two slices of the same apple next to the rice - and even the "good" rice and apple got rotten a bit faster

I recall the natural state of mind being referred to as luminous somewhere in Buddhist canonical texts. I've always been very taken with that imaginary. I'm sure it's quite a common image in the texts but can anyone give me one or two examples of it. Also is this concept/image linked to the notion of Buddha Nature in some way?