From my experience, one can influence outcomes of whatever by using intent. This is investigated much currently by Thomas Campbell, which you can read about in this My big TOE book and see in his videos on YouTube. What I read from a Buddhist perspective (http://www.buddhanet.net/tib_heal.htm) the mind certainly plays a role in your own physical health. What about influencing that health of others? For example, when one of my kids has the flu, I wish them good health using meditation. I have no objective proof but it seems to speed up the recovery. My question is, what does Buddhism teach in using the mind to heal physical problems of others? And what about healing their mental problems through focused intent? I wish to have tagged this with 'mental', 'physical' and 'health' but those tags aren't available.

What is the difference betweenchappiness which we can get from this world and the spirtual joy or happiness which buddha taught us? Is the spirtual joy more greater than sensual pleasure like drinking, eating, having sex, riding bikes, cars etc? If yes why and how so? Why should someone ignore everything in this world just to achieve that joy? As i know the spirtual joy is continious, without any disturbance unlike material joy which comes and goes like wind. But in scientific way is spritual joy which person gets after doing right concentration as buddha told is more stronger and pleasures than the sensual joy?

i have only a basic knowledge of Buddhist thought but have hit a problem that i have not been able to locate an answer to. so any pointers would be appreciated... everything i read suggests that to be born as a human being is very propitious as it allows the degree of reflection/mindfulness required to be able to understand the teachings and make progression towards enlightenment. but if these fortunate circumstances are wasted and actions in your current life result in rebirth in a lower form, there seems no way that i can see to progress even to another human birth, let alone anything else, if progress is predicated on awareness/mindfulness/ability to understand the teachings etc how would something such as, for example, a dog ever be able to accumulate enough merit to warrant rebirth as a human? i have a dog and all he wants is food and walks, he never seems that reflective. seems like a game of snakes and ladders in which - other than when playing as a human - its going to be all snakes. thanks for reading.

Can we consider 'tathagatagarbha' and 'dhammakaya' as synonyms? If not, what is the difference between those words.

I used to meditate daily, about 2 or 3 years ago I stopped. A week ago I decided to start meditating again. I sat down closed my eyes... and suddenly I am halfway through cleaning my dishes. So I try again sit down close my eyes, and I am doing laundry. I don't consciously see myself stopping and starting these chores. I completely space out on what is going on and "come to" doing a chore or task. What is going on? I have never had this problem before, and normally consider myself to be pretty mindful.

Do you need to be taught the nembutsu ? Are some personalities better suited to it? > Nianfo (Chinese: 念佛; pinyin: niànfó 念仏 (ねんぶつ? nenbutsu) Hangul: 염불; > RR: yeombul Vietnamese: niệm Phật) is a term commonly seen in Pure > Land Buddhism. In the context of Pure Land practice, it generally > refers to the repetition of the name of Amitābha. It is a translation > of Sanskrit buddhānusmṛti (or, "recollection of the Buddha"[1] ). It appears in all the Chinese influenced Buddhist "schools" I have encountered, in various forms, even if just exhorted against. Not sure if it's originally Indian.

Reference: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/snapshot02.htm The very last row talks about Buddha Nature. According to this page, Buddha Nature is not taught in Theravada Buddhism, and to my understanding, Buddha Nature is the potential for a being to become Enlightened. Is there any reason why the potential to become Enlightened isn't taught? It seems - to me - to be common sense that anyone can find their way to become Enlightened. After all, the Buddha is an example of what all beings could become. Is my understanding of Buddha Nature wrong or is there more to this than I'm seeing regarding how Theravada Buddhism incorporates this in their teachings?

I don't think "self" is the right term in English for the sort of quality I want to ask about. So, regardless of its ontological status, or that of what it relates to (objects), do (any) Mahayana Buddhists teach subjectivity?

I dreamed that I spoke to the Buddha, seems like it waa Gautama. He told me I should extend my meditation practice to an hour two times a day instead of half an hour as I do now, to reap greater fruits. I don't think I really spoke to the Buddha. Did the historical Buddha ever speak of such events? Thoughts?

Would anyone have any advice on where to find a good Russian translation of Nagarjuna's book? (I've tried myself, but Russian is no longer my first language!)

*Ven. members of the Sangha coming across here, Valued Upāsaka, Upāsikā, Valued team here and for awakening searching readers,* Since it is modern and somehow not only presentable but even seen as a sign of "independence" or "cool" to be fearless about opposing and undermining of what still stands firm: it may be good for those who do not know but like to know, to answer properly about certain consequences for oneself. 1. What can be expected for oneself, if one is opposing, fighting or even reviling the Noble Ones, Right View or those following this line, here or/and here after? 2. If somebody does not know, would that result in harder consequences, or equal, or even lessen such a fault? 3. What are the personal consequences for others and for many, who approve, accept and even follow such? To get some ideas, here are some examples of wrong view, and of consequences: >And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. ― [MN117](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/study/kamma_en.html#causes) > >Then, having surveyed the silent community, he addressed them: "Could a person of no integrity know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity'?" > >"No." > >"Good. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity.' > >"Could a person of no integrity know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity'?" > >"No." > >"Good. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity.' ― [MN110](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.110.than_en.html) *(Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other wordily gains.)*

What are some specific cultural aspects of different countries in SE Asia that are integrated into Buddhism, but that might not actually be consider purely Buddhism? In other words, comparatively, why is Buddhism in Thailand different than Buddhism in Cambodia. And what would the main differences be?

I was reading a comment on this answer and it mentioned the word mind being used in nine different ways. Comment below : > If you learn to apply episteme, the way Foucault, Derrida, and Kant had > used, in deconstructing the key Buddhist Pali words, you may find > other deeper meaning to them that are of a supramundane nature. For > example, you will find nine different ways the word ‘Mind’ is used Specifically in what 9 ways is the word mind used? In only nine ways? Not more not less?

I recently accidentally injured a bee, I did all I could to help it, but its wing was broken and so was its leg, it could not walk nor fly, it was clearly in a great amount of pain and distress. I tried to heal it with some energy work, but it was no good, I am just not experienced enough and for some reason on that day couldn't find focus with my energy work. So I took the decision to do what was necessary to stop what I took to be unnecessary suffering, I killed the bee. In another occasion where I was not responsible for the initial injury, I found a bee in great distress on the ground, I am not sure what happened to it, I think maybe it stung somebody because it appeared very hollow inside. There was nothing that could be done for it, and though it gave me great sadness, I also killed this bee to end its suffering. I love all life, it greatly saddens me when I accidentally kill something, and even more so when I have to do it knowingly. But it would sadden me even more if I had to leave a being in suffering and not doing anything when I could and there wasn't a reason not to. Am I breaking the first precept or can an exception be made to end the great and unnecessary suffering of a being who cannot be saved from their fate? I heard a story about one of Buddha's previous lives where he sad that he found out about a murderer on a ship who was planning to kill everyone, and out of only compassion for the man the Buddha killed him with no hatred and only love so that he wouldn't have to go through all the terrible rebirths fore his actions of killing everyone on the ship (this is from a memory of someone telling me this story, I believe that they had read it somewhere, but I may be getting some the details wrong). And that by doing so he in fact cleared a huge amount of previous karma, rather than gaining any for this act. That is not to say though that I am doing this with the intent to clear karma, I merely want to help the bee. Now although that is a different situation, could that be related at all to this?

What is "insight" the "knowing that I know" in Buddhism? I understand the concept of consciousness a bit better but what about having Insight.

Got interested after seeing benefits of intermediate fasting in retreats from noon (more energy more time) - but started to read about benefits of longer fasts now (24 hours - 28 days) But there is the whole middle way thing to consider - did buddha talk against fasting ? or just against fasting to suffer on purpose thinking that would liberate you ? If i do it for health benefits it might be ok - right ? maybe it does have benifits that can help the practice (more energy more time etc).

The classical canon gets good coverage with suttacentral and accesstoinsight, but I was wondering if there was such a website for Mahayana writings. (Post-canon writings diverge and become extensive, meaning different translators, copyrights etc, but if something relatively comprehensive-ish is around, would be great!)

There is a chapter under citta vithi in Abhidhammattha Sangaha. In which of the seven books in Abhidhamma this concept appear?

If I let relationships and other things go as a way of embracing detachment then will there be karmic "retribution" or will it leave some hole that will force me into rebirth?

What is the difference between satipatthana, samatha and anapanasati? When I read about them they all seem to be saying the same thing so how are they different?