I am looking for that very specific sutta in the Pâli Canons wherein it is made plain that such a one not having himself attained to liberation, is not qualified to liberate other. The simile, I think, is about being mired in quicksands... Thank you for your kind attention, your help is very much appreciated.

Early in my practice (Mahasi noting), I had plenty of thoughts come up to note, as taught, but lately there is only the meditation object. Is this normal or just another impermanent​ thing that will change with​ changing experience? I have meditated 5-6 months, and the last two I've had this (disappearance of outside thought) so to speak. Thanks.

I want to know how *suicide* is viewed in Buddhism. I know that it is not viewed positively, but I want to know why. Is it because it brings grief to others? Is that the only reason? Or there is something else..? I think that if you die happily in a calm state because you wish to, there is no negative energy within you.. so I don't understand why suicide is such a bad thing. *(the reasons I think are the grief that will bring to the family and that one's negative energy will linger)* Buddhism also varies among countries and cultures (I'm from the East Asia), but I believe it all began with the core teachings of Buddha and I just want to learn his teachings. Thank you.

A further question: is there an online community that creates kōans? Thank you so much! John

I'd like to read about the history of Buddhism. Which book or books would you recommend?

I've read the book *Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism*, and it was really interesting to read about the recent history of Buddhism, in Korea. And there's quite a few books on how Buddhism came to America etc.. And I have a few biographies of important monks. And I've read a bit about Bodhidharma, ch'an history in China, Tibetan dissemination, and the like. But is there any other scholarship, like the book on Korea above, I can read about recent Buddhist history, rather than personalities, today?

Please correct me if I'm misguided about this but I was doing some reading which seemed to be saying that life on this earth is nothing but suffering. That while we are ignorant we wander around in samsara experiencing the pain of birth, ageing, illness and death etc The goal is to be free of this cycle by reaching nibanna and not be reborn anymore. I don't see the point. Because if I am no longer reborn then where am I? If I don't exist anymore then I cannot be in nibanna. And if I no longer exist then what is the point of getting to nibanna anyway as I won't be able to experience it. I feel that this view is somewhat depressing. It makes me think what is the point of anything. Why bother even trying to accomplish or achieve anything if it's all suffering and the goal is to not exist anymore?

How can we know what is mundane? Mundane life contains many components that superficially overlap with the Buddhist path: - religious belief - unusual experiences - changes to character - epiphanies - etc. Aside from taking a poll of monks or devout Buddhists, is there **a means to test** whether we have made any progress?

Buddhists avoid 'reincarnation' instead of 'rebirth'. Especially if we don't mean rebirth into an intermediate state, the term 'reincarnation', to me, seems OK. Why does 'rebirth' imply there is no soul? Is it an etymological thing? Or something about putting the emphasis on 'birth' rather than the body?

I was wondering if ego death and stream entry is the same? During what i call 'ego death' or 'experience of pure consciousness', i emptied out and saw the internal galaxy images. Insights came although it felt too much to comprehend. I was speechless. Basically it was inconceivable. It lasted 6 hours and more I couldn't sleep after. After that my life changed significantly. I still have issues with self esteem but much less.

I'm not sure why but insight practice isnt feeling very insightful to me. I've been practicing for over half a decade every day and I'm not having any profound insight into reality as I have read about many times. Goenkas method they talk a lot about dissolution of the mind and body and seeing the ultimate reality of the subatomic particles etc and Sayadaws method they talk a lot about anicca and the rising and falling always being different etc. maybe I'm missing something but after all this time I still have not really had any profound insight into anything. When I was on retreat I had some pretty freaky and blissful experiences but I had no clue what occurred. All I knew was that it felt good and I wanted more of it. When I spoke to the teachers they also seemed clueless about what occurred. For all I know it could have just been a combination of sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation causing me to go slightly insane. Sometimes I just get really bored of being told to keep watching the rising and falling. So the breath is impermanent, big deal. How long am I meant to keep doing this before I have so called "insight". It seems a bit like Christianity the way they tell people you aren't getting results because you just need to pray more. I also feel like I cannot be really honest about how I feel without others kind of wagging their finger at me in a condescending way and saying its my fault for not doing this or that properly. I feel like I need to have insight into the so called true nature of reality pretty soon or I'm not going to continue. I can't just keep on doing this based in blind faith that what I'm being told is true..

What are the Buddhist references which deal with: - space and - time Primary sources from the Tripitaka or secondary and tertiary sources with proper citations are also welcome.

I understand that the Buddha used different teachings styles, depending on the audience/people that were listening. Also, I understand that there seems to be a ,superficial', easier accessible Buddhism and a more advanced, transcendental one. In the light of this, I am wondering if it is seen as ethically correct, that the Buddha taught some people differently than others, especially by using, I would say, manipulative techniques. There are two examples I'd like to bring up. One is the parable of the burning house, in which the Buddha promises playthings to get the children out of the burning house. ..."Then straightaway, **intentionally devising a lie**, he announced to the children, "I have various precious playthings, one for each of you, here outside the door. For one, a goat-drawn cart. For one, a deer-drawn cart. For one, an ox-drawn cart. Come out, all of you! For your sakes I have made these carts, following the desire of your own thoughts." Thereafter, he is offering them even more valuable carts than promised (the Dhamma I assume). But he used the first promise to lure them out of the house. Of course, as it is a parable, it can be interpreted in varying ways. However, in this case he intentionally lied to the children in order to get them to the right path. Isn't that manipulative? The second example is about Karma and re-birth. After reading about the topic from different sources and books, it seems to me that the mechanism of Karma and re-birth primarily serves as to bring the common people to act ethically (good karma, bad karma, different realm of re-birth). However, in my understanding there is actually no self that can be re-born, as the 5 aggregates dissolve at the moment of death (where there is actually no death also). When there is no self, nothing can die nor be reborn, nor can there be a ,bookkeeping' of good and bad karma. Therefore, it seems that the teachings here bring the karma and re-birth theory up only to attract the common people and have them behave in line with Buddhist ethics. However, in fact after realising that there is no self, this whole construct becomes redundant (Simpler vs. more advanced Buddhism?). I would be very happy to read your view on this, as this issue has kept bugging me for a while. I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed. Thank you so much.

I've come here many times for meditation on the breath. I've come to understand this meditation better, but I encounter problems unrelated to meditation. I've noticed that my memory is rather bad, and that my thought process relies mostly on verbal means. However, I remember being extremely visual at an early age, scoring quite well on visual aptitude tests, and these days I can sometimes visualize complex things. Yet, I fail to use visualization in every day life because I understand Buddhism discourages mental fabrication. I am thus very focused on exterior reality, either sensing reality or thinking abstractly. I'm wondering if visualization meditation would help me with memory and conceptualizing. I must also mention that I have a mood disorder, and though I doubt visualizing could affect this, I am still worried of the possibility. Thus, my questions are: 1. Is intentionally visualizing something very different from fantasies discouraged in Buddhism? 2. Is visualizing generally different from engaging in visualization in meditation? 3. Are there any risks involved in visualization practices, in visualization as a general trait of mind? 4. Would visualizing improve memory, retention, or modelling? 5. Could visualizing in a free and unrestricted way liberate or affect emotions, undo repression? I am thankful for any replies.

In my opinion, if you promise something to someone and don't keep it, it is equivalent to lying. But what if the promise is to myself and I don't keep it; is it violating the precept on lying? Does the lying precept apply to oneself, i.e not lying to yourself? Sutta / Vinaya references would be very much appreciated. Edit: I meant one vowed/ promised with honest intention at the time did it, but later change mind and don't want to keep it anymore

This may sound similar to this question , but it's not the same. This practice appears to be similar to the Khecari Mudra of Hindu yoga, but it's not the same, because the tongue need not be inserted into the nasal cavity. It is sufficient if it is pressed against the roof of the mouth. This is based on the quote below from the Vitakkasanthana Sutta . My questions are: - Since this appears in the Pali Canon, do contemporary Theravada teachers teach this? - How does it work? Does it stimulate certain nerves? - Is this considered a last resort to controlling the mind, or is it a regular part of Buddhist practice? > "If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or > delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the > relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — > **with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth** — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with > his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed > against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and > crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts > are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind > right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a > strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the > shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same > way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or > delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the > relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — > with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his > mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his > awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against > the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing > his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are > abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind > right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

While researching forms of meditation involving concentration specific to the Tibetan school of Buddhism, the meditation instruction tells one to touch their tongue to the roof of their mouth when meditating. Recently, I have been reading a book on Taoism and energy flow, which also instructs the same thing yet for the purpose of completing an energy pathway. **My question:** What is the purpose of touching the tongue to the roof of the mouth when meditating (in concentrated meditation in Tibetan Buddhism)? ________________________________ I would also welcome some answers/comments about other schools of Buddhism related to this.

I was listening and watching the Tibetan Book of the Dead (Audiobook) and i got one question in my mind. When soul/conciousness leaves physical body how can it see all the physical things without a physical eyes?

What is the proper Pali word for Buddha's power of seeing other beings mind? I think it starts with **Paricitta** or something. I want the proper Pali term. Also, can I have any sutta references to it as well?

I keep seeing the following koan: > A monk asked Zhàozhōu, "Does a dog have Buddha nature or not?" Zhaozhou said, "Wú". What does this mean and why is it important? More specifically: Does "Wú" mean "no" in this context, or does it mean "the question doesn't make sense and therefore cannot be answered"? I've seen both interpretations, which one is correct?