My question has to do with existence itself. We all know there is suffering in life and that it is due to the fact that fenomena is ever changing, so any state (good or bad) is conditionated and will therefore change. This is what I understand as the number one reason for the pursue of enlightment: reaching the natural, unconditionated and unborn state of (not) being and therefore be released from *it*. However, is this search for the ultimate happiness truly hopeless? I mean, imagine if we were to live a life composed of 99% satisfactory states while just a small percentage of it being actual suffering. Wouldn't that life be truly worth striving for? What I see as a human being however is that people mostly suffer just as much as they feel well. We drink, have a great time and then feel empty and a headache; we might even live and overall very pleasant and fulfilling life but in the end suffer greatly from illnesses... Even from my own experience, I don't seem to be able to have any sort of "breakthrough" of overall life satisfactoriness; it always feels to fall back into the same neutral level and I can't scape this. Personally I feel uncertain about enlightment. Something that has no comming back, nothing for ever after, no pleasure, no pain, just blank, not even color or feelings... I would say it is like being a zero. And if only I could live in a better overall way it would be better than zero. It seems to me that being able to live 1000 very good days every 1 bad day is a pretty good trade. Isn't it possible?

If some person when he live's on earth His doing 50% good & 50% Bad things (theatrically). after he died what will Happen to him in next life. 1st will he effected with his good things he done in Past or bad things?

I am a mathematician, and I often find myself obsessing over the problems that I'm trying to solve. While I have made incredible progress over the last 6 months with my practice. I find myself suffering, sometimes for a few days in a row, because of my obsessive thinking towards the problem. It's as if my entire consciousness became the problem and that I could not find any relief until it was fixed. I enjoy getting consumed by what I do, I also know that being consumed AND remaining grounded is much more powerful. Any tip? / similar experiences?

**The problem:** I've encountered some confusion about the differences between samadhi and vipassana, as would seem to be a frequent problem amongst beginners. This confusion was only worsened by my having a Zen master tell me that my practice was vipassana, and that I should just continuously count my breaths up to ten and then back down instead. I don't think she realized that I was striving for samadhi, and I don't think she really knew what she was talking about. I find Theravada to be the path for me, and have stopped visiting that zen center, but am still confused nonetheless. So, in the absence of a formal teacher, I figured I could ask here to see if someone can provide me with some guidance. **My meditation practice:** Concentrate on the sensation of the breath and nothing else, no numbers, thoughts, or words for as long as I can or unless I feel like they would help me. Some thoughts I use, for example, are, "Let go of it", "Become one with the breath in the present moment", "I am looking for my thoughts; I should be looking for my breath", and other thoughts of a similar nature. -- So basically, does this kind of practice generate samadhi, or vipassana? I'm not looking for insight while meditating. Just looking for the breath and focusing on it. Thanks in advance.

Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination? "If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for contact?' one should answer, 'There is.' "If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does contact come?' one should say, 'Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html

This question mainly came up to my mind as I thought about how interconnected some concepts and practices of Buddhism are with other spiritual practices, such as meditation, and the concept of letting go. Was the Buddha ever questioned about something of this nature, and did he ever make this clear at any point in his teachings?

What are the Suttas which discuss self and nonself and under which contexts and angles? To break it down: - What Suttas discuss no self as an extreme view? - What Suttas discuss what is not pleasent cannot be taken as not / non self? What Suttas discuss sensations and not / non self? - What Suttas discuss external controller as not / non self? - What Suttas discuss internal controller as not / non self? - What Sutas discuss the doer as not / non self? - What Suttas discuss action is not / non self? - What Suttas discuss body as not / non self? - what Suttas discuss consciousness as the last aggregate to realise as not / non self? - what Suttas discuss the aggregates as not self? - what Suttas discuss the 6 sense bases as not self? - What Suttas discuss the world is non / not self? - What Suttas discuss the contemporary notion of Atta? - What are the angles the non / not self is discussed? What angles and contexts that might be missing above? If so what are the Suttas in these contexts? Above is just for guidance but it will be helpful if the Sutas can be grouped by context / angle, perhaps under a title or section. It is helpful if the relevant section can be quoted. I will be accepting the answer with most of the mentioned / unmentioned categories covered followed by number of references. But if you have at least 1 reference not already in another answer this will be appreciated and upvoted.

I have heard a lot about this kind of things called demons, satan, evil spirits from other religion. But is their any mention in buddhism about existance of such creatures or spirits?

This question asks whether, what, or how to tell other people about giving money to a beggar. **Scenario** I was seated inside the bus today and I saw a man begging for while selling some incense sticks boxes and he was wearing a mask for an unknown reason. Firstly it occurred to me whether it's worthwhile to donate some amount to him. Them it occurred that drop by drop only the pot will be filled. So I decided to donate some and I was suppose to give the bus ticket money to the conductor. I had some hundred notes and a 20 rupee note. I was thinking whether to give a 100 rupee note to the beggar at first and then I thought of donating the 20 rupee to the beggar and pay the conductor with a 100 rupee so that I could have change. Both the beggar and the conductor arrived near my seat and I was having both notes on my hand. (I was holding the phone from the other hand). I tried to give the 20 ripped to the beggar and the conductor unknowingly reached his hand to the 20 rupee note and asked where I was going to. I was about confused on what to do and then I settled my mind thinking "It's fine. Let the beggar have the 100 and let him do something beneficial with it". After saying where I was going I donated the 100 rupee to the beggar. This incident happened very fast. And at the instance I let go of the typical craving for the small 100 rupee note so that I could fulfill the charity purely. And after that the conductor told me not to give that sort of large amount to them. I smiled and, unshaken in my intention, I continued on the journey. **Question** My question is this: I'm not sure whether the beggar was virtuous or not; but I know for a fact that only drop by drop a pot can be fulfilled. So the question is, if this sort of a situation were to arise another time, **should I instruct the other person** (in this case the conductor) on what the intention and the situation was, or just shut up and mind my business? May the Triple Gem bless you.

I am interested in learning about Buddhism, and there are a lot of questions. I wonder (since it seems to me Buddhists are quite independent, and they don't attach that much to people or things) what about like if they did have families or friends or wives or husbands: do they live without affection etc.?

Are there any websites that have an English translation of the Chinese Buddhist canon, similar to what is available for the Pali canon at [accesstoinsight.org](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/) and [suttacentral.net](https://suttacentral.net/) ? Grateful for help and with kind regards, Tord

In Maha Buddhavamsa The Great Chronicle of The Buddhas by Tipitakadhara Mingun Sayadaw, page 949 to 980, there is a series of question between the Buddha and Sakkra. This seems very relevant to the Buddhist meditation practice. Which Suttas does this conversation appear in?

All words are creations of mind. How do we explain the mind with the words? So that proves there is something beyond words. That is thoughts. Connected to mind. Are mind and thoughts two different things? Or the same thing?

How are habits seen in buddhism - how are they explained ? read now about habit making - and would love to hear users views on habits - and what they see habits as And what people think about habit making and its effectiveness and why

Many accounts of the Buddha's life describe Śuddhodana preventing his son from leaving the palace to avoid a prophecy said by Asita. For example, this [site says](http://www.buddhistacademy.com/index.aspx?pid=LifeoftheBuddha) : > Suddhodana was determined to see his son become a king so he prevented him from leaving the palace grounds. But at age 29, despite his father's efforts, Siddhartha ventured beyond the palace several times. In what sutta (of any canon or tradition) the Asita prophecy and the above events are described? The only sutta I know about Asita is [Snp 3.11](https://suttacentral.net/en/snp3.11) but it does not mention the alternative prophecy for his future, and most suttas I know have the Buddha describing the palaces he lived in, but not his father's plans to prevent him from becoming a Buddha. Also, it's commonly said that, after going outside the palace, he saw a sick, an old, and a dead person. Is this in the pali canon? [DN 14](https://suttacentral.net/en/dn14) says Vipassi was the one who encountered these people. I only know of suttas such as [AN 3.39](https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.39) where it says that the Bodisatta reflected on sickness, old age and death. Do these stories got conflated?

Regarding the Buddhist ideal model for practitioners, is there any difference between Southern Buddhism and Northern Buddhism?

In the jhana meditation book I'm reading, _Critical Analysis Of The Jhanas_, it is stated that to suppress the Hindrance, you first focus your mind on a jhana meditation object. Once you mature you will be able to see the object clearly, it will become a visual object in your mind. So is (uggahanimitta) a visual representation of my breath? Where I can see my breath flowing? Also they stated that this stage will mature the 5 jhana factors. That once you reached uggahanimitta, the 5 jhana factors start to mature and become stronger? I thought that to supress the hindrances you must change your life and incorporate the 5 factors. Sorry I'm just so lost.

because just thinking about it for a short time didnt have any effect on me - how should i do a long death contemplation meditation ? like half hour or an hour ? should i repeat a mantra over and over again ? And what to do when there are disturbances - should i focus on the words more strongly ? where my attention should be ? (doing death contemplation to gain a sense of urgency - chanda)

That is to say, anicca and anatta obviously apply to all 5 skandhas, but 'stress/suffering' is a psychological phenomenon. Is it the 'name' within name-and-form that links it back to dukkha?

Given that if a person is extremely busy & unable to give full time to meditation but wants to penetrate mind to eradicate past live impressions, how can he/she do so?