I am interested in knowing what the Buddha said about guilt. I think I know that it is an unwholesome mind state. Is there any specific teaching that can be gleaned from the suttas. Can anyone also recommend any meditation or contemplation practices to get over crippling guilt.

First for all I know that the correct **Sanskrit word is धर्म (pronounced as Dharma)** same goes with Nibbana (Nirvana, निर्वाण in Sanskrit) as Siddharth was born in India. So either Pali is just a local dialect as people in Nepal region are not able to pronounce R र. Same goes with native English speaker they roll R, I mean when we say car in India our tongue vibrates, which doesn’t happen with Native english speaker. Why do we use Dhamma instead of Dharma?

What are the characteristics of Sotàpanna person (Stream Enterer) . Can Sotàpanna person live at a home with a family (married life) without going to a monastery and stay without being a monk...

It's been discussed in all perspectives that the Buddha was teaching about not-Self (Anatta) in this forum. However, it taught that one should empty the Mind (Citta) to realize Anatta, or Sunyata, in Dhyana (Jhana). If this mind is already not-Self, why it needs to be emptied and what is to be emptied? If this mind is also not-Self, how does it have the autonomy/independence to realize/discern Emptiness? If this mind is Self, how can it realize not-Self? If this mind is not-Self, who controls/owns the Five Aggregations and intellect? Who/what is this mind?

Is there a stage in practice when the practitioner is drawn to read the sutras? My problem is that I'm at a point where I'm confused w.r.t. what should I do. Performing actions seems pointless, there is no access to "higher" feeling like delight, joy, love, etc. Everything is "ok", which makes it dull.

As a follow-on from [Dhammadhatu's answer here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/15546/254) , if it's alright to ask this, do we know, how do we know that the suttas talk about "past lives"? Here is a translation of the formula which [Ahmed quoted from MN 36](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/15547/254) and which also appears in MN 4: > **[Pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇa](http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/pubbe.html#c)** > — Knowledge of the recollection of former living places — [*pubbe*+*nivāsa*+*anussati*+*ñāṇa*] This is the stock formula describing the first of the three vijjās attainable on the basis of the fourth jhāna, which consists in remembering one's past lives > *So aneka·vihitaṃ pubbe·nivāsaṃ anussarati*, He recollects many former living places, > *seyyathidaṃ: ekam·pi jātiṃ dve·pi jātiyo* that is to say: one birth, two births, **Translations of *nivāsa*** The buddha-vacana.org dictionary translates *nivāsa* as: > nivāsa: residence, dwelling, abode, place of residence (w. ref. to past lives) The [PTS dictionary translates it](http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:545.pali) as: > **Nivāsa** [fr. nivasati2] stopping, dwelling, resting -- place, abode; living, sheltering J i.115 (˚ŋ kappeti to put up); ii.110; PvA 76, 78. Usually in phrase pubbe -- nivāsaŋ anussarati "to remember one's former abode or place of existence (in a former life)," characterising the faculty of remembering one's former birth **Translations of *jāti*** The [buddha-vacana.org dictionary translates *jāti*](http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#jati) as: > **jāti**: birth, i.e. the entire process from conception to parturition. Jāti is defined by the Buddha at SN 12.2. For some beings, the birth is not immediate and requires a maturation in the mother's body, as it is the case for humans and animals; for some other beings, the birth is immediate: those are called opapātiko. > Jāti is the eleventh link of paṭicca-samuppāda, conditioned by bhava and giving rise to jarā-maraṇa. If I look at [its translation of SN 12.2](http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/nidana/sn12-002.html) it says, > And what, bhikkhus, is jāti? For the various beings in the various classes of beings, jāti, the birth, the descent [into the womb], the arising [in the world], the appearance, the apparition of the khandhas, the acquisition of the āyatanas. This, bhikkhus, is called jāti. The [PTS dictionary quotes](http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1:1:1751.pali) the same passage from SN 12.2 as the definition of *jāti*. I note that *sañjāti* (translated as "birth" in that translation of SN 12.2) is alternatively translated as "origin" or "outcome". --- **Questions** Dhammadhatu's theory/answer was that "birth" meant "a time in the Buddha's life when he believed something to be 'him' or 'his'". If I look at the Pali (beware that I'm not even a novice, let alone a scholar) I don't see anything to necessarily contradict that. So my questions are: - When people translate *nivāsa* why do they translate that as "former lives" instead of as, for example, "former living places" or "former homes", or maybe "former conditions" or something? For example, [Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of MN 36](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html) says, > I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two, etc. - When people translate *jāti* why do they translate that as "birth" instead of as, "appearing", "coming into being", "consolidation", "becoming aware of the khandhas"? Supplementary questions: - Is the Pali is more ambiguous, perhaps deliberately more ambiguous, than the English? There seems to be two views among Buddhists: one that Buddhist doctrine is literally about "previous lives", and the other that Buddhist doctrine is about a non-continuity of oneself within this/one life. Does the Pali support either or both these views; and does it require either or both these views, i.e. would it contradict the scripture to not subscribe to one of these views? - Is there further evidence (for one view or the other) within the Pali text? - Is there further evidence (for one view or the other) outside the text, e.g. is there a separate commentary where it's stated unambiguously? I guess it's part of the teacher-to-student lineage. - To the extent that there is ambiguity or uncertainty, is the ambiguity or uncertainty known and even accepted by scholars and monks? Or are 'they' sure that it's supposed to mean one or the other? --- It's true to say, isn't it, that a belief in "rebirth" was a feature of the beliefs of non-Buddhists at the time. For example, [Wikipedia says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation) , > Reincarnation is the philosophical or religious concept that a living being can begin a new life in a different body after biological death. This is also called rebirth or transmigration, and is a part of the Saṃsāra doctrine of cyclic existence. **It is a central tenet of all major Indian religions, namely Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism**. The idea of reincarnation is found in many ancient cultures, and a belief in rebirth that was held by such historic figures as Pythagoras, Plato, and Socrates. Is it possible that Buddhist doctrine is expressed in a way which doesn't contradict these beliefs (i.e. it would be understood as "not annihilationist" by an audience which already held that belief), yet also doesn't require such a belief?

I am a college student and practice of Vipasana from last year but sometimes I feel laziness and during meditation I feel uncomfortable and I leave meditation at that time.I want to ask, what is way that can motivate me for doing meditation properly with complete dedication ? thanks !

I was brought up in the Theravada tradition and have little knowledge on Mahayana. Recently some of my friends participated in a Mahayana retreat and praised it highly. One of them even claimed that Mahayana is for practical Buddhists and Theravada is for rituals and ceremonies etc. So I got a bit curious about this and started searching on Mahayana. But I couldn't find the answer to my main question. As Vipassana meditation is the core of Theravada which finally leads to the end of suffering, can someone tell me if there exists such a meditation technique in Mahayana as well?

I am new to meditation. If i understand correctly there are two types of meditations, Two forms of meditation eight jhanas and vipassana (insight). One thing that capture me and made me want to start meditating was the ability to focus my mind on anything i wish to deeply focus on. To have a understanding with my mind and work with it. I feel like eight jhanas is the best method but i dont understand how to begin. I looked it up but lost. Any ideas?

In some religions, marriage is perceived as eternal and is a bond that can not be broken. I believe I have read that marriage in Buddhism is not a formal or well-defined institution as it is in Christianity or other religions, but I am not sure. In Buddhism, is divorce permitted between lay people ? Is it frowned upon ?

What are the benefits of the 8 Jhana meditation? Can you list them? I have researched but maybe i haven't looked in the right place? What are some during meditation and after?

I take 'pantheism' to be the belief that all our talk about God can resolve into "the world", while retaining the divine status of "God", perhaps because our words about God retain their structure. What would Buddhists say about the idea that the world or universe is God?

About 'life', I have heard people say: 'life is struggle', 'life is like a gold coin', 'life is statue of problem and sorrow'..... but i could not understand what is it? Will some one explain clearly or does it depend on person perspective if life is like this and why and how? Thanks.

I am a 21 year old college student studying physics. When I walk around campus, I am in a meditative state; enjoying the surrounding nature and the mathematical fruit it bears. My thoughts become interrupted when an attractive woman will walk by me. With something as simple as an exchange of smiles, or simply their youthful beauty, I can be completely removed from my meditation. Commonly, I am left feeling like what I am pursuing is not as interesting as the passerby. I do not want to be distracted from my meditation; more importantly, left feeling like my path is wrong and lesser. After I collect myself I can regain the motivation to pursue my maths and physics meditation, but this back and forth process feels burdening. How do I incorporate the beautiful youth around me into my meditation of math, physics and nature, instead of being a process like a type 1-a super nova, where the youth is the white dwarf consuming the star of meditation? ### edit - describing my meditation Periodically, I will focus on my breath doing a samatha meditation. When I look at nature I try to understand impermanence, but I do not believe all things are temporal. I believe symbols/ideas like the hexagon transcend time. My meditation also consists of trying to understand the objects that exists whether I am here or not (maths) and the transducer (physics) between these symbols/ideas and the temporal physical world.

In the Christian Bible (especially in the Book of John), Jesus often talked about Himself as using phrases like: > - I am the light of the world > - I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved > - I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. Now Buddhism seems to point more on emptiness and nothingness etc. Why is that? Why didn't Buddhists say such things about themselves, as Jesus did? Are there any Buddhists who also said things like, "I am the bread, the light, etc", like Jesus said?

It seems to me that the Noble Eight-fold Path is designed to reduce the suffering of the self. But how do we use its guidance to reduce the suffering of others? If the Buddha was walking down a road after enlightenment and saw a strong man fighting a weaker man, or two equally strong men fighting, would he: - Desire to help one escape the other (and follow that desire)? - Desire to help one defeat the other (and follow that desire)? - Or (having no desire at all), keep on walking down the road? And how should one who is still following The Path act in this situation?

In some denominations in buddhism there is a conventional and an ultimate reality. So from the conventional point there could be, to begin with, two people so they could love each other. But in the ultimate reality there is only one, so it looks like that there aren't two people moreover there can't be love between people. But if I think about that it seems to be strange that there isn't love in buddhism. So what is love meant to be in buddhism and how could love be practised in the ultimate reality?

There was a book titled _[Zen in the Art of Archery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery)_ : > Zen in the Art of Archery is a short book by German philosophy professor Eugen Herrigel, published in 1948, about his experiences studying Kyūdō, a form of Japanese archery, when he lived in Japan in the 1920s. It is credited with introducing Zen to Western audiences in the late 1940s and 1950s. Not only archery, there are other lay activities too which I somehow think of as associated with Zen, for example: tea; gardening; poetry; sitting; sword-play; calligraphy and painting; maybe music; ... I just read [this comment](http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/basho-frog.htm) : > Samadhi means “absorption,” but fundamentally it is unity with the whole universe. When you devote yourself to what you are doing, moment by moment — to your kōan when on your cushion in zazen, to your work, study, conversation, or whatever in daily life — that is samadhi. Do not suppose that samadhi is exclusively Zen Buddhist. Everything and everybody are in samadhi, even bugs, even people in mental hospitals. 1. Is this statement even true (or is it mistaken), according to Zen? 2. If it's true, do other schools of Buddhism have a similar or comparable view of samadhi? I get the impression (perhaps I'm wrong) that some traditions see samadhi as associated with meditation, and meditation as distinct from (even deliberately renouncing) any other activities. 3. When I answered [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/19212/254) I wanted to say something from my 'personal' experience of becoming absorbed in or engaged with some *activity*. I decided not to because this is a site about Buddhism and so an answer based on only my personal activity or experience might be off-topic. I know next to nothing about Mahayana (e.g. Zen or Tibetan) Buddhism. Can you reference some recommended text on the subject of "absorption", absorption in lay activity? Maybe something that might help to answer Rishi's question? 4. The only theory I have heard of about activities (apart from that it's virtuous to engage in activities which are helpful or beneficial) is [Flow (psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)) . But that is not (so far as I known) a Buddhist theory. Does Buddhism have anything to add to or to contradict that theory, analogous? 4. If absorption in activity is (kind of) legitimate, what's the important difference between sitting (meditating) on a cushion and e.g. sitting at a potter's wheel, or sweeping the floor, or whatever?

Most discourses that I've read have been given to monks or nuns (and not laypeople), so I'm wondering **what the practical application is of these many discourses for a layperson like myself**. Are the practices presented in these discourses something to strive for? Is it better (as laypeople) to focus our effort on deepening our understanding and practice of for example the five precepts? Grateful for help and with kind regards, Tord

This article which i have linked to at the bottom seems to contradict itself. It seems to be saying that the way vipassana is taught where you note what comes to your attention is incorrect. Im finding it confusing as I am trying to get clear about my practice but different people seem to say different things. I am getting to a point with Buddhism where I dont know who to listen to anymore and wait before you say "listen to yourself" I have been trying that for years and not really progressing hence the reason I am looking for some more clarity and riding such articles. My question is how do I figure out if I am practicing correctly? Some people even say that there is no such thing as "incorrect" meditation "**if one continually tries but cannot establish mindfulness on breathing, then he can practise other kinds of meditation for the time being.**" but then goes on to say "**Most of the meditation practices that have become popular today are not in line with the Dhamma. Those practices are to note in your mind, “pain, pain”, when you feel pain in some part of your body during meditation, and this they say is vedananupassana – contemplation on feeling. If your mind goes somewhere, they say to note “going, going”, and this they say is cittanupassana – the contemplation of mind. If you feel sleepy, they say to note “sleepy, sleepy”. And, if a desire or agitation presents itself in the mind, they say to note “desire, desire”, or “agitation, agitation”, and this they say is dhammanupassana – the contemplation of mind objects. Those are the incorrect practices today that people are being taught as meditation.**" http://mahamevnawa.lk/ananda-sutta-leading-to-awakening/