I saw in Indian T.V. serial Buddha saying that if hatred rises then know that you are far from Nirvana, is it true? Is there any other way Buddha described a way where one can see his current position in the journey to nirvana?

I understand that there is no self; yet there seems to be a never changing deeply seated, unfindable awareness attached to a human body that observes the sensations that arise and pass away. This awareness continues to observe the body, life after life. It sits quietly as the body reacts and reacts until it discovers meditation and begins to stop the cycle. What is the nature of this awareness? I can't make sense of the apparent contradiction that there is no self, yet this 'awareness' has to follow a series of rebirths until this 'individual' is purified, at which time they are fully liberated. I understand that there is no self. There is nothing definable about the self which makes perfect sense to me. But there is most definitely an awareness. What is this awareness? Is every living creature in the universe a unique awareness with identical properties? Are we all the same awareness? If so then why are we dealing with karma as discrete individuals?

I have been trying to find my passion for last many years, to be honest I do not even know how should I try to find my passion. Though I have been practicing meditation for last couple of years (not punctually though), but I think meditation doesn't help me find my passion. If any one have read "POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY - HAPPIER BY TAL BEN-SHAHAR" In short the book talks about 4 type of Burger: 1 RATRACE: means those who eats a vegetarian normal burger and suffer for anticipated gain in future, which never happens. 2 NIHILISM: This burger is both bad in taste and not even good for health, means worst living style. 3 HEDONISM: This burger is only tasty but not good enough for health means i like watching videos on YouTube but it doesn't have any future. 4 HAPPINESS: This burger is both tasty and good for health means one loves doing something and also have a bright impact on future. So everyone want to eat the 4th burger, Can anyone help me find.

If one of the goals to becoming enlightened is to lose all craving, desire or Tanha how is one to do that without the craving, desire or tanha to do just that. In other words, is wanting to eradicate all craving and desires a craving or desire itself?

When Gautama left his palace to become an ascetic, it is said that he found some Gurus he learnt from, and left further dissatisfied. Is there any mention of that period of the Buddha's life in the texts? Or did Buddha speak about these experiences? I got this link : http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/13lbud.htm

I have been trying to read while being conscious about myself or breathe but it seems impossible: I can think about only one thing at a time, and even if I do it "consciously" then I have to go through that thing over again. So how do I practice the iOS Development (coding takes your entire attention), Which seems impossible to do consciously? In other words, how do I focus while being aware of myself or breathing etc.

Please recommend a place or university to learn Tipitaka in academic level. Including - Availability of visa - Qualifications required - Internationally acclaimed in someways - Using English as a second language to study Tripitaka - Requirement of ordained monk or can learn as a layperson - Further studies after graduated, mastered or honored

Is there any information in the texts that tell you the difference between the spiritual mind and the physical mind. I know there are ways to transcend, but that's not what I'm looking for. What I'm asking is complicated. At what is a thought or action created by the physical mind/brain, and when is a thought or action created by the spiritual mind, or super-consciousness, or whatever. Or, are all thoughts/action created by the mind?

I have been reading about vipassana and mindfulness meditation but so far I haven’t fully understood the differences. Is mindfulness meditation an aspect or a variation of vipassana meditation?

This related question already has an answer: [Avoiding Lust in Hinduism?](https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/7837) This is a bit strange to ask, but I'll proceed anyway. In specifically Buddhism (I'm a Hindu though) there are prescribed ways to cultivate metta/loving-kindness towards women. I know that lusting for the flesh is bad, and I also know all the ethics of preserving chastity for marriage, but during my abstinence period, I can't stop thinking about women. I have tried "loathsome meditation" or to meditate on the unpleasantness of the body, even satipathana, but it still doesn't work. I tried to give the pedestal of mother or sister, but still it's difficult to imagine them as kin members without actually being so. This is all because of this oversexualized stimuli that the modern consumer world is exposing us to. What should a brahmachari do to deal with this?

In English translation, the four elements are translated as 1. Earth 2. Fire 3. Air 4. Water Instead, if they are translated as below 1. solidity - the state of being solid with hardness and softness. 2. Heat - the state of getting heat with hot and cold both identified as heat. 3. Force - the state of pushing and pulling, or state of supporting and pushing 4. Liquidity - the state of coagulating and flow or dripping I am not a language expert but after studying four elements in Buddha's teachings and tipitaka the latter definitions seems more appropriate than Earth, Fire, Air and Water which have ambiguous meanings or are of less comprehensible. Is it possible that we can have better English translation for Four elements since Earth, Fire, Air and Water seems limited in sense? What could be the better translation to understand the nature, characteristics and two opposite edges of four elements?

In the early stage, it's said that radiating loving kindness to opposite sex can potentially arouse lust. While I'm not sure if the person who we radiate loving kindness to can have their lust aroused, is radiating loving kindness in any stage of practice by any means can increase the attachment to that person? What is the proper way to do this?

There are many discussions about Anatta or Not-Self in Buddhist communities, but the definition of Atta or self is uncommon and not clear. People often misunderstand or superficially translate it, using the definition of the English word "self", which means "internal of individual being", or "colloquial personal point of view of individual being", just differentiation of other individual being. My question here is, other than just this colloquial definition of Self or Atta, is there any more insightful definition of Atta in human being, for example does it imply some "essence" (closer to Hindu or Brahmanist definition of 'Attaman'). If 'Atta' is physical body? 1. What happen if a person died and leave physical body behind (in cemetery) If 'Atta' is mind (Citta)? 2. Buddhism definition of mind (Citta) bodies are transitional and conditional factors (depending on or composed with contact, feeling, memorizing, judging etc). So it seems in a sense to process by just following Citta Laws (Niyamas ) than being essence, core or Atta. (Process than essence). If rebirth is a footprint of 'Atta'? 3. Rebirth seems continuity and information/karma/effects carried over but statistically we do not have enough proof (there should be many Einsteins if we have studied mathematics or physics many lives but instead we have only a handful of geniuses on particular study, information/karma/effects carried over is somehow lost or continuity is weak and/or broken). If wholesome acts is 'Atta'? 4. Vipasana wholesome acts are as well not 'Atta' because I heard that during meditation or Vipasana "Only Sankhara dhammas are observing Sankhara dhammas (Sati, Samadhi, Panna are also encouraged by Cetana , initiated by Sanna and many more supporting factors). The observings are effects of efforts to happen at the same time the observants are not 'Atta'. So in conclusion, when we are saying self or 'Atta', which particular entity is defined to be called self or 'Atta'. If not a single entity, which collective entities are defined to be called self or 'Atta' and why can it be called self or 'Atta'?

lets imagine that in all the human in earth become Arhant, so after their death they will not born again (i mean all of the humans). after this will new humans born or Not, will earth become a planet without Humans ?

What are some techniques that the Lord Buddha have stated to control anger? I can recall a few (listed below) but I not really sure if they are exactly correct. - changing the object of your attention - thinking about the consequences of your anger - understanding what is the cause of your anger - metta loving kindness meditation towards yourself - channelling your anger towards your own mind and trying to control your own mind Could someone please verify if the Lord Buddha actually stated the above techniques and also could you please state any other techniques He stated. It would also be great if you could reference the suttra. Thank you in advance.

Which Buddhists say that there are no conventionally existent wholes, and what's the best reason for the claim? My "whole" I mean something more than the sum of its parts, an object that does not reduce to its parts.

I would imagine the following may be a bit odd to be asking here outright and dare I say it, a little egoic to do so, but I was referred to this place to ask questions, and I have some questions. But first, some background on myself, what I know, and the finally the problem. Firstly, my experience with Buddhism is a bit all over the place. Mostly it's the domain of Zen Buddhism, and primarily it's from Alan Watts. This man was really my first gateway to dropping the illusion of ego, of separation from what is, and a better understanding that one *goes with* existence as it is. I largely come from a Wattsian perspective, but other influences that stand out are the works of Jiddu Krishnamurti, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Sam Harris, Thich Nhat Hanh, Eckhart Tolle, Moojiji, Sadhguru, Ram Dass, and Terrence McKenna, to name a few. The general themes on ego are especially topics I have absorbed, and have tried to take myself as something simply being, with as little subjective imposition as possible: to simply be instead of constantly caught up in games of past, of future, of being something of status or image, seeing through the various illusions of it all. All things are change in a society that infers constants. Regarding the experience of ego death, all I've done is meditation, such as vipassana, but mostly my views on the reality of no ego and embracing the "eternal now" as Alan put it mostly come from intellect: there's no thinker of thoughts, feeler of feelings. No constant caricature, for that ghost is mostly gone. Now, all of this is great because one really gets a point of view more in line with the world in an objective sense, more in line with what is instead of what's inferred upon, judged upon, and the like. One may ask "gosh, you have a vast amount of resources and you get the basic jist of the illusion of ego, so what's the problem?" The problem actually comes from a perspective of ego, actually; **What do I do with my life upon the realization of no self?** I've mostly realized what I've wanted to do with my life always came from the point of ego: to make money, to have status, to be a person of substance, and I want none of that anymore. I got into hospice care and nursing with my realization of going with the world, so I'd rather help those alive to be comfortable in what their state is in, but I now realize I am doing this from the view of forcing. To force myself to *do* this because of what I know, even if that's from the domain of the self illusion, that I am somewhat "holier than thou" with information and act in such a manner. In a sense, I would be using my ego against other egos, and that quite literally is egocentric doing. It's dawned on me I realize I have no interest in any of this line of work of itself any longer, and that actually kills it all for me. I'm doing it for ends, for goals, but reality has no ends or goals. I feel caught between subjective impositions of society and what we say we must do, against objective understanding of what world and what just is. **Why should I continue to do this? For money? Who cares when my heart really isn't in it?** I feel constantly pushed around in a social context, that I am literally a skin-encapsulated ego that must do X and live like Y, but I see nothing of substance there. I literally feel my life is one where I am pushed around by others, and all of the reasons I am being pushed don't stand to any level of pressure, to be compatible with life in its most basic, naturalistic sense. I hold the view all I can do is offer my time for others, for that's the currency of all life, but I feel however sincere I care for others and their sorrows, it's not time I feel fully utilized for I feel I am pigeonholing it into the things I do as a vocation, as a back layer, instead of being the forefront, for it **is** a forefront to my life. **I grasp the pain of others and understand that most of their pain comes from their point of reference mostly, and all I can do about that is reason in my head how their ego creates it. How do I help them see that?** I know it, but it's like I have some information, but I lack a language to speak it in for others to get it. It feels as if I'm trying to hammer a square peg into a circle hole; something goes into the hole, clearly, but it's not what I have on offer. I'm looking to put the square peg into a square hole, and here comes the problem. I feel a different course is in order. It's been in the back of my mind as I have been on this journey, but I feel with my understanding and taste of this is to perhaps delve deeper into Buddhism, Zen or otherwise, in a much more profound manner. Not as intellectually listening to hours of lectures on Youtube, to inquire in just my room, but to cultivate a life and a realm of being where this is the whole game of the show, perhaps not for just myself, but for others. Having more tools and especially other living people beside me to show me the way can help me have more ammunition to aid others, to potentially teach and help people be more at ease with the world that way. I know the central themes are that nothing is supposed to be done, that nothing has to be done, to improve oneself, but there's just something in my experience of ego death that makes the way I live like an odd filter, that I know far more of life than how I live it. My bind is I feel stuck: there's no places near me that appear to teach these concepts and how to apply them, there's no weekend retreats or ways I can ever imagining learning this stuff and finding a way to truly live it, to teach it and be with it not as a level of intellectual awareness in the back of the mind, but as the forefront and core to the goings on, for it matches the facts of life we can observe. I live in the Poconos in Pennsylvania, and the only thing here that is anything remotely spiritual is a church. I don't adhere to Christian canon, for it argues that a self/soul/ego must exist, and that's something that isn't true. I feel like all I know is thanks to the internet but am in such a specific social context that there's no place to really apply this as a way of life; it literally just stays in the back of the mind and not the forefront. Perhaps I'd be able to offer myself more by living and having a life where the tenants of no self, of one always being in a now-state would be helpful to teach and cultivate in others instead of having it merely in the back of my mind with what I do. **I can avoid the pain of attachment to health, to status, to such ideas as constants, but what good am I trying to help others understand that too? I have the understanding of it for myself, but I truly lack the depth of it to teach this, to help people out.** I want to apologize for rambling, and I have very clearly written a novel, and I bet a lot of this looks like a job application of "how can I live a career as a Buddhist" or something, but the truth is what I feel about my relation to everything else is just so profound that I constantly feel I am in a Truman Show-like experience when I am around others. I cannot adhere to their views and ideas for I see them as affronts, and ultimately I cannot live a way that in my heart of hearts seems more truly to reality. I feel trapped and being forced to live as an ego, and I for one find it puzzling to be in that state, for the ego is an illusion! **I guess I'm mostly asking for resources**, for something, anything, to help make these types of understanding of the world something more applicable to living in it instead of high-level contemplation in my room at home. **What good does no self and realizing the unity with everything else that there is only to have it beaten out of you** and being forced to assimilate to a society and way of living that treats that reality as not practical? Ultimately, **how can I make the experience and understanding of no self as a fabric to living a full life *with that understanding as the heart of it***, not something that is often treated as an extra, an aside, to daily living?

How many types of meditation are there in Theravada Buddhism? Could you also provide a list of them as well. Thank you in advance.

Was Buddha a Man or Woman? Was he/she sometimes know as a man and sometimes as a woman? Why was he/she sometimes know as a man and sometimes as a woman? What was his/her real gender? Give proof please.

There is a lot on this site (and elsewhere) on the validity of rebirth, whether it is necessary to understand the Buddha's message, or to reach enlightenment etc. My question is slightly different where within the two truths doctrine is rebirth placed by the Buddha? I understand that 'the two truths' developed a little later on, but in that later developments within Buddhism were and still are heavily influenced by the Buddha's words (Dhamma and Vinaya), is it possible to come to an agreement on whether rebirth deserves to be considered an ultimate or conventional truth? Here's my thought: rebirth is conditioned by death and the workings of Kamma, therefore it seems to fit into conventional truth pretty neatly. It also makes no sense from the ultimate point of view - no conditioned experience can either be affirmed or denied within the ultimate standpoint, so whilst rebirth does not make 'positive sense' from the ultimate stand point, it also can't be denied altogether (that is to say, ultimate truth is empty of rebirth). Is rebirth a concept that cannot be affirmed when considering ultimate truth, but cannot be denied when considering conventional truth? (edit: I assume rebirth occurs and is evident. The fact that 'every thing that has a beginning has an ending' demands rebirth if avoiding annihalationism)