Is it possible for i.e. an Arhat to become unenlightened after he reached the state of Nirvana? What if an enlightened being gets a severe brain injury by some cause leaving him with amnesia. Could it affect one's enlightenment in any way?

Once I heard that Edgar Allan Poe is still being "haunted" by his creation, his [Raven](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/48860) , because countless readers all over the world keep feeding energy to it, like a [tulpa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa) that never dies. Many terrible things might happen from works of art/fiction, and [they're quite unpredictable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Matrix_defense) . I believe that the bad karma comes from how you react to the work of fiction, [just like how one reacts to videogames](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10247/are-actions-in-computer-games-bad-for-karma) , but still, I'd like to know if there's some obscure karmic concept concerning expressing the "evil parts of our soul / mindstream" through art. For example, [Dario Argento](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000783/) created some pretty horrible movies, but might be a nice person. Similarly, [Chih-Hung Kuei](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0346640/?ref_=tt_ov_dr) directed a pretty horrible [movie about Wu / chinese "Black Magick"](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085951/) , but had some touching / beautiful buddhist principles on it. Is it ok to write / create horror fiction if it has a "good ending"? Does it generate bad karma for having no "good ending" whatsoever? Is it terrible only when the creator feels "haunted" by it? (This last one seems quite obvious, but anyway). Does the fact of giving life for a terrible concept / idea / tulpa by itself generates bad karma upon the creator and/or the viewers/readers? Does a sad song generates bad karma on the composer if the listener commits suicide listening to it? etc etc etc. What are your views concerning art creation and bad karma resulting from it? (Not considering profit out of the work of fiction, necessarily).

U Ba Khin, in IMC: Personal Experiences of Candidates , writes some quite interesting "explanatory remarks" about the experiences that Mr. J. Van Amersfoort had during a meditation course. In those remarks U Ba Khin sees the **Parajikan Atthakatha** as an authoritative treatise which talks about the "*realization of the Truth by an analysis of the kalapas in the body with the lens of Samadhi obtained through Anapana Sati*". I was not able to find the text of that Parajikan Atthakatha, as far I could gather it should be a Vinaya commentary. Does someone have a full English translation of it? I would be interested in how it deals with kalapas.

Yesterday I was practicing Vipassana, In starting I observed everything as neutral, then everything was positive, then after 30 minutes, my left leg started hurting badly, i observed it as just negative for 5-7 minutes, then i was thinking am i observing this pain, or am i bearing it ?, whats the difference ?
then i gave up. 

I could not move my left toe every single time, after Vipassana, i sit in Sukhasan.

Kindly help and suggest me for betterment.

As in Title, I'm searching for a sutta in which I recall that probably some person started to offend a Buddha, and he responded by giving some analogy, probably to offered food, that one doesn't have to take another persons words, offenses.

In the [Vanijja Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.079.than.html) Buddha talks about the four requisites for trade. I couldn't find the four anywhere, does anybody know what he refers to?

I recently tried meditating.I only did it for about 5 minutes. But had a sense of vibration on the center of my forehead. So is it good or bad? What should i do?

The English word ‘reality’ (from the Latin res, "matter” or “thing") is very misleading and says the opposite of what “reality” actually is. The Latin 'res' is a very deceptive word, it makes you think about something static, finite. It’s etymologically very interesting to look at reality from a Norwegian perspective. The Norwegian words are more dynamic and the reason might be that Norwegian is a highly ambiguous language. We have two official versions of Norwegian, and so we have two words for 'reality'. One is 'røyndom'. 'Røyn' means something you can experience, something you can learn, but also something that takes a toll, something that gets you worn down. It's not static, but a dynamic concept, an expression of change. Its meaning is similar to the meaning of suffering. The other, the most common word for reality, is 'virkelighet' (like the German 'wirklichkeit'). 'Virke' means functioning, so 'virkelighet' is "that which happens when it's 'working/functioning' ". ‘Virke' also means 'seem'. If you want to say in Norwegian "it seems to be that way, but it's not", you use the same word! (det *virker* som ...") I think it's interesting and an example of etymology clarifying philosophy. What are the Pali and Sanskrit words for reality? Is "reality" an accurate translation? What English word – like the Norwegian ones – could be used instead to better represent what actually is the nature of reality?

I have been doing mantra meditation for years and saying "Aum" for a few minutes makes me go deeper in meditation within like 10 minutes. But focus on the breath is difficult compared to the mantras. What is the difference between the results of breath vs vipassana? I can hardly do 10 conscious breaths (feeling peace). Any suggestions for betterment? On the other hand doing vipassana makes me feel very strange (like perceiving vibrations) in my entire body. In mantra meditation, it feels like something (kind of waves) is coming out of my body. Am I on the right path or is it hallucination?

In this life we experience love with family, friends, spouses and others. From my understanding of reading through this site and researching, love leads to suffering. Is the love we feel towards others in this life just temporary or does it pass on to the next life? For example, I love my family. I want to live the longest possible time with them. I know that one day we will depart one another. I hope to see them again in the next life. Does this thinking led to suffering?

In Buddha's teachings, all mind-related entities are "not-self" i.e.: - uncontrollable (opposite of controllable = when I want it I can make it happen, I can turn it on and off as I desire) - unmanageable (opposite of manageable = I can make it details how it happen and how it behave) - not possess-able (opposite of possess-able = I own it, it is with me all the time, I can keep it, I can store it in somewhere I want it to be at) - temporary (opposite of permanent/eternal/long-lasting/with one's whole life). This not-self attribute also applied to _will_ or/and _volition_. I found sexual desire has it own physical limitation. It is difficult for me to keep sexual desire and sexual pleasure(effect of sexual desire) to last a single day, two days, three days, four days,... up to seven days (even if I use medical supplementary to keep my will/volition/desire). And another thing I found is sexual desire is not primitive will of man, it usually comes around/after puberty, sexual education, physical development in teenage ages. So if I had never learnt what sexual intercourse is (or I am autism child who does not have any chance to learn/understand sexual education in my whole life) I doubt there will be sexual desire/will happen in my mind. So I was looking for more self-ness will/volition or desire and I found another will/desire, Gastronomic. This may seem primitive to me since I had breastfeed to bottle-feed since I was born. But even without any physical limitation imposted (I haven't had any food so many hours), sometimes I lost my appetite. I found gastronomic will is also uncontrollable and unmanageable too here. It seems like chemical, environmental and other factors governed gastronomic will/desire. It may seem primitive but I have doubt that I can find self-ness in here. And I searched for more will/desire which can be self and found a weak will of survival. Everyone want to survive so as mine will and it seem primitive, closer to self to me. (You can tell there are some people who end their life by taking poison to death, yes but I am not looking for universal self, I am just looking for self to me, self to my life, self to individual being.) But on careful consideration, sometimes I crossed the street and nearly to die hitting by a car. If the idea of will to survive is controllable, manageable I can avoid those events by power of will. There should not be other things or will or desire to overcome one will or desire. So here is my question, is there any will/volition/desire that is controllable, manageable, self (at least for a person whole life if we cannot find eternal, indefinite period of time). If you have personal experience about it, I am glad to hear if it exists. If it is written in somewhere I like to get a reference.

From wiki: "Tathā means "thus" in Sanskrit and Pali, and Buddhist thought takes this to refer to what is called "reality as-it-is" (yathābhūta). This reality is also referred to as "thusness" or "suchness" (tathātā)" So, are the two words synonymous? For example, could one say "tathātāgata" and would it mean the same as "tathāgata"? And, taking -gata to mean "being", is it like the following? tathāgata = thus being / real being tathātāgata = thusness being / reality being Also, if some kind soul could upload a pronunciation in sanskrit of the two words online, e.g to vocaroo, I'd be impermenantly grateful.

Metta feels great. It is unconditional love on tap. So, could there be too much of it? It is addicting.

I was wondering its not much difficult to sit for one hour in meditation, but i want to know in Vipassana 10 days course, How long one will have to meditate, i mean do they do split meditation of 1 hour several times a day or 3-4 hours of continuous meditation ?

When a student becomes aware of the thinking mind and begins to detach from it, would knowledge of how the thinking mind works be relevant to go deeper into the practice? Would an understanding of how the thinking mind works be an opinion and therefore lead to suffering?

As my mind willed I visited my local temple for a chat with the monks . Surprised to learn, this time I was advised to independently seek out my emancipation from suffering and only use the dharma for a guide !! Then arose this question ...are other peoples experience etc on this path valid for my own personal path ( if u could call it so as mind has no beginning or end nor an owner , but the ego claim !!) So why read up on Buddhism at all ? If my inner being is not compatible with the author of the book/ books ?

I have observed one thing, when i meditated first time Vipassana last week, i saw vibrations in my body, but after that day its been many days i have not seen them, in-fact i can not sit for long (only 15-20 minutes), its not that my legs hurt, But its my mind, it says “Why are you doing this, lets sleep, when i tell it no, it says its more comfortable to meditate in sleep”. and then i sleep, How do i control it, am i missing something ?

I run a Buddhist blog with daily updates and i am facing a bit of trouble finding sources for it as i try to update it everyday with at least a single new article or a book everyday. I am already using "Accesstoinsight.org" as a primary source of good materials. Can you please mention a few more such good web sites?

Just asking if someone is aware of a **complete English translation** of *Anattadīpanī* by Ledi Sayadaw. While an extract is contained in "A Collection of Manuals of Buddhism by Ledi Sayadaw" I was unable to locate a full translation. The reason for my interest is the following: According Braun's *The Birth of Insight *, *Anattadīpanī* was focused on *vedana* contemplation (pag. 132): > Even the Manual on No-Self, which takes the feelings (vedana) as its subject matter, still begins with an explanation of meditative mindfulness of the body (kayagatasati) and its physical elements as a preparatory exercise. And according the book *A Brief Biography of Anagam Sayagyi U Thet And His Teaching * (pag. 124), U Thet found inside that book (as well as in *Bhāvanādīpanī*) a confirmation of his experience and "technique" which he later would pass to U Ba Khin and finally would arrive to Goenka: > He [Saya Thet] was quite satisfied with his new-found insightful perceptions of the continually changing nature of rupa and nama. But his findings need to be verified or validated by some authority. [...] Saya Thet read "Anatta Dipani" and "Bavana Dipani", the books he had brought back from his home, and checked up all his findings by personal experience. He felt as if the [Ledi] Sayadaw was teaching him at close quarters. The concepts, explanations and instructions heard over ten years ago came back bit by bit, and checked well against his personal findings.

I was introduced to meditation many years ago through a short course and a book. Essentially I tried the mindful breathing meditation. I kept at it for a couple of years after which different circumstances resulted in me forgetting all about the meditation. Maybe it was due to my not noticing any discernable effects. But now I am trying to pick it up again. Currently I am following the book "Wherever you go, there you are" by Jon Kabat-Zinn. However, I have a few questions: 1) Everywhere I keep reading stuff of the kind "Observe your thoughts without judgment". What does that really translate into in practice? How do you observe without judging? I mean, if you get sad thoughts, you get sad too. Thats why they are called sad thoughts. I never understood how to actually follow this advise. 2) Again, I keep reading "Observe this particular moment", "be in this moment" etc. What other moment are we normally in? What special tasks do we need to undertake to be in this moment? I mean, as long as you don't daydream about the future or wallow in the past, you're in the moment, right? This is something I again fail to comprehend clearly. 3)"Observe the breath". Do I feel the breath? Or note that I am breathing? Or count the breath? It just feels like more thinking. 4) How do you ever "know" that your meditation is working right? Or how do you even know your practice is headed in the right direction? I got tired after 2 years of it and nothing in return. Okay maybe I did it wrong, but how would it have been had I done it right? Is there a time frame within which you can expect some sort of result if you do it right? 5) There seem to be many kinds of meditations, each with its own set of fanboys. Are these different types simply different paths to the same goal? Or are they meant for different goals? Moreover, are their learning curves different? How do I know what is right for me? Does this analysis even matter at all or am I just complicating things needlessly? My aim is to be able to concentrate and think clearly without getting overwhelmed. Clearly I am doing it wrong, for I feel no difference. The meditation books are full of hollow cliches and deep-sounding mumbo-jumbo which isn't helping at a practical level. Just to put the facts out: I am a mathematics grad student deeply interested in algebra and computing, and a Hindu by birth. I find religion and mythology fascinating from a historical perspective though am not spiritual or too keen on the underlying philosophies. I have also faced recurrent issues with OCD and clinical depression and insomnia, but medication, therapy and most importantly, time, have made things better. I am, and have always been curious about meditation, but have not been too successful or consistent with it. I am not opposed to religious imagery or artefacts in the meditation practice, though I'd prefer it to be as objective as possible. Any advise/suggestions would be great. Thanks!