In the book by Ayya Khema, the following section can be found in a chapter discussing the benefits of solitude: >"... Once the Buddha went to a village where nobody had any faith in him. Nobody in the village paid any attention to him, and he received no alms food at all. He went to the outskirts and sat down on a bit of straw and meditated. Another ascetic, who saw that the Buddha had not received any food, commiserated with him: “You must be feeling very bad, not having anything to eat. I’m very sorry. You don’t even have a nice place to sleep, just straw.” >The Buddha replied, “Feeders on joy we are. Inner joy can feed us for many days ...”. Unfortunately there are not any references to the story in the book. Would anyone happen to know the sutta reference? Thank you for your time.

I have read the question How not to kill the mouse in my house? and this got me thinking. Would it be wrong to own a cat that would then kill the mouse? I'm not referring to buying a cat strictly to kill a pest, but rather letting a prevously owned pet cat do as it pleases, and turn a blind eye when the mouse is gone. Directly, you're not the one harming the creature, and a cat killing a mouse is completely natural. Indirectly, you've caused the death of the mouse, and have reinforced the killing behavoir in the cat. Would intervening in the cat's hunting practices be good karma? The cat has plenty to eat, and the mouse only provides accomplisment to the cat.

What is funeral law of Buddhism is there any ? For both layman and monk.

I need to give some background before I can ask my question so, my apologies for the long winded post. I am back from a wonderful 6 days retreat (Bhikkhu Buddhadasa teaching/ Anapanasati). With the last 3 days of those in newly reached blissful state, working on exploring this sate and doing body scans to sharpen the mind further -and bring me back to earth- (as discussed with the instructor since I had previous experience with the Goenka method). Since the retreat is over, I have spend some time reading about what happened to me (Rapture, Jhana, ...) as the dhamma talks did not covered this topic (it was a beginners retreat). I can still focus my mind or have a quiet mind for some period of time, but, when I let go, I reach I very weak bliss state, if at all... (which I am OK with: I have a lot to deal with in my life right now and only opportunity for 1 sitting a day in the early morning in poor conditions). What should I use my little sitting meditation time doing? I was thinking spending every second sitting doing metta meditation and the other one simply watching the beautiful breath (as defined by Ajahn Brahm), going back to body scan at later stage, when my life is a bit more in order and I have my own space to practice. Probably leaving my further investigations of Jhana for my next retreat... Any advice or experience on this topic appreciated. Thank you.

I'm having a lot of troubles with noises. I try to close my ears with cotton, but it does not works great. Is a little bit difficult to me try to meditate rounded by noises (here, where a live, people seems to be sensible to noise, and worst, they like to put their automotive stereo system at high decibels despite the fact that it is forbidden by law (here the State does not get to apply its own laws), its like some kind "meat show"). So, is there some technique to surpass noises when meditating?

As I understand it, Buddhism is not inconsistent with Darwin's theory of evolution. Since the law of karma is central to Buddhism and applies to sentient beings, is the law of karma something that evolved, too?

In Maha-parinibbana Sutta, Buddha said "if Sanga want, after I completed Parinibbana, you can remove small and/or light codes from Vinaya". Why Buddha said this approval to Sanga? Is it a kind of testing to future members of Sanga whether they can completely comply the Vinaya or not? This approval may lead to breakage of Sanga to Mahayana, Theravada, and more. This approval, is it being served as a reference to other parties of Sanga who cannot comply the vinaya completely not to be blamed by normal people? Or is it just a question to just Sanga at the time of been said and this was the way to be. Or any purpose of this approval? Or is it totally not approval, and just question?

I've been doing a lot of scripture reading on consciousness (vijnana, mana, citta, etc) in the pali canon and Mahayana doctrines. Buddha never seemed to accept materialism, or that mind was material, in much of the scripture. But as someone who also observes the empirical sciences, I am a bit confused. If it is true we are all evolved beings from microscopic organisms over millions of years via cell growth and evolution, would this not verify, then, that consciousness is truly material in origin? That our thinking minds evolved and gradually arose, over the years, from some material and previously mindless thing like a single celled organism? Basically, my concern is this: if science is right that consciousness is just chemicals and nerves in the human brain, would a large part of Buddhism be disproved? If consciousness is really just a material reaction, would rebirth be impossible then since the mind would exist as brain functioning and cannot transmigrate? Basically, I seemed to have run into a block in my practice. I just have fundamental doubts about everything now. Is there a way we can prove the mind is immaterial or experiences the birth/death cycle...and is not just the evolved brain? Thank you to all.

I've read in an article on religious views on masturbation that there were individuals in the Buddha's time that viewed masturbation as therapeutic. The reference given was (Vin. III 109) which I'm guessing stands for a part of the Vinaya, but I cannot really navigate my way and find the source. I'm wondering if anyone knows about these arguments for masturbation, and those which the Buddha gave in disagreement to these views. Ultimately I'd like to know whether masturbation is always a fetter, if one gains many benefits from its non-practice. Thanks.

Some Buddhist writers seem to imply that they can apply a screen or test, linguistic or otherwise, to the Pali Canon and thus separate the original teachings of the Buddha from its "later" degenerations, and are thus able to describe "original Buddhism." However, any application of this "method" seems to degenerate almost immediately into an ideological argument based on implicit assumptions of what the Buddha's teaching was like or naive inferences that because a text appears to be later, that automatically disqualifies it from consideration (in fact, later texts can incorporate or revise older traditions, elaborate older doctrines, consist of valid inferences, or even consist of valid original insights based on the original set of insights and thus be valid in their own right). Yet despite these claims one finds only vague generalizations (e.g., Pande) or outright ideology. If such an algorithm existed, it should be possible to create a revised textus receptus and I have not seen this. A.K. Warder, a Pali scholar and a linguist, says nothing about this in *Indian Buddhism,* although he does imply that the Digha Nikaya is the oldest and therefore most authentic part of the Pali Canon. Does anybody know of an in depth and articulate description of such a linguistic algorithm or method that is free of ideological bias?

I am having difficultly logically understanding how clinging leads to becoming. Can anyone elaborate on this link of dependent orgination?

As I'm knowing Buddhism called atheism religion but I've doubt both are different, I call myself I'm an atheist as well as Buddhist. Or it just described what is it ?

The Four Noble Truths and Eight Noble Paths are the main principles of the Buddha and every person can be a Buddha if he/she follows these principles. As far as I've heard the Buddha didn't believe in the existence of God, in the immortality of the soul, and the soul itself. - Was the reason why the Buddha didn't speak about God and the soul, because he couldn't provide the proof for it? - He wanted to be more practical than theoretical (so that the practicality ultimately leads one to believe in God and soul)? - He wanted to attract the atheists to Buddhism? Please what is the truth behind it?

Gautama Buddha found the traditional path of previous Buddhas and spoke about "The four noble truths". Nowadays, people cannot talk about/discuss the truth or falsehood of idea/notion/philosophical/religious entity. Did the current generation lose the ability to judge/determine/conclude the truth or falsehood of idea/notion/philosophical/religious entity? Or do we universally accept the idea that not a single living being be able to find/invent/prove that the new truth about the entities? Do we really have to remove the words truth and false from our dictionaries since we are not allowed to use in anywhere else?

Which are the vipassana jhanas? What are the differences with the jhanas? Where can I find more information about them?

I read about this from time to time-- usually in reference to the stupas in India that held the Buddha's relics. What was the point of circumambulation? Do any sects of Buddhism still practice this?

If Buddha didn't believe in soul why did he believe in Re-incarnation, after life etc which could be because of soul ? What causes one to be born again, is that the desire, if it's the desire, Buddh's belief is the same as told by Krishna(who is supposed to be the previous incarnation of Buddha) who said "what you think at think about at the time of dying, you will be born likewise" Is the desire main cause of "Re incarnation" ?

Sometimes, when I am focusing on the body or the breath, I have a feeling that thoughts have ceased. I am unsure whether I am suppressing or not, I don't feel that I am, but that I am merely focusing upon an object. Should I worry about this lack of thoughts? Should I keep meditating even if very few thoughts arise? Thanks.

Where can I find a canonical definition of equanimity *(upekkha)* in the Theravada buddhist texts?

As a practising Buddhist, I am often asked this question: what is passed from life to life in the process of rebirth? I have several answers to this depending on my audience - e.g. lessons to be learned, experiences to be resolved or, simply, one's own personal cockpit-style 'black box' of all that has been seen, heard, experienced etc in previous lives. To what extent do colleagues believe that 'personality' or 'behavioural tendencies' should also be included? I welcome your views. My question is directed at any practitioner of Buddhism, Theravadan or otherwise.