What is the best way to focus? And also how can I stop passing judgment on myself during? Its really difficult.

Is there any known case, where someone was sexually attracted to Buddha?

I want to know if exist some practice to meditate when I am ready to sleep, in order to train while I am dreaming.

In Buddhism, is the existence of "God" accepted, or not? If not, what is the reason?

I'm wondering what the Buddhist tradition might say about the following state of being. Firstly a bit of background, explaining how I got there and how it felt: I practiced (what I understood to be) mindfulness meditation for six months through a simple book that came with a CD of guided meditations. It improved my life immeasurably. I got everything everyone says they do from the practice: More control of my life, less stress, more happiness, better resilience to the bad things that happen to us all. Even though I don't practice it anymore, I have taken this knowledge and understanding with me, and continue to apply it as best I can, without the aid of meditation itself. The reason I stopped meditating is because of a series of events that pretty much left me temporarily unable to work (I'm absolutely fine now!). I experienced an incredibly intense emotional explosion in my chest during one meditation, and in my daily meditations after that I experienced what can only be described as immediate and overwhelming bliss. My meditations were shorter, but extremely powerful (and actually became the highlights of my day). Unfortunately after a meditation of such power, I also found myself in a state of mind that was unable to work. I felt as if my ego wasn't quite ready to deal with the complexities of modern life, and rather than help my daily existence, this new state of mind became a hindrance. Talking to my clients on the phone, fielding their complicated questions, suddenly became a daunting task. And the part of my brain that allowed me to program websites (which is what I do for a living) was struggling to focus. It was worrying. I didn't feel as though I was in control of these feelings, or sometimes, even myself (I remember one time talking to a friend about these new experiences, and being unable to stop myself from talking -- I literally kept interrupting him with my "insights", very unlike me). Despite beginning as bliss, it quickly became a worrying experience. I reluctantly stopped meditating and, after a few weeks, thankfully returned to my normal self (perhaps even better than I was before). My question: Does this experience have a name in Buddhist tradition? I have read about "Spiritual Crises", and indeed it appears that what I experienced matches the symptoms of that, but what IS that? I'm guessing in thousands of years of Buddhist study that there are answers? (Although, I must ask that if you're just guessing loosely, that you don't attempt to answer. Thanks.) For example: This answer mentions the differences between two types of meditation: *Calm abiding* (Tib.: Shine, Skr.: Shamata) and *insight* meditation (Tib.: Lhaktong, Skr.: Vipassana), stating that the first is "safe" for everyone, while the latter could be damaging to certain individuals in certain situations. And finally, as a side question, can someone who has experienced such a thing learn how to avoid re-experiencing it in the future and continue meditating? Or is that, as my girlfriend asserts, just playing with fire?

Gandhi, a Hindu ascetic, was adamant that the spiritual well being of a person was not disconnected from one's diet. He said "The body was never meant to be treated as a refuse bin, holding all the foods that the palate demands." Do the different sects of Buddhism have recommended dietary regimens? If so, what are they?

Non-self (*anātman*) and emptiness (*śūnya* or *śūnyatā*) are very similar [aspects of the Truth of Suffering](http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Sixteen_Aspects_of_the_Four_Noble_Truths) . So similar that they are hard to distinguish apart. What is the *difference* between them? (Or what is purpose to have them as separate characteristics?) **Update**: I did not specified that answers should be from Mahayana perspective, assuming that Theravada have the same list of *16 Aspects of Noble Truths*, but it seems that Theravada list is quite different (see Visiddhimagga). And for some reason most answers was from Theravada perspective. I don't want to disregard Theravada explanations, and welcome them. But in Theravada, it seems, that *suññata* and *anatta* are never enumerated in the same list. Thus they don't imply distinction, and it's is quite possible that they are just synonyms (as pointed out by Unrul3r ). I will quote *Abhidharmasamuccaya* for more context: > **What are the general characteristics of suffering?** They are the > characteristics of (1) impermanence (anitya), (2) suffering (duḥkha), > (3) emptiness (śūnya) and (4) non-self (anātma). Thus it's established that these are different characteristics. Further Asanga provides some elaborations: > (3) **What is the characteristic of emptiness (śūnyatā)?** It is the > non-existence (abhāva) of a certain thing, there. To see > (samanupaśyanā) in this way is emptiness. Again, it is the existence > (bhāva) of another thing, there. In this way there is true knowledge > (yathābhūtajñāna). This is called emptiness perceived by penetration > (avatāra). True knowledge denotes the informed meaning. What is the > meaning of the non-existence of a certain thing, there? It is the > non-existence in the aggregates, elements and spheres of a self or > anything whatsoever belonging to a self of permanent, durable, > eternal, immutable nature. In this way is their emptiness. What is the > meaning of the existence of another thing, there? It is the fact that > there is non-self in the aggregates, elements and spheres. It is the > nonexistence of the self, and the existence of the non-self. It is in > this sense that the Blessed One has said: ‘Existence is the true > knowledge of an existent thing; non-existence is the true knowledge of > a non-existent thing.’ > > (4) **What is the characteristic of non-self (anātma)?** It is the > non-existence in the aggregates, elements and spheres of the > characteristics postulated in the theory of the self (ātmavāda) as a > result of the nonexistence of the characteristics of a self in the > aggregates, elements and spheres. This is called the characteristic of > non-self. For this reason the Blessed One said: ‘All things (dharmas) > are without self.’122 Furthermore, the Blessed One has said: “(i) All > of that is not mine, (ii) nor ‘I am’ nor my self”.123 So in light of this, what is the *difference*?

As far as I understand, awareness is an important concept in buddhism, and an asset to develop through meditation. During meditation (following vipassana as taught by Goenka), it has happened to me that I forget **where I am** at that moment. When this question/feeling arises, the answer comes little by little being really general at the beginning, and gradually refining to a more detailed description of where I am, like: *you are in this country, you came to this place, you are in a retreat, your are sitting in this meditation hall, etc.* My questions are: - Is this feeling expected at any meditation stage ? - Is this experience maybe pointing out a mistake in the practice ? Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

Everyone in this little community is awesome, and the people contributing have helped me in the path tremendously. Thank you. My question is this, how can a person remain calm and courageous during sessions? When meditating, I've been reaching very intense states that become hard to handle. I've been getting the sensation that I am melting into this state of pure love. I get scared because it's just so unbelievably intense, and feel that the fear that arises is a hindrance. Have any of you experienced this? If so, what did you change that allowed you to handle it?

Seemingly, despite my questions, I still am encountering great difficulties. I've been meditating for perhaps 1-2 years in a haphazard fashion, on the metro, walking places, while doing things. Perhaps the word "meditation" is inappropriate, it was more like a mindfulness or perhaps a mixture of different types of reasoning, contemplation and attempts at realizing certain facts. Overall, I feel like I've accomplished absolutely nothing in these two years, and that I've wasted much time. I would say the only thing I want now is to be able to stop all this, whether to meditate properly, or even to understand how to reverse the conditioning that I unwittingly imposed upon myself. I'm asking if anyone knows or conjectures a means by which I could achieve this, and perhaps some tips on what I should avoid doing to create this massive incoherence in my mind.

S. N. Goenka in Why Vedana and What is Vedana? says: > It is clear that vedana as a part of the nama that is firmly rooted in kaya is what the Buddha wanted us to focus on when he talked about meditation to eradicate suffering. This is also the reason why brahmas from arupabrahmaloka cannot practise Vipassana and why the Buddha could not give Dhamma to his past teachers of arupa jhanas (seventh and eighth jhanas/dhyanas). In the fifth to eighth jhanas, jhanas the mind is set free from the body and thus there is no experience of vedana. Therefore, these brahmas lack rupa and cannot experience body-sensations. Hence, the practice of the awareness of vedana is not possible for them and they cannot walk on the path of liberation. Likewise another paper (The Importance of Kaya-samphassaja-vedana in Vipassana Meditation ) states: > For a person like the Buddha, access to these [arupa] worlds was not impossible, nor was it impossible to communicate the teaching mentally to beings of these planes of existence. However, the fact that these beings in the arupabrahma-loka do not experience bodily sensation prevented the Buddha from teaching the Dhamma to them. (Both papers are collected in the book: The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna published by the *Vipassana Research Institute*) So, **the Buddha didn't teach Vipassana to *arupa* worlds's inhabitants because they cannot feel sensations**: is this claim generally accepted in the Buddhist world, at least among the Theravada? By the way, living in an *arupa* world would imply in my understanding that it is possible the arising of a mind consciousness (*manovinnana*) without a physical sense base (such as our heart base or *hadaya-vatthu*): is this assumption correct?

How do I get started on my journey to become Buddhist? I'm familiar with the basics and really connect with the teachings I know of so far on a personal level. I need some guidance as to what I should do now...

There is the concept of faith (śraddhā) in Buddhism. There is also the concept of faith found in Christianity. Both concepts have been translated into the English word faith but in what ways are the concepts different and also are there ways in with the concepts have similarities. I'd find it particularly interesting if anyone knows the original roots of the word faith in Christianity (i.e. what was the original word in Greek or Hebrew) and how the translation compares to how śraddhā has been translated. Do the words have nuances that have been lost in the translation to the simple English word faith?

According to the Buddha's teaching, how can one cure the offense of "blaming someone who we should not blame"? Here "someone" means from Sotapanna to Arahant ; and "blame" means to accuse that what he/she does (or what he/she does not do) is done (or not done) in not a good way. Is there any chance that normal people like me can blame Sotapanna - Arahant in a way he/she is not doing good? If I should not blame and I blamed, how can it be cured so that I do not accuse improperly and do not make any harm to myself? What is Buddha's teaching said about it? What is proper way of curing to completely remove the burden of accusing the noble being? How it can be done in details? Even if it is not in direct Buddha's teachings or in Dhamma, is there any example or something that had been done before in some past experiences?

Married life is a form of attachment. If one is in a commited relationship he/she is bound to have a multitude of attachments like a wife, children, personal belongings, wealth etc. But Buddha has once said : > Costumes Do Not Mar Virtue: >"Even though adorned, if living in peace calm, tamed, established in the holy life, for beings all laying force aside: one pure, one peaceful, a bhikkhu is he." > Verse 142, DHAMMAPADA. Need some verification as to how someone can be in a commited relationship and at the same time achieve nibbana.

I've heard that there are suttas where the Buddha forbade people to call him by his given name. Which suttas are these?

I believe that every person comes with a nature in-built into self and creates/maintains his/her own behaviour into self. So, may I call it fate? Or, is there more I have to learn about? How does buddhism take it? I wish to get personal views, only.

I am posting because I have had for the past years, despite my attempts at resolving this, trouble feeling my emotions and sensations. You could almost say I'm numb. To remedy this problem, I've thought of engaging in two practices. First, I thought of sensing the basic aspects of the body, in my whole body, e.g. tingling, warmth/cold, numbness, etc. This has not let to gains so far because I seemingly cannot engage in discursive or associative thought while doing this, so I just feel my sensations mindfully period. Second, I thought of visualizing images that I free-associate with, and in this situation lust in the form of images, anger in the form of images, and memories in the form of images arise. However, I'm worried that this might involve elaboration that doesn't exist, i.e. fantasy elements. However, if this is not undoing repression, I am not sure how else to undo my emotional repression. Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

I've come across a few references to Magga phala and can only find obscure half explanations of what it is referring to and some of the explanations seem to be contradictory.

I am looking for a book of kōans that contains things like the following: > Nasreddin Khodja commanded his disciples, when he sneezed, to salute him by clapping their hands and crying out: "Haïr Ollah, Khodja," that is "Prosperity to thee, O Master!" Now it came to pass that on one of the days the bucket fell into the well [...] he descended, caught the bucket, and the boys were already pulling him up, when, just as he was drawing near the edge of the well, he chanced to sneeze. Whereupon they, mindful of the master's behest, let go the rope and, clapping their hands in high glee, cried out in chorus: "Haïr Ollah, Khodja," Nasreddin was precipitated violently into the well, bruising himself against the sides. [...] "Well, boys, it was not your fault, but mine: too much honour is no good thing for man." And: > A farmer’s horse ran away. His neighbors gathered upon hearing the news and said sympathetically, “That’s such bad luck.” > “Maybe,” the farmer replied. > > The horse returned on his own the next morning, and brought seven wild horses with it. “Look how many more horses you have now,” the neighbors exclaimed. “How lucky!” > “Maybe,” the farmer replied. > > The next day, the farmer’s son attempted to ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. “How awful,” the neighbors said. “It looks like your luck has turned for the worse again.” > The farmer simply replied, “Maybe.” > > The following day, military officers came to town to conscript young men into the service. Seeing the son’s broken leg, they rejected him. The neighbors gathered round the farmer to tell him how fortunate he was. > “Maybe,” said the farmer. And: > An elder monk was addressing his students with a large staff. He asked the first student, "What is the Buddha mind?" The first student answered as well as he could, and said "To know the Buddha nature in all things." The elder monk hit the first student in the head with the staff. > > He went to the next student, and asked again: "What is the Buddha mind?" The next student answered "non attachment," and the elder monk hit him with the stick, too. > > He asked the third student the same question, and the third student did nothing but quake in fear. That student got a knock on the head as well. > > The process continued until one of the elder monk's students, before the elder monk had even finished his question, grabbed the stick out of his hand. That was the correct answer. And: > A Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon." Is there such a book? If so, what is its name? I would like to read more of these types of enlightening little stories. I don't like kōans that are heavy on doctrines.