What are the earliest records of people meditating? The Wiki page for History of meditation mentions "prehistory" but provides no details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_meditation The only other mentions begin at around 1500 BC.

The term "non-duality" oft appears in Buddhist English language literature, both contemporary and in translation. e.g. it is sometimes claimed to be the cornerstone of Yogacara philosophy, and its assertion of "mind only", that no part of us exists independently of consciousness, but nevertheless it does tend to have some existence. Obviously the term nirvana means buddhist liberation, that point at which the sage or saint (both words appear in the English language literature) has put out the suffering of samsaric existence, be that its elimination or a realisation that it is, in someway, already so extinct. Mara is the personification of skillessness, a character that deceives e.g. the aspirant away from the holy life, and as such represents (in a sentient being) let's suppose something *like* the opposite of skillful means. I thought that nonduality *often* (if not always) means that opposing terms (good and evil, or illusion and reality) depend upon each other, by convention at least. So, whether or not the last paragraph is correct, does the above not suggest that nirvana is mara?

I've recently joined a meditation center that is very welcoming. I have went to a few meditation sessions, and so far I have felt focus on a deeper level. The community is small, though so they don't show many of the teachings. I'd like to read up on the core values of Buddhism, and furthermore, I'm looking for some good methods of finding out for myself what the values are. If you have any personal stories, all are welcome, as they will be more than useful to me and others with the same question.

I Have been training third eye meditation for past three months,now the tingling sensation on my forehead never goes off and i couldn't go proceed and thought of trying mind full meditation,where we see everything in bare sense of view and i found about Buddha's teaching, i found it very interesting,and found some basics to start mind full meditation where they have said to keep my mind on raising and falling of abdomen during breathing.Which they told would help us realizing nothing is permanent and we should mind fully note everything that happens when we breath.this was basic. NOW THE PROBLEM IS MY FOREHEAD SENSATION IS ALWAYS THEIR MAKING MY MEDITATION TASK TOUGH.

Recently I did my research and getting familiar with actual teachings of Buddha. Here are my questions. 2 : There are some kids who can/ could remember things from their past life. Could this be true? If it is true how come? And correct me if I'm wrong. According to my understanding, Everything including humans belongs to the nature. Human body is made of energies, atoms, molecules etc. When the body dies, those energies don't die with it. They take another form. Like the mango tree example. Thank you.

I got wondering, idly it's not part of any practice or effort, that everything has something like empathy, but of one thing, empathy for the buddha. Can that be read into buddhism, or panpsychism at all? Might the answer to this fall under the terms "empathy" and "response", as drawn from the lotus sutra? I promise this will be my last question, sorry for starting so many :)

Wikipedia's [Bhavacakra (Within the Theravada tradition)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavacakra#Within_the_Theravada_tradition) article includes [this picture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavacakra#/media/File:Paticca-Samuppada.JPG) of the wheel: From inner to outer, it has four rings: 1. Past, Present, Future 2. Active and Passive 3. ? 4. Twelve Nidanas My question is, what's the third ring? Assuming I know approximately what each word in the third ring means, why are those words in particular placed in those segment of the third ring? What's the relation between the third ring and the other rings? What is the lesson or advice, how is understanding this ring useful/usable towards enlightenment?

I am currently employed on an aquaculture farm that specializes in clams and oysters. According to our modern system of taxonomy, both of these organisms are considered animals. I also know that a profession in which one trades animals is not right livelihood. However, according to this site , clams and oysters don't really have brains. Furthermore, according to wikipedia , it would seem that the nervous system of the mollusk doesn't really function to sense pleasure or pain. So, I am wondering- does trade in shellfish count as wrong livelihood? If so, how does one determine what is an animal and what is not according to Buddhism? If one is meant to go by whatever their respective society defines as an animal, surely this definition will change and therefore make this aspect of right livelihood unreliable, right? Thankya

>“Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings.” To be clear, I am trying to figure out the spirit behind the 5th precept. To see how far it spans and what exactly constitutes intoxication. >To dispel any doubt about his reasons for prescribing this precept, the Buddha has written the explanation into the rule itself: one is to refrain from the use of intoxicating drinks and drugs because they are the cause of heedlessness (pamada). Heedlessness means moral recklessness, disregard for the bounds between right and wrong. It is the loss of heedfulness (appamada), moral scrupulousness based on a keen perception of the dangers in unwholesome states. Heedfulness is the keynote of the Buddhist path, "the way to the Deathless," running through all three stages of the path: morality, concentration, and wisdom. To indulge in intoxicating drinks is to risk falling away from each stage. The use of alcohol blunts the sense of shame and moral dread and thus leads almost inevitably to a breach of the other precepts. One addicted to liquor will have little hesitation to lie or steal, will lose all sense of sexual decency, and may easily be provoked even to murder. Hard statistics clearly confirm the close connection between the use of alcohol and violent crime, not to speak of traffic accidents, occupational hazards, and disharmony within the home. Alcoholism is indeed a most costly burden on the whole society. > > -- [A Discipline of Sobriety](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_36.html) (by Bhikkhu Bodhi) Where do addictions enter the equation? Drugs other then alcohol? These do not seem to be covered by the explanation (assuming the claim is true, which I do not know of). What about intoxicating love? Where do we draw the line between lust and intoxication? What about intoxication and ignorance? Is there even a difference? Thank you

According to the 12 nidanas, perception ultimately arises out of ignorance. How can an arahant or the Buddha still experience sense contact when all ignorance is abandoned?

> Detachment, > Everything is lust and mirage What is the real purpose of life/birth? Aren't we suppose to love, care ?

[SN 12:15 Kaccayanagotta Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html) states: > *By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when > one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right > discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not > occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually > is with right discernment, '**existence** (**atthitañceva**)' with reference to the world > does not occur to one. 'Everything exists': That is one extreme. > 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. It's to this > extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.* [MN 60 Apannaka Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html) states: > *...this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a > doctrine of non-existence.'* > > *...this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a > doctrine of **existence (atthikavādo)**.'* My reading of these two suttas gives an impression of a contradiction. MN 60 appears to state the 'doctrine of existence' ('atthikavādo') is right view. But SN 12.15 appears to state the 'view of existence' ('atthitañceva') is wrong view. Is this a contradiction? If so, what is the cause, what is the reason, for this?

I'm just curious, since before I began practicing the Buddhist way of life, I was a very emotionally sensitive person. I constantly had my "feelings hurt" or got into petty arguments over small things in life with people who were once my friends. Sometimes this broke apart many friendships. However, a lot of Buddhist teachings seem to deal with detatchment from the ego, therefore as to loosen or weaken one's sense of self. I found that sometimes I no longer clung to my opinion about reality as if it was absolutely right. But what about emotions? Is Buddhism about taming one's emotions (I grew up as an often very emotional individual on many ends of the spectrum)? Or does one approach emotions by letting them manifest opnely? In short, in my practice, how can I go about dealing with my innate sensitivity? Thank you.

I am attracted to Buddhist principles and would like to learn more. It seems there may be a prescribed path or course that is preferred, but I don't know what that is. What is a good place to begin? For instance, is there a "primer" book that should be read or should i visit a Temple, etc.

According to some commentaries/abhidhamma, all unwholesome states are rooted in ignorance; that ignorance is, according to Pa Auk Sayadaw, the ignorance that sees things as concepts, e.g., a man a woman etc. However, it seems like in order to do mettā and similar practices, one must take a concept as object. My question: Since wholesome states like mettā are said to be incompatible with unwholesome states like ignorance, why does it seem like mettā is rooted in ignorance?

I am trying to achieve consciousness and that is my target to achieve it,... I am struck in **Strange State** .. as Bruce lee said, in Enter The Dragon: ***Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory*** This dialogue describes my mind state exactly, and i want to overcome this state.. So, i am stuck in a state, which is high self-consciousness state, and i feel stuck when i am going to do something in group of people or alone, i feel everyone is watching me, and i am literally freezing, and i dont know what to do next.. example: when i am opening a door, a thought strucks me, like my mind shift towards some body is watching me, or something gets reminded to me, and i cant move in the intended direction of what i want to do... Any help regarding how to overcome this is greatly appreciated...

I have been practicing a path that may be too advanced for me, in that I'm not even sure if I'm doing it properly. It is a path outlined by Alan Wallace in one of his retreats. The following is the relevant portion from the podcast transcript (it's a transcript of Session 1 - Settling the Body, Speech and Mind in its Natural State , from Fall 2014 Shamatha, Vipashyana, Dream Yoga, and the Experience of Pristine Awareness in the Great Perfection Tradition of Tibetan Buddhism ): > "[15:40] Then we turn to settling the mind in its natural state....Just for the duration of this session let your awareness come to rest in stillness and in its own natural clarity in the present moment. [17:23] Now cultivate this ability of letting your awareness rest in its own place, holding its own ground, which means not directing your attention to anything, neither to any sensory impression nor to thoughts, images, other mental activities or even to the space of the mind, no directionality, no target. Just let your awareness rest in its own nature without meditating on anything, without doing anything. Simply being present. [18:42] Sustain this flow of present centered mindfulness, a mindful presence without distraction, without being carried away, without letting your awareness be set into motion obsessively. Sustain the flow of mindful presence without distraction and without grasping, without latching onto any object, either subjective or objective. Simply be present. Whatever thoughts come up just let them be without perpetuating them or grasping onto them, without following them. Simply let them dissolve of their own accord back into the space of the mind. [21:06] And now within this context explicitly be aware of something you are probably already implicitly aware of and that is namely the rhythm of the breath. Without explicitly directing your attention to the sensations of the breath throughout the body simply continue to rest your awareness in its own state. Within that simple presence, awareness resting in its own place, take note of the duration of each in breath, each out breath, whether it is long or short. And let’s continue practicing in silence." So this is how I am viewing it. I am combining awareness (mindfulness of my thoughts with introspection) with mindfulness of the duration of in/out breaths. When thoughts arise, they are mindfully observed, but not viewed as an interruption of mindfulness of breathing. When no thoughts are in mind, focus shifts to the mindfulness of breathing. So it seems to me a like a very flexible model. No preference is given to mindfulness of thoughts or of breathing. Rather, the instruction seems to be just be mindful of either one, depending on the random rise and fall of thoughts. Mindfulness of breathing seems like a place-holder for attention when no thoughts are in mind. Is this right?

I am looking for some legal, online Tibetan Buddhist texts. I have been studying Buddhism for a long time (although mostly Theravada) and so I am not looking for something at the beginner level. Something that involves specific, meditative techniques/instructions and/or deals with emotional development would especially relevant to me. A list of major texts would also be appreciated.

A pigeon is going to build a nest on my balcony. I tried to make it fly away but it comes back. I rent this flat and not sure if I'll stay there till winter. I mean if another person rents the flat he'll definitely get rid of it. In my country people have no respect for animals. Besides the hostess doesn't like that. Should I insist in chasing the bird from my balcony or let him stay there?

People tend to think that the disciples of the Supreme Buddha take life seriously. I feel that there is a grain of truth to this. Is this observation of others true? If so to what degree? I’m in search for a good answer to this question. This is not a casual and fun question, but a rather serious one. This is a question that will make you reflect, make you think. So please work through it and look inside to see what you really feel. My goal is to make me think, and to make you think before answering it.