My understanding of the 6th precept is that one should only eat between sunrise and noon. There's another question (What is the purpose of not eating after noon? ) about the purpose of it from monks' point of view. I would like to know about it from the laity's perspective. My questions are: 1. Is the purpose of this precept to practice discipline, to renounciate pleasures and so one can gain more certainty in their ability to be diligent? Is it so that one knows hunger and does not act on it? 2. if one is taking the 8 precepts, they should take all 8, right? There is no "pick and choose the most convenient"? This sounds silly when expressed, though I've read statements on Buddhism.SE and in books saying "don't do X if it would cause major conflicts in your life and you don't value X over the absence of conflict", be it child raising, vegetarianism while dependant on ones parents, meditating more at the expense of getting sufficient sleep, etc. 3. I still eat meat (and dinner) due to family pressures. Is it acceptable to make these allowances? My concrete example is that I often stay up very late when it is the days surrounding the New Moon, for Astronomical observation. (This is a date that many Thai laypeople commit to the precepts). So leading up to that day, I gradually stay up later and wake up later. Eventually, I am waking at noon. It is impractical and unhealthy at these days to be eating at sunrise, only to fall asleep, and then fast until I return to sleep the next day. Should I just fast for the same duration, shifted to healthier hours?

There is a belief in my country that Miscarriages & Natural abortions can happen as a result of evil beings taking revenge from someone. I recently heard a story from a teacher of mine that some couple visited him about a series of Miscarriages because they had a suspicion about it. He is a Famous monk in my country and he does not have any reputation for doing such Exorcism stuff, But as a monk he could not turn two troubled people away so he started reciting dhamma hoping something would come up. As my teacher said then the lady started acting strange and like in those movies she talked like a completely another person. My teacher said that she told them the story's beginning. So long story short ; she was pregnant in the earlier part of their marriage and they did not wanted a child back then so they took an abortion and that dead child is now haunting them as a being from Yakkha or Pretha realm. --- What is the teaching has to say about these kind of things? If these things actually happen what can a person do?

It appears that I have found it possible to focus both on the breath (as a meditation object) and to be aware of a bit of a train of thought. Is this acceptable, or unacceptable, or should it be avoided? Or, is it perhaps simply varying "snippets" of mind-moments where I am slipping in and out of bare awareness of the meditation object?

Now before you read and answer i would like to invite you to keep the term "Sexism" aside as this is a discussion on gender and it is impossible to talk about it without pointing out some things that would look like stereotypes. --- We all belong to some gender and if we write a paragraph and ask someone to read it and guess the gender obviously that person can identify the gender that is represented in that particular paragraph. For example Men would like Bikes and women would like luxury cruse ships, Men would not give any attention to lighting when women would work hard to decorate with candle light because they think it is romantic... And the list goes on and on proving that we Humans who differ from each other in almost every way tend to be so much alike in some things. But how does this happen? Clearly no one would know the answer because if you ask some guy why did you started liking Bikes he would give many reasons but he would not be choosing a single answer to be the best fit as the answer, If you ask a girl why do you like Pink she would go trough the same situation. Now we can suggest that all of these can be influences from the environment,Good marketing,Social factors and etc. --- ***But then we end up with a question what exactly make "Gender" apart from a biological standpoint?*** or in a much simple term, Other than the body what makes a man and what makes a woman; Spiritually? --- Now there are dozens of videos on the internet, people hypnotizing others to change the gender attached behaviors and it works in fact it can permanently change someones idea about his or her own gender. After thinking about these things i came to an idea like this, Gender as a spiritual part is an illusion. As Lord Buddha has said "Gender is also subjected to "Anatta / Anatman", Even gender can change according to the desires and actons of a being". So as to Buddhism you and i,we all have been in both genders and we all have even been "Transsexual". So as there is no "Soul" it is OK to think that gender is a post Birth process that we learn and act after. Because there is no point that we can show to say that gender is real. --- Let me say one last thing before i rest my case.... *Imagine yourself going through a Transgender phase, by the end of it you will end up in the other side of the river. Now you have a mind that functions according to the rules of your last gender and a body which resembles the opposite gender. Now what reason do you have to show for the love you have for your last gender other than the attachment that you have? I suggest that Gender is an acceptance that we make while we are alive to behave in a certain pattern. And because like anything else we get attached to it we carry it in "Samsara" until some circumstance change it.* --- **What is gender apart from the body as to Buddhism?** **If gender is subject to Anithya (Anichcha) + Anatman is it right to think of gender (spiritually),an Illusion?**

In the Sammaditthi Sutta it describes the 4 nutriments , and the first one - physical food as nutriment - is said to be "gross or subtle". What is the meaning of these terms? I read that the term for nutriment (ahara) should be understood akin to paccaya (condition). So I am guessing that "gross or subtle" has something to do with the nature of food as conditionings? Edit: The commentary adds that "And here, in a basis that is gross, the nutritive essence is limited and weak; in one that is subtle, it is strong" and "it is the basis that dispels fatigue, but it is unable to preserve; but the nutritive essence preserves, though it cannot dispel fatigue. But when the two are combined they both dispel fatigue and preserve."

In DP Verse 25 , we read about Arhat Culapanthaka displaying psychic powers (appearing as many) to possibly a lay person, i.e. the messenger: > When the messenger from the house of Jivaka arrived at the monastery he found not only one bhikkhu, but a thousand identical bhikkhus. Now it's popularly known that according to the Vinaya, Bhikkhu are prohibited from displaying psychic powers to lay persons (Kevatta Sutta DN 11). If so, was this display by Arhat Culapanthaka, 1. before the vinaya prohibiting such displays, 2. performed unaware of such a rule, 3. exempt from the rule, 4. not exempt from the rule, but the intention and effect due to the display of such powers, was of greater benefit than non display. 5. other

What is Dhamma for lay person? How to know Dhamma in the way it was meant to be ? Is Dhamma same for all sentient , remain same over the period of time or does Dhamma undergoes change ? Are there different versions of Dhamma?

What is the intermediate state before birth ("Gandhabba"), mentioned in some Buddhist traditions? I have only heard the word so I can't explain the question any further. I would like a detailed description of it if possible.

Are there any rituals in Buddhism? Do rituals in itself can be become a source of attachment? The more grandiose the ritual , the more the merit! If there is a ritual, what is the right way of conducting a ritual that doesn't invoke materialistic thoughts and actions.

Does anyone know of any site on the internet (or elsewhere) that studies profoundly and carefully, the works of Dharma teachers? Like Mahasi Sayadaw,or Ajahn Chah, or any Dharma teacher for that matter? For instance, Mahasi Sayadaw's book, "The Progress of Insight" can be hard to comprehend, so what if a teacher got together with a group of students to study such a book of teachings in depth. Perhaps something like the following: Each pertinent sentence might be studied one by one, the translation of each sentence might be scrutinized, the scriptural origins would be analyzed and each sentence might be made better understood with real examples of what is meant. I'm sure that sites such as these are out there but I for one have found that they can be hard to find. I put **"today's Dharma Teachers"** in the question here not because I wanted to exclude answers about in depth studied of older teachings. I would like to know of these in depth kind of study groups no matter how old the teacher or teachings are. I suppose I thought that if I didn't put **"today's Dharma Teachers"** that the answers would consist of the more common study of older teachings & teachers and the newer teachings & teachers might be overlooked. -Metta

In the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11) , the Buddha seems to categorize "Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one" as a psychic power, which is later seems to denounce "..I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power." Yet, later in the sutta the Buddha classifies the same psychic powers (appearing as many) as miracles of instruction which are praised. Can someone please help me understand this? Many thanks.

While practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw style of meditation, noting the rise and fall of the abdomen as the body breathes, and noting other intruding experiences or phenomena, and essentially labeling that which is noted, at what point does one dispense with the conscious labeling in favor of simple non-conceptual bare awareness? Is the transition made by conscious effort or is it a non-volitional event that one simply recognizes and sits with? I think I may have some fundamental misunderstanding in this matter.

I got confused while googling about which is the most popular (widely distributed, published continuously in a large number) journal on Buddhism (or Buddhist journal). It is very obvious for the publishers to advertise their products but I want to have an actual information so that I can get authentic knowledge as well as send my articles to them. I know that there are a number of Buddhist journals published from throughout the world but my primary concern is with academic publication. I will be grateful for every information. I have not been talking about any particular branch of Buddhism e.g. Theravada, Mahayana etc. but I want to know which is the most recognised journal as a whole; I mean an academic journal that includes all of them. I want to know in detail.

Discussing the Dharma, as on this site -- looking for and sharing information -- is it really beneficial or could it be a waste of time or even counterproductive? Several quotes come to mind, e.g. this one from Wumen Huikai: >The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark. and of course, Fen Yang: >When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much. From this and other sources (like Chogyam Trungpa's warnings about spiritual materialism) one might conclude that spending time on a site like this could be a path to illusion and a way to develop the subtle "enlightened" ego. What are the dangers of discussing Dharma on an online forum? How could it be worthwhile, if "speaking about a thing misses the mark" and "even one word is too much"?

*I was thinking about detachment today and this thought occurred in my mind...* We like what we see,hear,touch,smell,taste & think. This liking turns into attachment over time and this is the attachment we talk about when we say "Detachment". And we say that one who practice the path should part from these worldly temptations and he should try to realize and part from those binds. But what are we truly attached to,i mean when we say attachment we commonly blame the things that we think are tasty,nice,comforting,satisfying and etc. But when i thought of this i felt that we are not attached to the source of these attachments. The way i see it we are attached to the attachment, let me simplify... > I think we are not directly attached to the taste of chocolate, i feel > we are actually attached to the attachment that we once made when we > tasted it for the first time. I think we are keeping that in mind and > when we see chocolate again the older attachment comes and we gladly > accept chocolate because we want what we once felt, i think this is > why we always compare our meals even though we do not have a clue what > we are comparing it with. As the taste of chocolate makes us live that > moment again we love chocolate, because it is the source of that > feeling that we hold dear. --- After thinking this i felt that i should focus on what is the true source of attachment, is it taste of chocolate or the fact i once loved the taste of chocolate? which one am i truly attached to, is it a moment that i had which i want to live again and again or is it just plain taste?

I was reading the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic and here the Buddha attempts to demonstrate that not in any of the five aggregates is the self to be found. He says this about form for example: > "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.' Now with other aggregates he follows the same paragraph structure and just substitutes in for the word "form". What I've noticed though, is that many other suttas employ this style of exposition and I wanted to know what the motivation was for this? I've heard that repetition made memorization easier, which makes sense; but is there another reason for this? Should I read through each paragraph even though its an almost exact replica of some other paragraphs? It can be tedious to read something that uses this style and I have simply just skipped such paragraphs. What do you think? What is recommended? edit: Some other translations of this sutta don't explicitly rewrite the paragraph and just place elipses to avoid repetition.

I will be completely honest in admit that I do not get sarcasm. When a person says something sarcastic I end up believing what they say, until they give that look that almost says *'Um, that was sarcastic. Duuh!"* And I'm left at the butt of the joke. My problem here seems to stem from a simple truth to lie perspective. If I were to ask someone a question I expect an honest or helpful answer, where sarcasm may be neither of these things. **Example:** "Do you have a bathroom?" 'No, we go in a bucket.' Say I'm at a new place, asking a person I've never met or only met once or twice. In this case I was hoping for a simple *'Down the hall to the left.'* as an answer but I've been met with sarcasm. Even though I'm pretty sure this house has a bathroom I do not know this 100%. If I did not know sarcasm existed (which in my mind and experiences is basically the case) I have two options. Believe the information I have been given, or look that person in the face and say *"You have just lied to me."* It would seem that calling a person out on this deliberate lie (this sarcasm) would be extremely rude, and force the person to admit to giving me false information. At the same time this seems to be the only way to obtain the truth, the only real answer I ever even wanted to hear. I understand that sarcasm can be funny, in context. My basic understanding is that once you get to know someone well enough you will catch those subtleties in there speech, whereas with another less known person they believe their own lie (sarcasm as knowing the information to be false but not sharing that fact) making it hard to tell if it truly was a lie simply because it was a joke 'Duuh!' There are many more examples of sarcasm I have come across, some easier to catch than others and some easily rectified by a simple 'Just kidding.' To sum all this up googling Sarcasm gives me: *The use of irony to mock or convey contempt*. Which does not sound lighthearted at all, the word Mock standing out. I'm not asking why people are sarcastic but **why it's seen as such a go to form of comedy when it seems so detrimental to the person being mocked as well as detrimental to the person being sarcastic (at least from a Buddhist standpoint)? Is sarcasm as a response to a question, when that question is looking for an undeniable true answer, seen as bad Karma?** Any information on the Buddhist thoughts on why we use sarcasm and what it is, as well as from other/more modern sources on the subject (ex.South Parks Sarcastiball episode) would be greatly appreciated if I Am to understand this experience more. Thank you.

If a monk is given the opportunity to speak in favor of doing a good deed that a supporter of his wants to do, even if that good deed directly benefits him, is it proper to do so? Is there any concern to be had how others may perceive doing so? i.e. others may see this motive as being self-serving; and therefore how to address this properly? Thank you

I clearly remember reading somewhere about (some branch of) Buddhism believing that there *is* a soul and that it splits in seven parts when dying. The article mentioned that four of these parts are believed to return when reborn, the other three will merge with Nirvana. My recent reading has taught me that the individual soul/ātman does not exist *per se*, it is a false assumption and what one might perceive as "I" is just a piece of the a bigger consciousness (God, if you like). Can anyone shed any light on the splitting? And is my current understanding correct, incorrect or oversimplified?

I am mindful of my skandas, but that doesn't prevent other's samsaric action, trying to influence me and my practice. What are the different ways of protecting one's practice?