Vedana is described as reaction to a sense contact. Are these only the 5 senses or is vedana also 'created' by thoughts or emotions?

Perhaps we can maintain a collection of Buddhist blogs which might be of interest for many.

Is Body - Breath - Mind are connected to each other, and Thinking process really need oxygen to operate. When I sit for meditation i feel my breath is stop (Gap) and thought slows down, but for very minimum time.

In five aggregates I'm bit confused when it says Perception and Consciousness are temporary . I can see form , feelings and formations are temporary by practice. Could someone provide me some more context to see this **in practice** ?

Does anyone know the source of this teaching: >Free From Assertions Regarding Philosophical Views, Free from Mental Fabrication in Meditation, Free from Accepting or Rejecting Regarding Conduct, Free from Hopes and Fears Concerning the Result.

Is there a name of this particular Buddha, and what is the mudra called, what does it mean, and what is in his left hand and what does it mean?

Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself with the choice of becoming a Buddha (avoiding extinguishing dukkha) and instigate others as well to do so? Given that this world is full of "Bodhisattvas", there is not one being who is not just here to help others out, why does a Bodhisattva instigate others to stay on this normal course of birth and death? Does he need food to nourish his undertaking and fearing to find nobody and nothing as reason for further becoming? Or what is the reason to instigate others to do such a work? Just to become one day wise and listen to what the Buddha say and trap others who have the same blindness for it? (Given that the Teachings of the Buddha of our time is still available) Or do they assume that there are no teachings which lead them out for now?

Superficially, people say that there are a lot of people who love them (and *vice versa*), but if you analyze your life, you will find that there is no such thing as *true love*. I've realized that what we call love is essentially *selfishness in disguise*. The strongest love in this world is maternal love of a mother for her children. But classical psychology will tell you that maternal love is also based on *maternal instinct*, which is endowed by nature to ensure survival of the race. Coming out of that circle, love for siblings, brothers and sisters are more of social transactions - there is give and take, something in return for the so-called love which is given. If you don't have anything to give in return, they will be annoyed at best and shunt you altogether at worst. Maybe, there used to be such a thing as *true love* back in the old days when *Dhamma* had a stronger hold, but I hardly see it in today's world. People say they love their spouse, but the search for your spouse itself begins with a selfish interest - Do they have a big house? What is the salary? Are they sexually attractive? Coming back to the question, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that true love has vanished, then what force makes people cling to this wretched *samsara* knowing full well that its an exercise in futility? Even in the midst of utmost *Dukkha*, why doesn't the realization come that let me leave this path that causes *Dukkha* altogether? Is it the past *Kamma* which is holding its grip on you so strongly, that you are unable to come out of the while loop of samsara? Will past never let the present achieve freedom from *Dukkha*?

When you read or hear about Gotama leaving his home and family, the story is usually something like "he shaved his face and head and went out to be a wandering monk". But very few depictions of the Buddha (perhaps apart from the laughing, fat buddha) is of a bald man. Why is that? I've also heard, but don't remember the source, that in early times there was no iconography in Buddhism. As far as I remember hearing, depictions of the Buddha did not appear for many hundreds of years. Actually I've heard that the iconography of Buddhism actually comes from the Greek,,that the first to make icons of the Buddha were Greeks living in India. There's obviously a lot of variations over time and between traditions. But can anyone give me some information, and sources about Greek influences on Buddhist iconography? Also I wonder why Buddha almost always is depicted with hair?

I have seen in answers on this site (about consciousness in connection with rebirth) that Theravada adhere to a phenomenological perspective on consciousness. Can anyone explain for me what it means to have a phenomenological perspective? And which schools does not have this perspective?

I would like to attend a 3 months "rains retreat" (Kyol-Che), in a Zen (Seon) temple in South Korea. I would have to go to a temple where they give instructions in English, though. 'Mu Sang Sa' Temple (which I hope is way cheaper for monks) seems to organize two 3 months retreat a year. Do you know other places?

The First Noble Truth says that cyclic existence is Dukkha. I'm not in a position to expound on the meaning of the word Dukkha, but I think everyone can agree it does not mean "happines". Still, I think many Buddhists would say they are more happy in their lives than non Buddhists. Would it be fair to claim that Buddhists, if they practice well, can expect to be more content and generally more happy in their lives? And if so, is this because of Buddhism or is it more generally because they have a spiritual outlook on life?

It's pretty evident that meditation itself helps you deal with your problems and inner issues, but is it okay for a lay meditator to pay a psychologist/therapist to talk about his or her feelings. But then this raises concern if the therapist will see things from Buddhas teachings point of view. Meditation teachers are expert teachers and not necessarily good at listening to stories about what happened in your childhood for example and talking about it. Their answers, even though may be with complete metta, are only in the range of 'just observe' and 'keep trying' which is mostly what you need to do. I know that but sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a link between sitting on a cushion observing breath or sensations when something is bothering you on a daily or recurring basis.

One of the ten things that Bodhisattva Samathabhadra says that a person on the Bodhisattva path should do is to request the Buddhas to continuing teaching instead of entering parinirvana. Given that a Buddha is fully compassionate and omniscient, he or she would want to teach if doing so is beneficial to sentient beings and would also be aware whether teaching is indeed beneficial to sentient beings. For example, the historical Shakayumni Buddha wanted to enter parinirvana because some of his sangha was becoming complaent that they would always have the Thus Come One as their teacher. As such, it would seem that a Buddha would be able to decide well the timing of his parinirvana. Given the above, I wonder how would it is appropriate for one learning to walk on the Bodhisattva path to request the Buddhas to continuing teaching. Is such an action for the benefit of the practioner to generate a wish of englightment and to take refuge in the Buddha? Does a Buddha need to enter parinirvana at a certain time, otherwise it would become harmful to him or herself or to the community at large? Is a Buddha unable to stay longer to teach if practitioners do not make requests? (Sorry that I am unable to phrase a precise question, but I hope I conveyed my gist and my confusion clearly enough.)

I've read here about sensual pleasure and music and I agree with what I've read: that boredom breeds states of unwholesome pleasure and that when we give up our thoughts to entertainment we do just that; that we should instead focus on the teachings and right employment. However, do you believe there is anything wrong with actually playing an instrument? It is a skill, surely: can musicianship in any sense be thought of as an example of right employment? Is there a Buddhist approach to music? Or to photography and film and etc.? I am maybe generally a little confused on what right employment can be, I am a student and want to consider carefully what I will do for work. While becoming a monk is here out of the question, do you think it is possible to find good employment in an economic system which fundamentally values consumption as a positive value, or will this not create unwholesome pleasure necessarily by contributing to it? Maybe another question I have which is not wholly separate is how can a young person living in a western city separate themselves from pop cultural influences without withdrawing from society? For instance, it seems like withdrawing from my life would hurt and confuse more people (family, friends) than it would cause happiness, and since there is not even a temple here it is hard for me to accept Buddhism itself as a religion in the strict sense since it would be a profoundly personal study for me to undertake (as opposed to one I could practice with others). I'm sorry if these questions are too personal, but they are problems that bother me about this path that I have trouble reconciling with my day to day life. The economic world seems geared in a very different direction to the wisdom of the teachings, and it frightens me. Thank you for reading and replying and I hope you are well. And please, point out where I am going astray, because I am in no small need of guidance. If this is an inappropriate place to post this, I am sorry.

I am looking for a text that I recall having seen in which the Buddha says something like: There is no rest for those who are obsessed with thoughts such as 'he has wronged/harmed me' and similar. It may have been the Dhammapada...any help is appreciated.

How can a lay person benefit from this beautiful sutta? It is about being reclusive as a key for good insight and enlightenment. Does this sutta apply for short period of loneliness like Retreats? Or should it be taken literally and is only for monks? > "Laying aside all violence, respecting all beings, never harming even one of them, one should not wish for a son, nor neither for any companion. One should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn. ... The considerations which exists for sons and wives is like a spreading bamboo entangled, a solid web of bars, Like a single young bamboo shoot up free, not caught up with others One should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn." [Khaggavisana Sutta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhinoceros_Sutra)

i saw an answer here that i liked: >... > Of course we have all these grand ideas about the great business we > want to open, or the great way we could help people, or other visions > of great success - but they are only projections of thought into the > future. This projection creates a mismatch between "here" and "there". > From this mismatch comes dukkha, the feeling of wrongness. > > Instead, for any success you will have achieved, there must be a > pathway from where you are now, to there, with the first step being > within reach. Therefore the only way to get there is to work with what > you have right here and now. So do your best with what life gives you > at every given moment ... i have a job i don't like - it hurts my legs because of long standing time - and i was thinking about other career paths... of ways i can earn money and leave this job - like starting a private business - but in light of the above answer, is it a bad idea to think about this, from Buddhism perspective? i would really like to know your thoughts on this: should i stop and just work without thinking about a better job / a private business?

For Karma to be complete a certain set of conditions need to be present. What are the Suttas / Abhi Dhamma in this these sets of conditions presented in? Do Suttas / Abhi Dhamma mention what happens if some of the conditions are not met (but volition is present)? What are the instances where the completion of the Karmaic result or fomation is mentioned regarding morality and precepts, i.e., the necessary and sufficient conditions to transgress each or the 5 or higher precepts on which the Karmic result become complete?

If a human dies after obtaining a Jhana(and preserved it) he definitly gets his rebirth at a Brahma world. So, what makes a Brahma come back to human world upon death? Is it possible that he was unable to preserve the Jhana?