A theravada monk would like to stay in my house for one night. I live with my parents, but we don't have special room for guest. Should I suggest him to stay in monastery near my house?

Does listening to Buddhist chants such the Wisdom Sutra bring any benefit when working, meditating or other activities?

As a Buddhist, I only believe Buddha ,Dhamma,Sangha. But some of my relatives still believe fortune teller. What should I do with people who try to read and tell my future.

How can in Buddhistic terms explain life evolution, that is how can new beings evolve from previous nama-rupa? How could a vipāka (resultant-consciousness) "move" from cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) to the patisandhi-citta (rebirth-consciousness) of a being not yet existing?

I read that a person must get permission from his og her parents but what if that persons parents are not alive anymore. Can that person then not become ordained in this life? Thank you for your time.

Physics shows that what we percieve to be the unidirectional arrow of time is an illusion; that time doesn't necessary "flow" in any direction, and that the concepts of *past* and *present* are ultimately meaningless. Is there any discussion of the nature of time as a concept in Buddhist teachings?

*As this is my first posted question, I welcome input as to how to improve it. Many thanks in advance.* When I have heard Mahayana practitioners discuss the concept of Bodhisatva as it varies from Theravadan teachings, it's spoken of as a mark *against* Theravada. It's suggested that Theravada lacks compassion for others, and that the Bodhisatva ideal "repairs" this lack of compassion. When I consider this idea, I can't escape the feeling that the concept of a Bodhisatva ("me") helping "others" seems contrary to the idea of anattā. The idea that I would focus on self-ness (either my own or that of another) seems like a mistaken view. Instead, when I think of suffering, I think that, "there is suffering," not that "I am suffering" or "they are suffering." As such, the Bodhisatva concept seems to guide my thinking away from what I believe is Buddha's teacing of correct understanding. As to lack of compassion... my thinking is that the work I do in my practice is meant to reduce suffering. Not to reduce *my* suffering and ignore that of others, but to reduce suffering itself. **And so my question is this:** Am I understanding the pieces of this correctly? I realize some here adhere to different parts of this issue, and I appreciate feedback from both sides. Perhaps someone can explain how they think of the idea of "no-self" as it related to the Bodhisatva idea?

In the past month or so, a number of people i know are suffering in a number of ways e.g. cancer, allergies, etc. Especially when a child is concerned, i am inclined to 'take on' their suffering. Despite everything i do to help, i am compelled to take more on for them as i would like their suffering to reduce or end. How does one help or take on the sufferings of others? This is especially so when in the company of children under the age of 4.

How a being (be it a Buddha) can remember its past lives, if there is no "quid"/soul/self enduring for more time?

> Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book. Many techniques are also commonly said to be secret, but some Vajrayana teachers have responded that secrecy itself is not important and only a side-effect of the reality that the techniques have no validity outside the teacher-student lineage. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana#Esoteric_transmission) But in my travels through the Buddhist landscape, I find that teachers are human: some good, some mediocre. How do I find the right teacher? Are there tests that the student can apply to the teacher?

I practice insight meditation (Theravada tradition), noting the rising and falling of the abdomen. It was suggested that one should make a mental note once per second, neither too frequently, nor too slowly. However, there are moments between the instances of rising and falling, when the abdomen does nothing. What should the practitioner note in these moments?"Not moving"? "Resting"? I note "touching", as I become aware of the sensation of my T-shirt touching the skin on the abdomen. Is this right practice?

If one is limited by the senses and the formation of the sense, how does one practice Buddhism which espouses interrelatedness and interconnectedness? For example, if i simply taste the grape i have in mouth, how do i realize that the grape is the result of the elements of nature e.g. propagation of seed, pollination, inception of a seedling, sprout, etc which in turn is supported by the sun, rain, soil, etc

Isn't there a story where the Buddha accosts a monk who's bleeding from performing walking meditation for too long, and tells him practice must be like a Veena's string - not too tight, not too loose? i.e the middle way Yet, I remember a story in the Dhammapada (Verse 1 ) about a monk who refused to take his eye medicine because he had vowed to not lie down for three months and remain practicing full time. Since the medicine wasn't effective unless taken lying down, he lost his eyes. The text says he simultaneously lost his vision and gained his vision - i.e. he became an arahant by practicing so arduously. The Buddha peeks into his past lives, and says Karma dictates that he must lose his eyes in this lifetime for sins of the past. It maybe so, but it was also his good karma to have access to medicine in this lifetime is it not? Leaving everything to Karma has me confused - because if that is so, then why practice, even enlightenment if it is in our karma will be obtained without effort. Gautama the Buddha was certainly going to become a Buddha, his Buddhahood had been foretold , so why did he practice? Second, what's with the open praise of macho effort right at the start of the Dhammapada? What happened to the middle way? This is not an isolated instance, there are several stories about heroic efforts from monks. The most famous must be the version where Bodhidharma plucks out his eyelids. There's also another version where he loses his legs to atrophy by not moving for nine years. I got to thinking about this after reading this question about monks and exercise. I am reminded of "A path with heart", by Jack Kornfield, where the author, himself a Buddhist monk under Ajahn Chah for several years talks about exercise and several other normal healthy things monks ignore in order to pursue enlightenment single mindedly. He recounts interviewing several monks who suffered from diabetes and other lifestyle diseases that came from not eating healthy food, from not exercising, from developing an aversion to their body and consequently not caring enough. I'm interested in hearing opinions in general, or an answer that can reconcile the two if possible. Thanks.

Sometimes when I take a break from work and walk through a nature path, I listen to a podcast called Zencast which is a collection of hundreds of Dharma talks by dozens of teachers over the decades such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Gil Fronsdal spanning a wide array of topics, such as Five Hindrances, mindfulness, meditation, etc. I highly recommend it, it's a great way to consume teachings on an iPod. When I do this, I am present with body in nature and with mind in enlightened knowledge, but is this technically a technique for a walking meditation?

I have heard a lot about vipassana just being mindful of what happens to come up, _not_ looking for more things to notice. However, if we compare meditation with e.g. lifting weights, when you start, you lift (say) 50, so even though its harder, you add 20 more... Then when you normally just need to lift 50, its way easier because you've been working out with 70. My question is, why not do that with meditation? I'm curious why some people don't think it's the thing to do. As in speed noting, if I can be aware of everything all at one time constantly isn't that being fully aware? If I can see even the most minute details of the current reality effortlessly through pushing my mental ability during meditation, looking further into things to note more things and staying aware of them all at one time moment by moment till they pass away. Until you lose track but then try to remember to be attentive to those that remain and notice the new. What is said about mental "exercise" as a developmental practice?

I have found that if i do not share or understand the perspective of others, it is difficult to appreciate their point of view so that one is able to be the viewer as opposed to the actor. How does one experience the experience of others?

How important is meditation practice and doing good deeds in comparison to having a clear mind during death in order to reach nibbana or be at least reborn in a good realm? For example, if one meditates daily almost his whole life and does good deeds but then dies in a car accident, overwhelmed by the fear and the shock of this event, what are the chances of a good rebirth for this person? In other words: Is the quality of rebirth determined only be the state of mind during death or is it also influenced by karma which one has accumulated during his life? It also gets maybe a little tricky, since people with near-death experiences report having a flash of all events in their life in addition to getting information about the impact their deeds had on their own and other people's minds.

One aspect of the notion of "Buddhist Modernism" is that in modern history (ancient times aside) even the Theravada monkhood, let alone the laity, did not generally meditate, until the Burmese/Thai revival due to Mahasi Sayadaw and a few others in the 19th and early 20th century. (http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/) Yet, there is still the question of Tibetan monks, given the vigor of that tradition back to its introduction into Tibet. McMahan suggests (without any references!) that very few of them meditated: > Tibetan forms of meditation have gone rather abruptly from being the > province of a small number of specialist monks in Himalayan hermitages > to being offered widely to the public in countries all over the globe. > (McMahan, David L. (2008-10-17). The Making of Buddhist Modernism (p. > 187). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.) But my impression is that in "old Tibet", that is pre-1950's, a fairly large fraction of the (very numerous) monkhood did practice meditation, via tantric sadhana and/or mahamudra. Does anybody have actual references bearing on this? I realize there will be no quantified data, but how about biographies, reminiscences and other historical literature?

My understanding is that meditation went through a revival in the last two centuries, in part due to the efforts of the Theosophical Society. Supposedly in the past, monks had nearly or totally stopped meditating. Can anyone fill out the picture? - Main question in the title, when and why did monks stop meditating? - Were other elements involved in the revival? - Is this perspective more descriptive of Theravadan countries? - How did reality differ from this picture?

Is it good practice in meditation to focus on having no thoughts? A purely empty mind. Whenever a thought arises, it is cast off.