On [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDY4gOexVA&feature=youtu.be&t=2m14s) @Yuttadhammo seems to say that tranquility meditation requires focus on a concept and as a result -- i.e. because a concept is not "real" -- that meditation cannot lead to insight. And, by way of contrast, he says that the rise and fall of the abdomen *can* lead to insight because the abdomen (and its rise and fall) *is* real. Is that -- the nature/reality of the meditation object -- the primary difference between meditation intended to achieve tranquility and that intended to achieve insight? But if so, how does that tally with Y's [answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8117/199) to [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8080/199) . There, he notes that the Visuddhimagga allows for insight to be achieved by scrutinising “mentality” (nāma). But how is mentality real while a concept is not?

When I am supposed to simply observe my thoughts and any opinions that arise from them, and not cling to them, how am I supposed to work? I have a job, and as such you cannot not have opinions. It becomes a loss of self. I could let go, but then why should I go to work and exercise my effort on doing something other than simply meditate Could someone help out with this conflict?

Could someone help me understand, or at least name, a phenomenon which may be standing in the way of meditative practice. It is so hard to express that I'm at a loss to know where to begin to seek help. It could perhaps be best expressed as a sudden tumult of sensation (mainly voices and images), like a confused radio or instrument panel on an aircraft struck by lightning. It is almost impossible to comprehend its contents and, sadly, like with very sudden external noises, and the like, jolts me out of practice such that it suddenly irretrievably ends the session. It has no fixed emotional or intellectual content, but is nevertheless strongly emotional and intellectual in an unfixed way, like the sea is strong but fluid. It is not a somatic (body) sensation (ie not tingling, or whatever), but one of the mind. I suppose if pushed, many images include people I love, but that is a tiny part. It is draining. It begins some time after I transfer from a meditating *for* calm and emptiness (which is familiar and which I've practised for years, principally through concentration, mindfulness, non-clinging to thoughts and images, awareness of body, etc) into noticing and contemplating the way things are *per se*, without objective beyond understanding (ie no *for*). I'm interested in the scholarship of religion (a theology geek) and so have taken time to understand, intellectually, the *ideas* behind Buddhist practice, along with many other religions, without any real sense of membership. But it's only recently that I've begun to consider these in the context of meditation (ie the *thing* rather than the *idea*). I would be interested to know what this is, what the right thing to do with it is in order that I could proceed with meditation, ideally not dropping out of it whenever it happens. Does it help to keep a structure to this form of meditation rather than drifting to it from intellectual knowledge and a calmed state? If it has a name that I could look for it in books, etc, that would be particularly useful.

I have read that even hunger - a physical sensation in the body - is useful for an object of meditation. Given the fact that I am often hungry and am quite aware of this sensation in my body...and given the fact that I easily gain weight when I allow my hunger to dictate my actions (i.e overeat or eat without thought)...I thought it would be useful for me to see what insight I might get into examining this sensation more deeply. I was wondering what others' experiences were with using hunger itself as an object of meditation. Normally I just try to focus on the breath (I am still attaining to the 1st level of concentration practice) but thought this might make for an interesting deviation. Assuming that this is a reasonable object for concentration practice, how do I actually go about it?

If access concentration, or at most the first jhana, is the requirement for successful insight meditation what is the purpose of the other form and formless jhanas?

I notice that when I don't meditate it is easier to ignore things (e.g. other people, situations) and focus on my own thing--even though I might not be as concentrated. This is of course not the right way to live--like a zombie. On the other hand though, when I meditate well--really well, noticing my thoughts and being very present... I notice that afterwards I have lots of energy. I become highly productive and get things, powered by Truth and unconditional joy, happiness and acceptance. In social situations I don't know if this is very beneficial--I can act quickly and I feel like some people might perceive me as very smart but erratic. Maybe it is because of my lack of social finesse but when I am talking with a woman I might be a little erratic, unusually detached, and just have some abnormal responses. I also tend to be impatient and don't care to develop a relationship with a woman as "normal" people would, asking her questions about her family, etc. I'd rather talk about the world, analyze her peronality, and do brain-y but unattractive, boring things which actually drains energy. A part of me thinks this is a problem but the bodhisattva part of me says, who cares just keep practicing even whilst sharing conversation with others because I am definitely causing no harm and oftentimes sharing things with people they are happy for later... **How can I remedy the erratic energy-power that arises from vipassana aka cessation-contemplation meditation so I can feel more in-control? Especially in social situations.** I am not sure it is a problem at all actually because I certainly do no harm to others and I am definitely more productive in the rest of my life.

Practice : Ven .Mahasi Sayadaw I have been practicing meditation " in daily life " for a week . I felt more relaxed and also noticed having a thought of "intention" before most of my actions of body . But now I feel that I'm losing the interest of doing mediation practice but to go back again on reading or listing to Dhamma talks .( mostly due to having the thought of finding a "better practice" ) And now I'm feeling the same delusion I had before and stress . I would like to to know how could I get my motivation back to stick with one method of meditation practice ?

I'm a spiritual and somewhat crazy person, and have been taught both zen and samatha meditation, though I rarely practice either. I just underwent a series of short micros sleeps, which were accompanied by musical hypnagogic hallucinations. I've had both experiences many times, but never together - and it was the closest thing I can imagine to the "sound of one hand clapping". I felt sleepier, stopped fighting, right after I closed my eyes would hear someone singing, and then immediately seem to wake up again. This process repeated itself some four or five times, until I stopped being amazed by it (see the first paragraph) and just fell asleep (- until now). Do any sleep experiences, like hypnagogic hallucinations, micro sleeps, or even sleep paralysis, or anything else, have anything to do with meditation? It strikes me as one way that science might come to terms with the states associated with meditation.

Practice : Mindfulness ------------------------------ ---------- I'm taking a concrete example to get the right help. *Reading a book ,* - Reading without being absorbed , mind keeps wondering but still able to read words - Reading with being absorbed , mind more likely continuously anchored on reading with minimal mental movements Now I want to be aware about myself while being absorbed in reading or be aware about the reader while reading Could anyone provide me a guide to proceed to that ?

I have been finding my hips to be getting super stiff after sitting practice. I have been stretching before and after, but it doesn't seem to help much. Does anyone have any tips to deal with this problem?

Practice : Meditation using breath I'm practicing sitting meditation using breath according to Thai Forest Tradition method. Mentally reciting of "Buddho" . I practice at home so would like to get help based on my experience so far I noticed my breath getting shorter and sometimes period of no breath or "nano/very short" size of breath . **When it is a series of "nano/very short" size of breath , mostly what I experience is "waiting" for next "in" breath ? Is this right or where should I concentrate during such occasions ?**

I found the below from the book **Mindfulness with Breathing: A Manual for Serious Beginners** http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfulness-Breathing-Manual-Serious-Beginners/dp/0861711114 > The Thai word **kuab-kum** is used throughout these talks. It can be > translated **'to regulate**; to control or confine; to oversee, > supervise, or superintend.' When one of these translations appear, all > of the rest should be understood. In all cases, **kuab-kum depends on > sati and wisdom, never force or will-power**. Could someone explains why **will-power** could not be used to regulate kaya , vedana and citta?

I am a science student at an university and I practise mindfulness in the Mahasi tradition. My question is, how can I be mindful while studying? This is a very important question for me since most of my time as a student is spent in studying. Thank you very much.

Alright, this will probably sound odd for most people on here: I cannot seem to place my mind on an object, as in make my attention rest upon an object as to define it more or emphasize it. However, I've managed to (from what I understand) diminish gross excitement and gross laxity, meaning I can sustain concentration but this concentration is not *of* an object. I'm merely looking at the object, not concentrating on it. I'm having much trouble develop the mental factor of contact, which may seem impossible but I don't know how to explain this better. Any advice? Thanks!

In the Triratna Buddhist Community we do a practice that we call Just Sitting. It's described as > Just Sitting is a space of non-action in which anything can emerge. > Often the fruit of the previous practice only emerges when you stop > ‘doing’ it. And Just Sitting is the non-doing space in which that may > (or may not) happen. Just Sitting also allows assimilation of what has > just been done, and provides the necessary counterpoise to activity > and effort. Just Sitting is a matter of simply ‘being’ with whatever > happens in awareness, without attaching to it or rejecting it. Link to quote is here . I've always wondered if this is something that we've just kind of invented or adapted or is it common to other Buddhist traditions? Is it the same as zazen practice perhaps?

I'm slowly collecting Buddhist books and started with the Khuddaka-Nikaya, and am researching if I want the rest as well of Theravada Canon. So I was curious about the the place and authority of the Kathavatthu? Is it considered canon by all or most of Theravadan schools? How did the post-theravadan schools regard the texts?

I was just reading some of the commentarial literature in the Pali Canon and it occurred to me that there seems to be some kind of relationship between patience and kindness that I don't fully understand but would like to get clarity on.

In the online book Good Questions, Good Answers there is the question > Why do people do all kinds of strange things in Buddhist temples In the answer it says > It's true that some of the things Buddhists do have their origin in > popular superstition There are no examples to illustrate this statement though in the text. So can anyone give one or two examples of Buddhist traditions (from any school) that owe more to cultural or popular superstitions than the teachings of the Buddha. Note - this is in no way meant to denigrate any particular school of Buddhism. I'm sure that the practices of many (all?) religions take something from local culture. I just would like some examples to illustrate this particular quote from this text.

"Hey David you're a genius!" "Hey David you look so fine!" I think blushing and feeling a little nervous isn't really buddhist... But sometimes if you don't react this way you might look as if youre being rude What exactly do the scriptures say of how one should respond in these situations? I've seen quotes about the Buddha saying the brahmin is "indifferent to compliments and indifferent to criticism". I'd like to know what the scriptures say about its possible harms, etc. I think it is an interesting question that deserves some thought as it is part of our lives.

Question is in the title. Im aware of descriptions of the Buddha in which he is described as "god-like" or "supernatural". Im looking for any canonical descriptions of the physical characteristics of the Buddha that are bit more down to earth. Thank you for your time.