There is some person in my life and whenever I see his or her photo, or something related to him or her (e. g. reminder of the place he or she lives), I experience strong feelings. They are totally irrational (I haven't been in contact with this person for years, I live thousands of kilometers apart from him or her) and I don't understand them (when you don't see a person for a long time, you tend to forget him or her, but I don't). No psychological technique I tried (all kind of NLP stuff, EMDR, meditations, relaxation tapes, long walks, sex, talking with lots of nice people, hard work and whatnot) didn't help me understand and get rid of those feelings. Whenever I think I've forgotten him or her, I get a reminder from the outside world (someone mentions something related to him or her, or a there is a billboard with a message related to him or her, or I hear a piece of music from his or her region in the radio etc.). Basically, I need to figure out whether 1. I should do something with or about this person or 1. just forget him or her. What publicly available Buddhist teachnings can I read in order to learn in order to sort out these feelings (begin to understand their nature) **on my own** ? Notes: 1. I don't want to discuss what kind of feelings they are. I just need a manual, which I can apply and do it myself. 1. Going to a group, or talking to a psychologist or guru aren't viable options because according to my experience 99.9 % of advice you get from other people on important matters is wrong (in the past such advice caused more harm than good).

Is it the actual sight, sound, smell, taste, tactile sensation, idea, or the feeling based on them.

I just read Allan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind" book. He cites *vipashyana* (or vipassana, vipassanā, vipaśyanā, lha-thong) but he doesn't deepen much on it. Can you refer to some texts and books regarding this meditation?

Was e.g. the 6th patriarch Huineng reborn? Was Dogen reborn? I would think that Huineng wasn't (it's called the platform sutra for a reason) and Dogen was - though I don't know of anything he said to that effect

I have a few questions about "wisdom", which I would personally define as it appears in Zhiyi's book the Great Calming and Contemplation, in the section on the six identities > If one is endowed with both wisdom and faith, then upon hearing that a > single thought-moment is identical with the positive [aspect that are > conducive to bodhicitta], faith will keep one from denigrating [what > one does not understand], and wisdom will keep one from being > apprehensive [about one’s inability to attain enlightenment]. [In this > case,] both the beginning and later [stages] are positive. If one does > not have faith, then [one despairs i] the exalted levels of the > sage are not part of one’s own wisdom, 344 and if one does not have > wisdom, one becomes arrogant and thinks that one is already equal to a > Buddha. IIs it possible to be on the path without wisdom? Is it possible to advance along it, even to attain complete, and perfect enlightenment, without wisdom? And if the latter is in **any** way the case, then how so, and why would the practitioner have to fall "back" into complete ignorance in order have any semblance of enlightenment? Forgive me if I speak crazily :) !!

Initially some of the writings of Ledi Sayadaw were considered to be controversial and they differed from the commentaries. What were the points that differed?

According to one of many sources, the definition of intention is described as Right intention is the intention and resolve to give up the causes of suffering, to give up ill-will and to adopt harmlessness. It contrasts with wrong intention, which involves craving for worldly things (wealth, sex, power) and the wish to harm. What is unclear is whether intention is an act or thought that precedes or follows rational thought? My understanding is that intention plays a critical role in one karma. If my thought is the result of anger however i do not have intent to harm is that not the result of rational thought? If i do act irrationally, to save or protect a life, is that not intention without thought? **EDIT** To add to ChrisW's question on clarification, when i say that if my thought is of anger e.g. how this person would disappear or no longer be around, but this is not followed by action because rationally i do not wish to cause harm. The second example of irrational thought is that when caught in the spur of the moment, i may say or do things however this is to protect a child.

In this question a comment stated in part "The old sense of transferring merit had to do with mudita, you tell other people about your success so that other people can be happy about that. Being happy about other people success is meritable, so it works like transfer." The idea that telling people about your success is wholesome, is very surprising to me. I somehow had the impression that from a Buddhist point of view, being very modest and not making such things known was better. Did the Buddha teach anything specific about this? Thank you.

I think I remember reading that the an unborn child or fetus exemplifies the nidanas in a different way to children and adults. Am I right that for Buddhists life begins at conception, but this "life" isn't fully conscious, because nama-rupa has not yet developed and so the concomitant links likewise? Or is the difference between a fetus and a baby more like the difference between a child and an adult?

In this thread I asked about active and passive suffering. But I'm not quite sure what I mean. It may help to know what suchenss is? I know it translates to "as it is"... so is that impermanence? Or something more subtle ? Thanks!

In a recent conversation and in an attempt to understand others, i found myself not able often understand the actions or behaviors of others to leading to a sense of mind numbness. If i am not able to understand the actions of others, i find that i am in a state of not understanding and my mind/brain attempts to make sense of it. This can be extremely vicious since i am unable to let go and i often find myself in an infinite loop of sorts which in many situations is very demotivating, depressing and saddening. - Should i not attempt to understand the behaviors of others especially if they have cause harm be it mental, physical or emotional? - If i do not understand their actions, how does one approach the individual? - If i *did* understand, is it a form of value judgement? - If i were to abandon the choice to understand, is it a form of value judgement? **Examples** - This are real-world situations i have faced - For example, if i were approached by an individual who had traumatized another and my inability to reconcile their behavior made it highly saddening as to why one would hurt another? - Another example is when i find others taking a short term view of situations or simply not working with others in a cohesive manner (looking after their own interests). - The unwillingness to help when help is sought or to forsake other priorities when attention is needed in other areas I am unsure what the Buddha would do in situations such as these. If he were approached by a murderer for example, what would the Buddha's do, say, not say, etc?

There's a [stub Wikipedia article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noninterference_%28Buddhism%29) which says only, > **Noninterference (Buddhism)** > > Noninterference is a Buddhist concept and practice which relates to the idea that all things are impermanent, with a resignation to events beyond human control.[citation needed] Is there such a concept in Buddhism? If so does this concept have other names? Is it true that this Buddhist concept applies only to "events beyond human control"? The question occurred to me when I was trying to answer the question about "[what do buddhists religious texts say about the environment?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/8977/254) " I tried to look it up because I got the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that maybe Buddhists would agree it's better not to be greedy, but that even so they may not go out and campaign or lobby against greed, or argue in favour of preserving the environment, or indeed argue about anything else. My guesses (my attempts to answer this question myself) were: - I suppose that 'right speech' might be an argument for non-interference: don't say something unless you think it will be welcome. - Maybe non-attachment too would tend towards non-interference: perhaps I cannot try to promote some political view, unless I am attached to it. Maybe the Buddhist practice is that if the world doesn't seem to be as I'd want it to be then I should change my own view and not try to change the world. - Maybe non-self might tend towards non-interference: "who am I to interfere?" ... or "why am I doing this, there are only two motives for doing something, i.e. greed and aversion, and both/either of these motives are wrong" etc. - If it's true that it applies only to "events beyond human control" that perhaps that means hoping that some 'higher powers' (devas or bodhisattvas) will act. I didn't find "noninterference" at all in a search of accesstoinsight.org Google suggests it might be a concept in Chinese Buddhism (so, Taoist-derived, perhaps?). --- I'm sorry if this question feels like I'm trying to make you write a Wikipedia article. The reason I'm asking is that I did have a feeling that non-interference might be an established practice. Conversely can you give some examples of when this 'noninterference concept' would be wrong?

Practice Ven . Mahasi Sayadaw tradition meditation -------------------------------------------------- I have had two incidents recently . 1. Said something that should not have said 2. Stopped happening an argument that my mind really wanted to do Now when I do mindfulness meditation following happens 1. Haunting "bad feeling" , so I make a mental note of "thinking, thinking" 2. Mentally "imagining" that I'm performing that argument " ,so I make a mental note of "Imagining , Imagining" But above two process keep happening even I do relevant mental note for many times (around 20 times ) Eventually they stop but later again pop up ( so I continue the same mental noting) **Should I keep continue mental noting or try to surpass those ? Is it OK to keep going such imagining / thinking for long time while keeping mental notes ?**

According to Buddhist teachings (of any school) at what point does a human life begin? Is it at conception, during a particular point during pregnancy, at birth or even after birth? Does it differ between schools and Buddhist cultures? I suspect the nidanas might be instructive on this point but I'm interested in answers that may or may not include them.

I am looking for the most important Buddhist readings regarding vipassana teachings. I have read thoroughly the Satipatthana Sutta, but I wonder if there are other important texts regarding insight meditation. Thank you.

When staying at buddhist monasteries (Theravada for me so far) there are the Eight Precepts to be followed. I am familiar with the eight precepts. Regarding the precepts " This bothers me already for a while: "To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour" one thing bothers me already for a while. I cite from the information for guests from the Amaravati Buddhist monastery since the point which bothers me is well formulated there (I cannot directly link to the information for guests since it is mailed as PDF and not online on their website): > - To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour > > [...] For lay guests, while you are here you should avoid > cultivating intimate relationships. This means to avoid physical > contact [...] (Full qoute for your reference at the bottom, here extracted the part relevant to the question extracted) I understand (also by experience, although I've never done "real" sex up to now) why to refrain from erotic behaviour. But I never understand why physical contact is automatically associated with erotic practices. Take bodywork (therapeutic) or massage for example. Take communication through physical contact than through words (as in Shiatsu, or simple games with hands-on) for example. Take dance-forms that concentrate on the experience pf physical principles rather than "socialising-partnerfinding" (such as Contact Improvisation) for example. Acrobatics. etc. On the other hand, there may be many erotic scenarios without involving physical contact. So, what is so special about physical contact in the context of erotic/sexual behaviour that it needs to be forbidden at all at monasteries? ---------- Full quote: > - To refrain from any kind of erotic behaviour > > An important aspect of spiritual practice is the transformation of energy. This precept refers specifically to Sexual energy which can be transformed into 'heart energy'. To support this process, our training in the community requires that all behaviour supports the practice of celibacy. > > For lay guests, while you are here you should avoid cultivating intimate relationships. This means to avoid physical contact or actively seeking out the company of anyone to whom you may feel sexually attracted. Even in speech, it is important to be sensitive to time, place and topic, not creating or furthering situations in which sexual attraction may arise. > > This is especially true in contact with the monastics. For the monks and nuns, even private conversation with the opposite sex has strict boundaries. Such contact must be in a public place, or with a chaperon present (and sensitive also to topics discussed). Certain times are available for you to speak with some of the senior monks and nuns.

According to Buddhist teaching (of any school) is it possible to be aware but not conscious? I'm reading the book Seeing that Frees at the moment and Rob Burbea hints that although in the book he is going to use consciousness and awareness interchangeably, there is a sense that they are not the same. I'm hoping that answers to this question might help me dig into this a bit more.

**EDIT** At the request of yuttadhammo and Lanka, i am attempting to focus the question. Please let me know if it still remains unclear. The environment is full of daily encounters through the physical, visual, auditory, mental and emotional faculties. Some of these interactions are positive in that they help promote the well being of one-self and other whilst others are negative. It seems all is an illusion especially when some of these interactions out-weigh the other e.g. positive vs negative and vice versa. Often this feels like a battle to bring more positive in light of the negative. The emotional and mental effort required to keep forging ahead seems futile. Repeatedly i am told that meditation is the path however i fail to see how when it seems that it is intended more for me than for me and others. I feel like a battered and wounded lion or soldier. I feel lost. Concepts are unedifying since they further cloud the situation e.g. where truth end and lies start, where right and wrong are right and wrong, etc What does one do? **Original Question** The definition of environment in the context of the question is to do with the daily encounters one has with the world be it through physical interaction, auditory, visual, emotional or mental. Each day, these interactions are positive or negative. An example of positive may be someone assists another in need of help. An example of negative may be when someone is not conducive to the problem or issue at hand or a war stricken land. Sometimes the positive outweigh the negative and vice versa. Sometimes it feels like a battle to bring positive possibilities as you are attempting to shine light in a large area of darkness. - How does one approach this? - How does one remain motivated? - How does one help another through their suffering? - How does one trust another? I may be wrong in my understanding however meditation appears to be an activity for oneself. It does not encompass the wider world. If all is interdependent and interrelated, is this not futile?

Equanimity is described as It refers to the equanimity that arises from the power of observation, the ability to see without being caught by what we see. The definition can be found here . If i dig further at look at the concepts as set by Buddha at http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/ , it confuses and muddles my understanding. If i attempt to understand not rationalize the description of equanimity, i gather that if an emotion arises or is arising, i observe it. This emotion may be happiness, love, sadness, hatred, dislike, etc. As long as i don't interact or engage the emotion, i am mindful and aware. Again because i tend to look to examples be it in nature or behavior, i will attempt to describe my understanding. **Example 1** Surrounded by children, in laughter, there is a sense of happiness and innocence. If i simply observe the emotion of happiness, should i not participate in it? Yes, it may be temporary but isn't that being in the present or moment all about? If i am devoid of emotion and only an observer, am i not practising aversion? How does this differ to physical interactions? **Example 2** Relationships are strained between 2 or more people. The fact that they have stayed away from one another reduces the strain as it does the thoughts that arise from remembering incidents. Over time, people sympathize as well as empathize. This leads to the belief that should they meet again, they will have better understanding. Is staying away deliberately considered aversion? If someone had been abused and they stayed away from their abuser, is it aversion? Is not wanting to think about it aversion? Is the 'loss' of memory and an understanding on the path of anatta? Does this 'loss' of memory and thought as well as an understanding of the situation and experience lead to the path of equanimity?

I noticed in my practice that I was unable to sustain my attention on breath when it became relatively subtle . Is this because my mindfulness is not mature enough to hold on to subtle objects of meditation? What sort of action could help me to overcome this?