text:
Questions about reacting to bodily sensations
I'm currently reading The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation and it says to observe sensations in the body without reacting.

What would be an example of a reaction that one might have? When I feel an emotion - perhaps I remember a conversation that I had that produced a strong emotion - I notice a sensation in my body associated with the emotion. Is the goal to focus on the sensation and wait for it to pass?

Also, I've tried starting a meditation session by focusing on my breathing.  I then try to observe sensations in my body -for example, my stomach gurgling, a tingling on my skin or the temperature on my skin. If I focus on this, no emotions are coming up because I'm focusing only on my breathing or sensations in my body. In the book it says to observe the sensations without reacting. There's nothing to react to though if I'm just focusing on the bodily sensations so I'm not sure what this piece of advice is referring to.

Have you considered doing the Goenka 10-day Silent Retreat? I did it some years ago and can highly recommend it. You will learn the technique there and there will be a teacher where you can ask questions after the evening Dhamma talk. Also one can sign up for individuel short sessions with the teacher if one has any questions. The retreat can be done almost anywhere in the world.

an example of a typical reaction would be bodily feelings of pain and reacting with aversion, anger, etc. Or feelings of bodily pleasure, and then the mind running off with thoughts of things from the past that the bodily pleasure reminded them of.
what you describe is exactly what should happen if you're doing breath meditation correctly, or kaya-gata-sati body immersed mindfulness correclty.  You're focused on the kinaesthetic experience of how the breath and bodily sensations feel in all the cells of the body, so the bandwidth of your attention is completely occupied with skillful thoughts of Dharma, and there's no room for unwanted thoughts and emotions to interrupt. This is training of samadhi, training the mind to think what you want to think and not think what you don't want to think, using the breath as a skillful way to occupy the mind.

Now where your question #1 is ultimately heading, building on #2, once you have stability and control of your mind, then you can observe sensations in the body without the 'reactions', typical deluded responses and filters we impose on top of the raw experience of mind and body, and instead use lucid discerning and wisdom to see reality moment by moment as it actually is, and by doing that, you free yourself from suffering.

There are many ways to start on a path of meditation and Goenka's described path & interpretation of the Buddha is just one. If you want to see serious benefits from Goenka's path, I highly recommend that you attend one of the 10 day meditation courses that are available worldwide.
Until then, I will give you some additional context to Goenka's meditation instructions to help with what you are currently working on.
Observing bodily sensations with equanimity (non-reacting) is a very important aspect to the meditation, but it should not be started on right away. The first four days of Goenka's meditaiton course is focused on Anapana meditaiton, meditation of breathing. This is done to sharpen the mind, allowing you to feel the subtlety of feelings, and allow it to stay with a directed object for consistent and long periods of time.
You mention that you are not able to see how you are reacting to your bodily sensations and this is likely why. Observing bodily sensations will not produce much benefit until some amount of concentration has been practiced. Once your mind can feel in a more subtle manner and also stay on a sensation for longer periods of time, you can begin to see how also on a subtle level, the sensations either feel pleasant, unpleasant or neutral and that along with those categories of feelings, your mind is craving for the pleasant ones and creating aversion for the unpleasant/neutral ones (aversion to neutral feelings is often the feeling of boredom). And then once you see those reactions taking place, you can simply observe those reactions and over time those reactions reduce and become calmer and calmer.
That's the general idea behind it, gaining concentration, and then using that concentration to observe your feelings, see its parts, feeling & reaction and work to reduce the reactive part of your mind.
But to start, I would spend a fair amount of time practicing breath meditation. To do that, you simply need to observe your breath coming in and going out, without trying to control it. Breathe naturally. Observe for as long as you can and eventually your mind will wander to something else. Once you realize your mind has wandered away, smilingly bring it back again and start again observing the breath. By repeatedly doing this, you are building concentration and reducing the habit of mind wandering. It is very important not to get frustrated when your mind wanders (or even to get frustrated if you get frustrated!) but instead accept that this is the current nature of your mind and to just gently keep guiding it back to the breath.
Over time, the duration of continuous time spent noticing the in & out breath will increase and the duration and frequency of mind wandering will decrease. Once you get to a point where you can keep your attention on your breath for at least 1 minute continuously, that is probably a good time to start trying to observe your bodily sensations.
You can incorporate this naturally as you practice Anapana by feeling the breath coming in and out at the entrance of your nostrils and below it. Knowing the breath coming in and going out and also feeling the sensations of the breath passing over that area as the breath comes in and out. As your concentration grows, you can reduce the space focused on your upper lip and entrance of your nostrils to a smaller and smaller area to help increase the subtlety of your mind.
When you can sufficiently feel sensations in that area when you are breathing in & out, you can begin to observe sensations on other parts of the body. Trying to still keep a small area of attention, you can move your attention up and down your body, part by part, feeling the sensations briefly, and then moving on. If you don't feel anything right away, or it feels foggy, you can stay there for a minute or so and you might start feeling those sensations, otherwise keep moving. The order that you go in does not matter, but it is important that you don't linger on areas for too long and that you cover every little tiny part of the body. Goenka suggests going head to toes to toes to head, part by part and repeat.
After you can subtly feel the entire outside of the body, you are free to try to pierce your attention inwards to feel the inside of the body, going part by part.
If at any point your mind becomes too agitated and difficult to practice observing bodily sensations, then its good to come back to the breath meditation until your mind becomes calm and stable again.
There is more to the practice after this point, but I don't want to overload you at the moment. Also please keep in mind that I've described a progression of practice and it is not good to try and jump ahead when you have not sufficiently practiced prerequisites.

Thank you for explaining this to me. One more question - sometimes I'll think of something that happened and an emotion will come up. The book says to observe the thought, emotion and the feeling it produces and wait for it to pass before returning to observing my breathing. For me the thought and emotion doesn't pass - I just keep thinking about it. It's not until I resume observing my breath that I'm able to turn my attention away from the thought. What should one do if a thought, feeling or emotion doesn't seem to pass away on it's own? Is it ok to then focus on breathing at that point?

The key thing that allows the thought/emotion to pass is to observe it objectively, not getting involved with it and to let it be, let it progress as it wants. Observing something with objectivity/equanimity is a skill and not immediately intuitive; It is likely that you are reacting to the emotion but it is hard for you to see that you're doing it. Keep trying to observe the thought/emotion objectively, but if you find your mind is getting more and more agitated/emotional, then yes, come back to the breath to calm the mind down. It takes time to build up these skills. Keep trying

Thank you for your help!

@ChloeHill Gladly!

Thank you I found this extremely useful

Please be aware many Buddhists are not in fully agreement with the teachings of Mr Goenka.

I'm currently reading The Art of Living and it says to observe
sensations in the body without reacting.

To observe "sensations" clearly in the body is something very subtle and not easy to do. There are two major sensations found in meditation: (i) the sensation of pleasure, often called "rapture", when the breath & body are calmed; and (ii) the sensation of physical pain, from sitting for long periods in a fixed meditation posture.
On Goenka Meditation Retreats, participants are forced to sit for long periods so they can feel the painful sensations.
In summary, in Goenka meditation, painful physical sensations from sitting appear to be the main "sensations" to be observed without reacting to them. Naturally, this type of continuous practice is contrary to the teachings of the Buddha.

What would be an example of a reaction that one might have?

In Buddhism, there are three groups of reaction:

love, lust, greed, attachment

irritation, aversion, hatred, anger

confusion, delusion, self-obsession, egoism

When I feel an emotion - perhaps I remember a conversation that I had
that produced a strong emotion - I notice a sensation in my body
associated with the emotion.

Yes, the above is a type of mixed sensation, which is made up of sensations of pleasure or hurt and reactions of love, hatred, egoism, etc.
However, as i originally wrote, to feel such a sensation in the body is very subtle and difficult to do.
If such a sensation can be merely felt, without reacting to it, it will dissolve and pass relatively quickly.

Is the goal to focus on the sensation and wait for it to pass?

Yes.

Also, I've tried starting a meditation session by focusing on my
breathing.

The Buddha taught to always focus on breathing, from the start to the end of a meditation session.

I then try to observe sensations in my body -for example, my stomach
gurgling, a tingling on my skin or the temperature on my skin.

Yes but as i said the above is very difficult and subtle to do. If you continue to do this, the mind and sensations will become very vague. The Buddha recommended a very clear object of meditation, namely, the breathing.

If I focus on this, no emotions are coming up because I'm focusing
only on my breathing or sensations in my body.

Correct. The goal of Buddhist meditation is not to have emotions/reactions coming up. Instead, the goal of Buddhist meditation is to have calmness & pleasant sensations coming up.

In the book it says to observe the sensations without reacting.
There's nothing to react to though if I'm just focusing on the bodily
sensations so I'm not sure what this piece of advice is referring to

If you can continuously observe the breathing, the body & any associated sensations, without reacting to them, what will occur is the breathing & body will become very calm and the mind will feel peaceful, calm and may even break out with "rapture". This is the purpose of watching the breathing & body. To bring calm & tranquility.
But if an emotion or memory from the past comes up, you have to deal with this or wait for it to pass, before you can return to exclusively watching the breath & body.

Thank you for this clarification. A couple more questions - you said "If you can continuously observe the breathing, the body and any associated sensations, without reacting to them, what will occur is the breathing and body will become very calm..." What would be an example of a reaction to that? So far, when I do this, I don't notice any reactions to bodily sensations. Also, I am just starting this path of meditating on a   regular basis. A friend gave me The Art of Living. Do you not recommend this book? What are the disagreements with Goenka's teachings? What book would you recommend?

One more question - is it ok to focus on a noise or something outside the body when meditating or do you recommend focusing only on breathing? If so, why is it important to focus on breathing vs. something outside the body?

while often difficult for people to do, real buddhist meditation is simply watching the mind to ensure the mind is free from greed, hatred, attachment and other disturbing mental states. when this is done, the mind naturally converges with the breathing because, when the mind is pure, the breathing becomes the most predominant sense object. the breathing is the important meditation object because it functions to purify the body & mind of stored stress and it causes the body & mind to be calmed and eventually blissed. this is why the breathing is a meditation object in many spiritual traditions

in summary, when you sit in meditation, you must 1st ensure your mind remains calm, equanimous and non-attached. you just sit like this.

Thank you for the explanation. In the past I've had a tendency to repress certain feelings and emotions - anger, sadness, shame etc. I've fortunately been able to learn to not do this as much. I know that in these teachings and in meditation no one is advocating that you not feel your emotions. The objective is to observe them and let them pass. I can let a thought pass but it's harder for me to let an emotion pass - especially since I'm cautious not to repress my emotions based on past experience. How do I guard against repressing my emotions while trying to observe them and let them pass?

Thanks. I have never practised against repressing emotions. I just try to stop thinking and let whatever energy of the emotion calm by watching the breathing. Regards

to add to my last comment, to stop the thought commentary or past narrative but remain in harmony with the energy, one can make a subtle mental note of the generic underlying emption, such as: "anger, anger" or "shame" or "sadness, sadness" etc

Thank you for your help!


text:
How to develop fortitude?
Specifically when someone you love or whose opinion matters to you greatly attacks your way of life, your beliefs, or even on a smaller scale just makes you feel ignored, pushed around, etc.
I find I quickly lose confidence in my "inner voice" when my loved ones, particularly family, do this. Generally when a stranger does this to me it's easier to let go.
Does anyone have a useful visual metaphor or story around this? I try to see myself as a rock and their words like arrows pinging off me but it doesn't work.

If you have more detailed questions which are unrelated to Buddhist doctrine or practice, please see if these other StackExchange sites may be of help to you: [interpersonal.se], [workplace.se], [parenting.se].

This question has been rolled back to its original state, to be on-topic for Buddhism.SE.

Perhaps it is possible that you aren't confident in being right, perhaps you are wrong and people who are challenging your views are right. In that case you should figure it out and do as they say if they are right and do as you see fit if you are right. Whether you are or aren't is the most important factor in determining your course of action.
If you aren't certain then don't get into a discussion. In general avoid getting into a debate if you aren't certain in your righteousness and don't understand the opposing position better than the opposition does.
You can always say 'this is my conviction but i am not certain, if you have all the answers then teach me but if you are likewise of speculative persuation then let's set this discussion aside until one of us gains verified confidence'. It will solve your problem because this statement protects the truth and avoids arguments.

But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth."
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
"If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html

As to how one develops fortitude there is no simple answer but this very training does develop it, namely the four bases of mindfulness, five faculties, five bases of power, seven factors of awakening, this noble eightfold path. One should avoid associating with bullies and seclude oneself from abusive people until becoming such that one's forbearance is one's mighty army and one can endure both the abuse and one's own anger without letting it loose.
When it comes to parents we can't just go along with whatever they say because we owe them

I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father."

It is normal that we want to bring people we like along with us and be aligned in view but we should associate with our equals or better and a person is neither of those by the virtue of kinship alone. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to seclude oneself and to that extent violate even kinship.
It is just sad to associate with people of different persuation because it is unpleasant to watch people we care about aim down and furthermore listening to their rationalization for doing so. If we don't agree with their rationalization a person will usually get upset and defensive about it. Therefore best leave them to their own until you have an ace in your sleeve so to speak.
Don't waste words of wisdom on people who are fixated in wrong views, don't throw pearls before swine.

There is no companionship with fools. Living with fools is painful as living with foes.

As to how to train in more detail, look up development of perceptions & contemplation, learn the defining of elements and practise jhana. .
If you are going to contemplate whilst people are abusing you then there are better themes:
I have compiled ~ 20 to be developed lines of reasoning and visualizations here (theravadin texts, mostly sutta):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZxstsAvjhj9Svc47RUKRIyKQMuHMD4adIvr_7pp2uI/edit?usp=drivesdk
Something you should reflect on often is that people are like that. They critcized even the Buddha. Another thing is that bad people don't like good people.

Should one see a wise man,
Who, like a revealer of treasures,
Points out faults and reproves,
Let one associate with such a one,
Well is it, not ill, to associate with such a one.
Let him admonish, exhort,
And shield from wrong.
Truly, pleasing is he to the good,
Displeasing is he to the bad.
Associate not with evil friends;
Associate not with mean men;
Associate with good friend;
Associate with noble men.

'this is my conviction but i am not certain, if you have all the answers then teach me but if you are likewise of speculative persuation then let's set this discussion aside until one of us gains verified confidence'
I like this a lot. Thanks.

Our mental model of the world is one of the things that causes us the most suffering in our lives. When reality doesn't agree with it, we feel threatened and get upset.
If people are attacking you because of your beliefs/way of life, it's probably because they feel attacked by them, they feel threatened and insecure about their own way of life, their mental model is being challenged, so they lash out.
Remember that, in most cases, if someone hurts you it's because they themselves are suffering. So, try to develop understanding, compassion and kindness towards them, something like:
"These people I love and care about are hurting me, how they must be suffering!"
Of course, it's always important to question what we are doing and listen to valid criticism, but don't let yourself be abused, and if people are just hating, I think the best thing to do is just be compassionate for their suffering and be confident in yourself.

Wise words +1..

I feel like it's actually easy for me to transform into compassion. What's hard is for me to sit in a position of neutrality, if that makes sense. I've been reading the Dalai Lama's stuff and he states it's important to first develop patience and tolerance even when someone criticizes you, and then move towards helping others. I don't know why I feel like it's hard to do the first.

Does anyone have a useful visual metaphor or story around this? I try to see myself as a rock and their words like arrows pinging off me but it doesn't work.
I once read the opposite metaphor.
Someone, perhaps a yogi, magically made their body hard like a diamond -- and fought with someone else, trying to prove that they (with their diamond-like body) were superior. But the other person was even more invulnerable (therefore superior) -- because weapons just passed through his body without resistance, as if the body were smoke, insubstantial.
I think that's a metaphor about "ego" or something -- "identifying". It turns out though that the story is from a non-Buddhist source, I forget which one. And I'm not sure the strategy is sustainable.
A Buddhist metaphor I like is Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- which is "magnificent".
Incidentally that's inline with instruction from my martial arts teacher -- who said that if someone from outside the class offered to spar (or fight) then we must decline or refuse their invitation (to participate).
Specifically when someone you love or whose opinion matters to you greatly attacks your way of life, your beliefs
I find it unfortunate that "great attacks" should ever happen, or escalate to that.
The sutta Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (Ud 6.4) says that sectarians wound (or try to wound) each other with "weapons of the mouth" (i.e. "harsh words" I presume) -- and says they might argue because they see or focus on different aspects of something -- "my view is right" ... "no my view is right" etc.
Sectarian argument is also attributed to "conceit" -- more-or-less defined here or here.
... or even on a smaller scale just makes you feel ignored, pushed around, etc.
I don't know, is that the same thing? Can be related -- but isn't always?
There are a couple of Zen stories about feeling ignored and being pushed around -- the idea of feeling ignored reminds me of The Taste of Banzo's Sword -- and pushed around, Obedience.
I guess my point is that feeling ignored (not given what you want), and being pushed around, might be to some extent the way things are in adult society -- something which the ego may object to -- and something which, to some extent, you can train yourself accept.
Perhaps it's a matter of degree though.
I think my other point is that "attacking" someone seems to me fairly questionable, but "ignoring" someone might be not so blameworthy.
I've felt ignored and maybe disliked it too sometimes, so condolences. But perhaps this lack or desire is something you might fill from within somehow, instead of requiring someone else to supply it.
One of the themes of Buddhist (monastic) literature is that it's ensnaring (not freeing) to maintain lay social relationships -- Khaggavisana Sutta: A Rhinoceros (SN 1.3). Some say that's an old sutta, pre-dating later practice of Buddhist monks living together in institutional monasteries. You might reach the same conclusion (that it's better to "go forth"), even if you don't you might it insightful and useful.
I find I quickly lose confidence in my "inner voice" when my loved ones, particularly family, do this. Generally when a stranger does this to me it's easier to let go.
I'm not sure what you imply by "family".
There a sutta Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) which describes different types of family responsibility -- and mentions that how you treat your wife or husband isn't the same as how you treat your parents or children.
I kind of like this description of an ideal partner.
It's not easy to address your specific situation since you give so little detail. And generally I think that a relationship therapist might want to talk with more than one person in the relationship.
How to develop fortitude?
Well. In the abstract I suppose "fortitude" means "courage".
You might like to investigate what Buddhism says about each of the Bodhipakkhiyādhammā or possibly the Pāramitā -- conviction (faith), virtue, skilful virtue, wisdom, effort, patience, generosity -- and Brahmavihara.
Wikipedia defines virya for example as,

Vīrya (Sanskrit; Pāli: viriya) is a Buddhist term commonly translated as "energy", "diligence", "enthusiasm", or "effort". It can be defined as an attitude of gladly engaging in wholesome activities, and it functions to cause one to accomplish wholesome or virtuous actions.

Another sutta says that "skilful virtue" (which I guess means, doing what you know to be right, not doing what you know to be wrong) should result in a lack of remorse -- and it seems to me that perhaps "remorse" might be the opposite of courage or enthusiasm.
One other thing, in deciding what's right -- the Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65) includes,

Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.

... as if you should believe your own opinion, what you "know for yourself". But it also talks about what praised or criticised by "the wise", as if you should take their perspective into account and non only your own.
Buddhism is a bit like that, neither one extreme ("Do whatever the hell you feel like"), nor the other ("Do whatever everybody tells you"). Or sometimes the advice is situational, "Be a lamp unto yourself" in one context, "The holy (monastic) life is living with a spiritual friend (i.e. with the Buddha)" in another.

I don't understand how the smoke body is superior to an indestructible body when both are invulnerable?

If I recall, at the end the yogi regretted having developed an indestructible body that he was stuck with, couldn't get rid of.

I guess the diamond-like body was destructible? Then why does it say 'even more invulnerable'? Invulnerable is invulnerable, is there a range of invulnerability?

Nevermind, i guess the diamonds have a finite indestructability as it can be cut with a diamond whereas smoke can't be chopped.

I guess the metaphor is that a large diamond is hard but maybe a nuisance to live with. Something more insubstantial -- even non-existent -- may also be invulnerable in the sense that it can't be hurt ... because it's formless, not because its form is so rigid. Perhaps, I don't know, it can be a metaphor for having rigid views in general (though perhaps most obviously self-views).

That makes sense, sorry for pestering you.

No worries. When I first read it I thought it might be an existential burden, being forever separate or distinct.

I really like the idea of "insubstantiality" and letting go of the ego. That's important for me.

I think that maybe "not resisting" is key. The more you resist these bad slurs against you, the more drama you actually create. Just letting it "pass" is letting it go and not letting it hurt you.

@pipichu I hope you find it helpful. I think it's a good start, short-term tactic. I'm not sure it's good long-term strategy -- in the extreme, and I can't know whether this applies to you, it might to lead to being or staying in an abusive relationship for example. And if you can stop getting upset, you might wonder what the other person is getting upset about. I think the Buddha is pretty clever in The Insult -- turning the topic of conversation to the other person, "What's your experience?" i.e. "What do you think, brahman?" -- even reminding him of his previous good, generous behaviour.

Buddhism prescribes a path for living, which includes a well-defined modes of behaviour.
From a Buddhist perspective, if criticisms by parents accord with Buddhist principles then their criticism are valid and your objections to them are invalid.
For example, if your parents are concerned about and against you taking drugs, partying, being sexually promiscuous, not studying, etc, your parent's concerns are in line with Buddhism.
If your parents are concerned about and against you becoming a Buddhist, because they are Christians, for example, your parent's concerns are not in line with Buddhism.
Or if your parents struggle with you declaring you are "gay", you should understand it is natural most parents will struggle with this because the millions of generations of families from the dawn of time were not born & nurtured from homosexuality.
Naturally, per Buddhist principles, the criticisms of your parents will affect you more because you are attached to your parents. Buddhism teaches the cause of suffering & neurosis is "attachment".
In summary, if your way of life & beliefs are contrary to Buddhist principles, Buddhism cannot offer you a means of "fortitude" because non-Buddhist ways of living inherently in themselves do not lead to fortitude but, instead, lead to weakness, instability, trouble & suffering.
If your way of life & beliefs are in line with Buddhist principles, then your faith & refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha (Enlightened Community) will give you fortitude.

It sounds like you have a sound idea on right and wrong.
If you're not uncertain, and have conviction in what is right, and stick to it, do your best to be polite and respectful to parents, coworkers, etc, but stick to your conviction on things that are right, and that are important.
Developing samadhi and jhana in a holistic way is your best bet to strengthen fortitude.
Obviously that's not going to happen right away, but using little mental tricks like visualizing and so forth, is not going to have power without samadhi.
What I mean by holistic way, is doing enough physical exercise at least 1.5 hours a day, eating healthy, 2-4 hours of meditation a day or as much as you're able. When your jhana battery gets charged up enough, you'll have internal energy/viriya that gives you courage and strength to follow through with your convictions and principles. If you protect and nurture your internal energy, don't overindulge in sex, drinking, gambling, sensual pleasures, and meditate instead, you'll feel the difference in strength (physical and mental). If you go celibate for 100 days and meditate a lot, you'll feel a big difference, especially if you're young and healthy.
When I was a kid I was shy and afraid of public speaking, afraid of even answering the telephone. Now, I'm totally fearless in those situations, completely relaxed. I regularly stand up to bullies, and am not afraid to question and criticize even the most popular and powerful. If I had 20 million followers on facebook, and they were all bullying me and telling me I'm wrong, but I know that I'm right, I'd just laugh them off and pity those fools. That's samadhi.

Try to see if you're doing anything wrong - if you're helping and changing this world to a better place. See if what they say is to help you improve or not for even better. If you don't understand why and it's really important, we should try to reason and arrive to an understanding.
Other thing is what your heart feels, why does it feel that way. Is it because of something you think/read/seen? Can you be misguided or is it because of something else? Deep down that you think is more true?
A Guru/Lama would give you better advices.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What did the Buddha mean in AN 5.38 with the fifth benefit to a person of faith?
What did the Buddha mean in AN 5.38. when he said:

“Mendicants, a faithful gentleman gets five benefits. What five?
The good persons in the world show compassion first to the faithful, not so much to the unfaithful. They first approach the
faithful, not so much the unfaithful. They first receive alms from
the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. They first teach Dhamma
to the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. When their body breaks
up, after death, the faithful are reborn in a good place, a heavenly
realm. A faithful gentleman gets these five benefits.

Emphasis mine.
I am trying to discern what this means with reference to the answers for the word upapajjati in this question which discussed the meaning of the word which is being translated here. Also, what did the Buddha mean when referring to the "break up of the body, after death" and has that been correctly translated?

I note that your question is tagged "theravada" and Gabe's answer is appropriate to that point of view. But as you no doubt know, the Theravadan view isn't the only way of looking at what the Buddha taught. More specifically, since Sanskrit scholar Joanna Jurewicz has been working to decode early teachings in Vedism, a fresh look at the way the Buddha taught, as derived from the early Vedic style, makes for a slightly different understanding of what he taught. If your interest is only in the Theravadan take on his teachings, this may not be of any interest to you.

Hello Linda, I am happy to have informed answers even if they do not come from an active Theravada practitioner, but I am mostly interested in answers from practicing Buddhists of some tradition. That said, if there is an interesting academic answer here that would inform Buddhist practice that would be welcome.

Traditions start somewhere. Do you consider Secular Buddhism to have enough gravitas to provide an answer? I've been a practicing Buddhist for over 30 years, and the answer I'd offer has had aspects published in the Journal of Oxford Buddhist Studies under the editorship of Professor Gombrich.

By all means go ahead :)

Thanks, Yeshe Tenley, I will. My first attempt first became a detailed short story, then a novella, then a novel, and was heading for trilogy when I thought better of it. I am now working on a different take that should be shorter.

You can find the Pali words on Sutta Central:

...  saddho kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā sugatiṁ saggaṁ lokaṁ upapajjati ...

To answer your question, I think the text has been correctly translated. The translated word “breaks”  corresponds to "bhedā". For this context see notes from the PTS:

"Abl. bhedā after the destruction or dissolution in phrase kāyassa bhedā param maraṇā, i.e. after the breaking up of the body & after death: see kāya I. e. & cp. D. III, 52, 146 sq. , 258; Dh. 140; Pug. 51"

The other words roughly correspond to paraṁ=after, maraṇā=death, sugatiṃ=good (destination), saggaṃ and lokaṃ can be taken indepently but together they roughly translation to "heavenly region", upapajjati=reborn.
Again see notes for uppajjati in relation to saggaṁ and lokaṁ:

Upapajjati, (doubtful whether a legitimate form as upa + pad or a diaeretic form of uppajjati = ud + pad. In this case all passages ought to go under the latter. Trenckner however (Notes 77) defends upa° & considers in many cases upp° a substitution for upa. The diaeresis may be due to metre, as nearly all forms are found in poetry. The v. l. upp° is apparently frequent; but it is almost impossible to distinguish between upap° and upp° in the Sinhalese writing, and either the scribe or the reader may mistake one for the other) to get to, be reborn in (Acc.); to originate, rise Vin. III, 20 (nirayaṃ); A. III, 415; V, 292 sq.; Sn. 584; It. 13 (nirayaṃ), 14 (sugatiṃ; v. l. upp°), 67 (saggaṃ lokaṃ; v. l. upp°); ...
PTS

A similar verse occurs in the Dhammapada:

atha vassa agarani aggi dahati pavako
kayassa bheda duppabbo nirayaj so 'papajjati
(DhP 140)
...
bheda: bheda-, N.m.: breaking, disunion. Abl.Sg. = bheda.
The phrase kayassa bheda- ("disunion of the body") means "death" in the Pali texts.
source

Your question has two parts: What did the Buddha mean, and is the phrase "breakup of the body, after death" correctly translated. It seems clear that the latter is correct, and a defense of a positive answer has already been given by Gabe, so I won't address that.
"What did the Buddha mean" can only be a matter of opinion, since none of us is able to directly hear his thinking or ask him, but it is possible to look at the sutta for some answers, and consider the larger context of his talks in other suttas, to try to understand why he says what he says in AN 5.38.
What I notice about AN 5.38 is that

We aren't told who is speaking, but we might well assume it's the
Buddha.
The talk is not a deep one as would be given to long-time monastics,
and it is not being given to the clansmen (using Bodhi's translation
of kulaputta).
Four of the five points address what benefits accrue to the
clansmen.
The point that doesn't follow the main pattern seems to be
addressing a benefit to the monastics, not to the "clansmen endowed
with faith". It is that the monastics get alms from a person of
faith.

Assuming it's the Buddha speaking, it's worth noting that it's not a deep dharma talk illuminating the finer points of his teaching. It appears to be a talk about why regular folk ("clansmen") who have faith are wise to have faith, and as such it would be addressed to new monastics, not long-time, experienced monks. One needs to question why the Buddha would be instructing inexperienced monks on the reasons the faith of clansmen is beneficial. That one of the five points he lists is of benefit to the monks might then give us a clue -- why should the monastics be kind to faithful clansmen? for alms!
Why then are these monks being told what benefit faith has for the clansmen? What do monastics do to gain alms from clansmen? They offer teachings. What teaching might novice monastics give to clansmen? How about a talk on why their faith is of benefit to them: It's because, dear clansmen, you'll get compassion from others, you'll get such a good reputation people will come to you, you'll get taught dhamma before anyone without faith does, you'll get a good rebirth, and (monastic holds out his bowl), you're known to be generous.
It is worth noting that when the Buddha speaks to individuals he encounters (not speaking of his devoted monastics here), he speaks to them addressing their concerns and without making dogmatic statements about what they should believe. He often enough points out the obvious consequences of what they believe, but he doesn't, for example, go around telling people they are just wrong to think that behaving like a dog will get them reborn as a dog in dog heaven, or even that there is no "self" -- he never says that. But he does point out the ways the behavior their thinking inspires in them leads to trouble, or that there is no discernible self to be found that matches what determined a "self" in their times -- that it was a separate thing, eternal, changeless. What he does do is address an individual's concern from within that individual's own worldview, pointing out any obvious flaws in the consequences of their thinking. He takes pains not to argue. He even says this.
In MN 18.4 he says, "Friend, I assert and proclaim [my teaching] in such a way that one does not quarrel with anyone in the world with its gods, its Maras, and its Brahmas, in this generation with its recluses and brahmins, its princes and its people; in such a way that perceptions no more underlie that brahmin who abides detached from sensual pleasures, without perplexity, shorn of worry, free from craving for any kind of being." SN 22.94 opens with "Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather it is the world that disputes with me."
It seems apparent, to me at least, that in this sutta he is giving his monastics directions to go out and do what he does: give a teaching that fits within their worldview as to the reasons faith is worthwhile. Their worldview includes the belief that good behavior in this life leads to a better rebirth. If the world works the way they think it does, then this, too, would be a benefit of their faith. That doesn't mean the Buddha is sure that rebirth is the cosmic order. Even if he did, he would not say so because he'd be quoted on that and that would lead to 'proclaiming his teaching in such a way that he quarrels with the world'.
I do note that there are places in the suttas where he does seem to suggest that he has had direct experiences of his past lives. Why he does that would be part of a much larger, longer discussion. I further note that he sometimes tells people where their loved ones will be reborn after death. He himself answers why he does this, in MN 68.8-9.

"What do you think, Anuruddha? What purpose does the Tathagata see
that when a disciple has died, he declares his reappearance thus:
'So-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place...'?"
"Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or
for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain,
honour, or renown, or with the thought, 'Let people know me to be
thus,' that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his
reappearance... Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen
inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that,
direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare
and happiness for a long time."

"That doesn't mean the Buddha is sure that rebirth is the cosmic order."  If you read MN 60, you'll see that he was actually sure of it.

@Danilo: Two noteworthy points about it: 1. it is the only place in all the suttas that the Buddha makes such a dogmatic statement, which makes it suspect on that point alone. 2. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes in his own subtle way in his translation of that sutta, the statement I'm calling the lone dogmatic one breaks the logic of the sutta by not being safe bet arguments. He says "It is noteworthy that the arguments in A2 and B2 are not safe-bet arguments, for they assume that A is wrong and B is right. Whether these arguments date from the Buddha or were added at a later date, no one knows."

I would argue that one lone dogmatic statement is not to be trusted as the Buddha's words, especially when it breaks the logic of the sutta -- he is much better at constructing arguments than that. It shows the fingerprints of a less-bright, later interloper.

That reads as very special pleading. Regarding sutta that contradict your position as inauthentic - simply because it contradicts your position - is not convincing.

@Yeshe Tenley. I didn't judge it as inauthentic "simply because it contradicts my position." I did so for the two reasons listed.

@YesheTenley Those arguments (i.e. "this is the only sutta where that's said", and, "that doesn't fit within the logic of this sutta") were among the arguments detailed in the paper which was referenced in this answer. That was a different topic entirely, but it shows that is a kind of argument which some modern scholars make, or a kind of argument available to scholars, to assess whether a element of doctrine might be original or perhaps added at some later date.

Ok. However, I think we should be humble and hesitant to deem suttas as inauthentic because it doesn't fit with our pre-conceived narratives. The western world often comes at the Dharma with biases and in a very arrogant way tries to retrofit the Dharma and the Buddha into storylines that make it easier for the westerner to digest.  They like to hold on to the conceit that they know better about how the world works than some thousands of year old Indian ascetics. BTW, I am a westerner and I recognize this in myself as well.

I remember vividly arguing with my Teacher (who is from Tibet) trying to explain Einstein's special theory of relativity while he gently laughed at me. I insisted that Einstein had made a great advance and showed how time and the speed of light are intimately related. He replied and pointed out that if that is true, is is very good but only conventionally true and I shouldn't get hung up on it. This made me annoyed thinking that this simple monk just couldn't understand a sophisticated western idea and appreciate it. Only much later did I realize how wrong I was.

FWIW, I do think this answer is the best one after Gabe's. This one is at least honest in admission about what the Buddha did teach and not a completely tortured reading of words, but it still reminds me of my own arrogance towards my Teacher.

@Linda Blanchard, Iti 70-71, MN 130 and MN 143 are a few other examples where you can see that he was actually sure of it. I also see another major misconception in your post when you assume that the monks were instructed to be kind in order to gain almsfood (check AN 5:159 and Ud 6:2)

@Danillo. Sorry, my rather dry humor often gets taken as me being literal -- I was partially kidding about the monks. As for the Buddha's many, many references to having seen beings rearising and passing on according to their actions, note my comment under the OP about writing a trilogy. The understanding I am working with has so much evidence for it that when I just discuss one aspect folks think I'm ignorant of the whole of the Buddha's work, or I'm cherry-picking. I am not.

Summary of  Trilogy: The Buddha uses the structure he built in Dependent Arising (DA) to create a lesson he could use throughout his teachings and interactions with others to describe via metaphor -- or something like a metaphor but too huge to fit in that word -- how and why we end up causing ourselves to suffer. On the surface DA looks like it is about the cycle of rebirth. It is not. When he talks about "rising and passing away" he is talking about DA.

@LindaBlanchard , These are some other important suttas: Iti 24 and SN 15:3

@Yeshe Tenley, re your comment about arrogance: duly noted. It is understandable, given that you don't know me, that you would assume I had pre-conceived ideas of what the Buddha taught,  that I would cherry-pick to make what I read fit those ideas. But the actual case is that I came to reading the suttas with only questions, no fixed expectations. I began from wanting there to be perfect support for the Theravadan view of the teachings. I was surprised that wasn't what I found.

@Yeshe Tenley: As for arrogance, I wonder if it is not arrogant to assume that any of the traditions have an undistorted understanding of what the Buddha taught. It seems to me a humble-enough approach, to come to the texts with an open and empty mind, to let them reveal what they say, and to test it with personal practice. My teacher is the Buddha of the oldest texts, and I am certainly humble before him. In fact, in awe.

Not sure if that would be arrogant, but I think it wouldn't be cautious. However, rebirth has been a prominent feature of discussion since the earliest records we have of what the Buddha taught. See Questions of (King) Milinda and such. In addition, every extent tradition agrees that the Buddha did in fact acknowledge rebirth. He did not rebut it.  I'd also note that the sutta in question in this OP and your answer to it does not have anything to do with DA by your own account.

As I've stated before, I was initially very skeptical about rebirth and had a very hard time understanding how to fit it to my earlier understanding of emptiness and anatman. Nevertheless, I was hesitant enough to not write it off but keep working at it as my teacher suggested. I'm very grateful and profoundly happy that I did so, because far from contradicting rebirth my now understanding of emptiness requires rebirth or at least requires the non-aggressive denial of it as a conventional truth. IOW, finally understanding rebirth helped inform my understanding of emptiness.

Denying the conventional truth of rebirth to me is akin to an illusory dreamer vehemently asserting that upon waking from the dream nothing whatsoever can subsequently be experienced. That the dreamer waking from the dream is tantamount to a complete annihilation of the world and all experience foreclosing any future world or experience.

Denying rebirth is akin to Ven. Yamaka saying "As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death." and this was rebuked precisely because it presupposes the true and reliable existence of the monk in the here and now where no such true reliable existence can be found.

To deny rebirth is to reify the self in the here and now.

I don't deny rebirth.

"Death" ("marana") does not happen to a Buddha (SN 22.85; MN 140; Dhp 21; etc ). The suttas say:

Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to
death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.
Dhp 21

Therefore, the word "death" ("marana") does not mean "physical death" or the "ending of life". In the suttas, the Noble Ones refer to the ending of life as "kālakiriyā" ('completion of time'). "Death" means the death of "a being" (SN 12.2). "A being" is a "self-view" (SN 5.10) or "strong attachment" (SN 23.2).
The word "body" ("kaya") means "collection" of "five aggregates" forming a "self-identity" ("sakkaya") that is the composition of an act of kamma or becoming - refer to MN 44.
The words "sugati" and "sagga" mean "a happy state" in a "happy place". It may not literally mean a heaven in the clouds or on another planet. For example, in SN 35.135, it is said:

You’re fortunate, mendicants, so very fortunate, to have the
opportunity to lead the spiritual life.
I’ve seen the heaven (saggā) called ‘the six fields of contact’.
There, whatever you experience is likable, not unlikable; desirable,
not undesirable; pleasant, not unpleasant.
SN 35.135

Therefore, the  meaning of AN 5.38 is: "When the collection of aggregates immersed in faith breaks up, after the death of the self-view of the faithful mind (which can have a temporary fear arise, which is why it is called 'death'), the faithful are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm, such as in a state of clear light mind samadhi".
But they are not yet an Arahant, which is why "after death" occurs. Therefore, AN 5.38 later says:

They teach them the Dhamma, that dispels all suffering.  Understanding this teaching, they’re extinguished without defilements.”

AN 5.38 does not say they teach them "rebirth" because "rebirth" cannot dispel all suffering.

In the Western, Christian world we teach young children that 'Santa Claus' watches over everyone, rewarding good children with presents on Christmas day, and punishing bad children with lumps of coal (and interestingly, no child ever seems to be punished; there are always presents under the tree in the morning...). Say what you like about it, good or bad, but it is what children can understand at their level. Children must grow into more sophisticated moral understandings.
If we read the remainder of the discourse, we find that the faithful person (the good person) becomes a refuge for 'monks, nuns, laywomen, and laymen', the way a great banyan tree at a crossroads becomes a refuge for birds and animals. What each needs it receives: those that need shade find shade; those that need fruit find fruit. And most importantly, these faithful people draw in the liberated, the wise, the undefiled: people who find in their faith and goodness a ripe field for planting the dharma. And then when the faithful person learns the dharma — grows and understands — she is "extinguished without defilements".
What happens to a tree when it falls and breaks apart? It has spread its seed; it has prepared the ground with its own life; a new tree rises in its place to fill its place. Is there more to ask than that? People need more reassurance than a tree, though, at least until they understand.

Are you equating this sutta to the Buddha instructing monks to preach the equivalent of Santa Claus? That poor Indian people are like children in their understanding?

@YesheTenley: Every person is like a child in the greater world: caught in fantasies and beliefs, asking endless curious questions, strutting over every success and crying over every failure.... Dukkha and tanhā are child's games that we've forgotten belong in the world of children. When we realize that, we can start to put them aside.

I agree for the most part. It's just that denying the conventional truth of rebirth - the western conceit - is the more childish and acknowledging it as the Buddha attested the more mature.

@YesheTenley: It isn't my intent to confirm or deny the facticity of rebirth, and I don't believe I did that in what I wrote. But the concept of rebirth... Well, that's a mental construct as subject to attachments and misperceptions as any other mental construct. If we grant that the Buddha attested to it, must we also grant that we (much less novices and laity) understand precisely what he was pointing at?

@YesheTenley: Whatever the facts of the matter — and whatever we choose to hold as true — the path is the same. All that changes is our expectations.

All very true and wise words @Ted Wrigley

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Can brain injured people progress in meditation?
I don't mean disrespect to anyone else with this question, I'm asking on my own behalf as someone with neurological & psychological problems caused by a brain injury at a young age. I know all brain injuries etc are different too, and I guess this question also relates to neurodivergent people.
My injury affects my memory, ability to concentrate, intrusive thoughts, emotional stability, ability to hear, and also makes it much more difficult to hold good posture for any length of time (15 mins is the best I can do after practicing for years)- having (or not having) these things are required to meditate properly, right?
Can someone with normal intelligence, but whose brain is injured, practice meditation effectively? Or will I hit a "glass ceiling" where my missing function limits my ability to progress? I've seen some benefits from meditation in the long term, but I worry that only someone with a healthy brain can meditate "properly".
Did Buddha say anything about practicing while disabled?
metta

Thank you for this question.
First of all - meditation is not depend on intelligence - actually there's a verse in the Dhammapada (sorry, I forgot which one, will add it when I find it) which tells about 2 brothers, one of low intelligence and one of high intelligence. The brother with low intelligence progresses faster in meditation practice due to not having too many thoughts and reflections. Intellectual thinking has nothing to do with meditation and won't get you anywhere.
It's about passive, impartial observation of the mind and it's habitual tendencies and reactions (Vipassana meditation). That will lead to understanding and insights, namely into the Three Marks of Existence which is the gateway to Liberation.
What kind of meditation are you practicing now? Do you have a teacher? I highly recommend finding a teacher that can guide you one-on-one either in person or via the internet. Please see Ruben's post for info on the Buddhist monk Ven. Yuttadhammo.
Now regarding the brain injury and the challenges you face - that's not really a problem as long as you can practice a little. You mention 15 minutes - that's great! Maybe start with 5 minutes and try to keep your posture. Posture is not that important you just shouldn't be slouching too much or sitting too straight. Somewhere in between. The Buddha said that even a moment of mindfulness is better than 100 years of mindlessness. What that means is that it's not important how long you meditate - what's important is the quality of the mind. One can meditate for 2 hours but only be mindful for 30 minutes of that time. That's not useful. So try to think of it as quality over quantity.
Again, I highly recommend finding a teacher to guide on the path.
Lastly, don't be too hard on yourself. You have a good Karma by being able to be born as a human being (very rare) and to meet with the Dhamma in this life and being able to practice. Right now you are laying the foundation blocks for future lives. Enlightenment is something that takes many lifetimes for the majority of people. So don't bother with results or how long you can sit for. Just do what you can now and be happy with it.
Also you can be mindful in daily life when going about your day. The formal practice (cushion practice) is meant to bridge mindfulness into your daily life. It's not useful if you are only mindful on the cushion but unmindful in daily life. Try to be mindful when doing the dishes, taking a shower, brushing your teeth etc. That's where the real practice lies.
Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Bhikkhus, possessing three qualities, a bhikkhu is practicing the unmistaken way and has laid the groundwork for the destruction of the taints. What three? Here, a bhikkhu guards the doors of the sense faculties, observes moderation in eating, and is intent on wakefulness.

You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop...

Clearly seeing that which is present without grasping with wrong view.
One should use that very intelligence to think good thoughts

According to theravadin comy: a good thought deserves to be distinguished [as a good state] on three grounds;
For it fabricates a good state; from the maturity of the faculties it involves; and from the remoteness of mental and moral infirmity which it implies.

The power of concentration is supported by the other 4 spiritual faculties

wisdom which is knowledge, understanding, right views, non confusion, etc
effort which is striving, exertion of effort and non complacency
mindfulness which is rememberence, the opposite of obliviousness
conviction which is the approving and being agreement

A person has some dominant faculties and some need more work.
Also take for instance a sotapanna, his wisdom faculty is fully developed but he has work to do in regards to concentration, he becomes distracted due to his conditioning and has work to do in regards to that heedlessness.
My advice is to focus on the basics and build on that rather than trying to do some special meditative absorbtions for a start.
I don't think anybody knows what you can and can't achieve but i think we will agree that you can do good for yourself and grow in that.
I would also advise to learn a lot and try developing many practices outlined in the texts; this will make your training versatile and easier to balance. Then you could ie train short sessions of this or that contemplation development & often reflect on healthy themes.
Eventually due to that frequent giving of attention your mind will be inclined to think along those lines and the wrong thought pathways will eventually get the atrophy.
My opinion is that having strong good wits is more important that meditative absorbtion in general.

Sir, I’m not all right, I’m not getting by. My pain is terrible and growing, not fading, its growing is evident, not its fading.”
“I hope you don’t have any remorse or regret?”
“Indeed, sir, I have no little remorse and regret.”
“I hope you have no reason to blame yourself when it comes to ethical conduct?”
“No sir, I have no reason to blame myself when it comes to ethical conduct.”
“In that case, Assaji, why do you have remorse and regret?”
“Sir, before my time of illness I meditated having completely stilled the physical process. But now I can’t get immersion. Since I can’t get immersion, I think: ‘May I not decline!’”
“Assaji, there are ascetics and brahmins for whom samādhi is the essence, equating immersion with the ascetic life. They think: ‘May we not decline!’
What do you think, Assaji? Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.” …
“Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?” …
“So you should truly see … Seeing this … They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’


text:
Is this considered sexual misconduct?
If a person have a small Buddha statue in their room and they (sorry) masturbated in that room, is it considered sexual misconduct?
Sorry if this question is unappropiate.

Not at all. I've been known to stick googly eyes on my Buddha statue! I sometimes use it as a hat rest too. Sexual misconduct involves how you present your sexual escapades in the presence of other people; for instance, forcing yourself onto another or manipulating others into sexual relations. I'm sure there are other definitions.

No. Unskillful bodily action, which encompasses sexual misconduct as it pertains to the five precepts of the laity, was defined by the Buddha thusly:

He engages in sexual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made impure in three ways by bodily action.
– AN 10:165

The main point, it seems, as with most things pertaining to the ethics of lay people, is to refrain from causing harm. Would you cause suffering to yourself or to another living being by engaging in a certain sexual act? If so, then that is unskillful. This view is supported by AN 8:39, in which the Buddha explains that the reasoning behind the precepts is that by behaving within those guidelines, one gives "freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings."
Now, what is considered misconduct for monks and nuns is a different matter. Should you be curious about that, I'd encourage you to read the Pāṭimokkha. In that case, just as a tangential point, the unskillfulness doesn't seem to be about disrespect to the Buddha, but just about the fact that engaging in the act of masturbation obstructs one from shedding one's clinging to bodily pleasure.
With Metta.

If a person have a small Buddha statue in their room and they (sorry) masturbated in that room, is it considered sexual misconduct?

No, it's not.
The 3rd Precept is only broken if 2 conditions are met, namely:

sevanacittam -- the intention to have sexual intercourse.
maggena maggap-pati-padanam - sexual contact through any one of the 'paths' (i.e., genitals, anus or mouth)


text:
Two Truths in Mahayana
There are Two Truths in Mahayana Buddhism Conventional and Ultimate. I can't understand how it works. For example: Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?

Please check the linked questions - do they answer your question? If not, how is your question different?

Thank you, I have read it all for a long time, but I have misunderstandings.
For example:
Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache.
But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?

I reopened the question after Yeshe Tenley's edit. The "linked questions" from ruben2020's comment were, What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy? -- Conventional versus Ultimate -- Are either of the two truths Truths (Satya)?

Someone who has realized the Absolute (or Ultimate) Truth will not see headache as something "wrong" that can be "fixed" with two pills of ibuprofen.
Realizing Absolute Truth means we don't look at things naively at the surface level anymore, instead we see how they are interconnected and interdependent.
In this example, looking at headache from the perspective of the Absolute Truth, we will see that pain by itself is not bad, it's not a problem - it's just a signal, a piece of information that comes from some source.
Headache is a sign that something we did to ourselves is not quite right. It's a symptom of an underlying condition that should be identified and dealt with at its root, instead of suppressing the symptoms.
When we understand Absolute Truth we see that everything is the way it should have been. We see that in some sense everything is perfect, because everything happens for a reason, everything has its place and its season. At the same time, once we know Absolute Truth we don't doubt the law of karma. If you drink too much alcohol - you will hangover because your body is poisoned, and taking ibuprofen won't fix that.
Absolute Truth is the ultimate big picture view. When you look from afar, some things that seemed important because they were so close up - turn out to be unimportant, while other things that were too abstract and too subtle become obvious.

The first thing to resolving your confusion is to understand what Madhyamakas mean when they start talking about "absolute truth" vs regular ordinary truth. And in these contexts Madhyamakas regard "absolute truth" as that which is arrived at when you go looking for the absolute i.e., when you start analyzing with logic and reason what is the absolute nature of things. It doesn't matter if the things you are looking for are persons, chariots, chairs, headaches, etc. If you take any of these things and then ask the questions, "What is the absolute nature of these things? How do these things exist? How do they arise? How do they cease?" and try to find answers by analyzing using logic and reason, whatever conclusion you come to about these questions after thorough analysis, that is what is regarded as the absolute truth. Absolute truth and Ultimate truth here refer to the same thing.
This is the procedure that Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and the Madhyamaka sages layout in their famous treatises and commentaries. They begin with a thing and ask how does it arise? How does it come into being? How does it cease? And then the claim is made (using logic and reason) that if these things truly arise, then they must arise in one of four ways:

They could arise from self
They could arise from other
They could arise from self+other
They could arise from neither

Those four exhaust all the possible ways in which something could truly arise. Then they look at each of these four ways and ponder if any of them are sufficient and make logical sense. When analyzing thoroughly with logic and reason it is found that NONE of those four work out. They all lead to some logical fallacy, inconsistency, circular reasoning or absurdity. The result of looking for the absolute truth in how these things truly arise is nothing. They do not arise in any of those four ways, yet those four ways exhaust the ways in which things can truly arise. When you analyze thoroughly how things arise you come up empty.
It is this very fact, that you come up empty when trying to analyze how things truly exist with logic and reason, that is then labeled: "the absolute truth."

Now, some people grow very upset with this. They look at the above and say, "if that is true then nothing exists!" which is nihilism. It simply isn't true that nothing exists. But that truth, that things exist, is a conventional one and not an absolute one. When you go looking for the absolute truth about how things exist you find nothing.

There is conventional truth. Which is not based on logic and
reason analyzing how things exist and trying to uncover the absolute
nature of things.
There is the absolute/ultimate truth. This is what you arrive at when using
logic and reason analyzing how things exist and trying to uncover
the absolute nature of things. And the result is empty. None of the
four ways in which things might truly exist can be found.

These are the two truths.
Let me know if this helps! If you wish I can provide references and citations from Sutra, Nagarjuna's treatise and the commentaries. Let me know if you want any of these things or if they would be helpful.

"Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the "absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?"
Now to apply the above to your question. According to the absolute truth when one of these Mahayana Buddhists, who has realized the absolute nature of things, perceives the headache they understand that that headache does not truly exist. They realize this because they have gone looking, again and again, for a truly existing headache using logic and reason and have come up empty again and again. They have analyzed it to exhaustion looking for a truly existent headache and can not find one. It exists merely by convention and being labeled. There is no truly existing headache that can be found. Which isn't to say the headache does not exist. It exists conventionally. That is all.

Thank you! Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache, he really have a headache, but according to the absolute truth, the pain does not exist in itself, but is a consequence of causes and conditions. That's right?

You could say this yes. The headache is not an inherently existing headache. When you analyze the headache with logic and reason trying to find some true existence of the headache you come up short. The headache is a merely conventionally existing headache.

Thank you! Can I have one more question? That is, according to the absolute truth, a Buddhist's headache is just an inflammation of the nerves in his head that creates a feeling of pain?

No. That is also a conventional truth. The absolute truth is that when you analyze looking for the true existence of a headache you will fail. The true existence of a headache can not be found.

So, after you have analyzed and found that there is no true existence of the headache, does it then go away and your suffering is ended? How does this realization contribute to the ending of suffering?

@ruben2020 Perhaps I asked that question here: What is the purpose of the Mahayana 'emptiness' doctrine?

@ruben2020 you can see this answer towards the end that addresses this https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/44555/13375 Let me know if you think it could/should be clarified or improved.

@YesheTenley Do I still feel and endure the headache after realizing its emptiness?

If you’re a sentient being then yes of course you do.

Aren't there some in the Mahayana tradition who say that the "things" of conventional speech (like headaches) do exist in some sense, it's just that they only exist in relation to other things, with no intrinsic non-relational qualities (no self-nature)? Think of Indra's net which was especially discussed in Huayan Buddhism.

(cont.) This perspective can also be combined with a sort of 4-dimensional perspective where past things and future things are equally real so nothing ever comes into existence, or goes out. The Vaibhāṣika tradition in particular articulated a doctrine like this, basically similar to what Western philosophers call the eternalist position in philosophy of time (not to be confused with the notion of eternalism vs. nihilism about selves and objects in Buddhism)

Mahayana's do say that the "things" of conventional speech exist in some sense and this is what this answer says as well! Is this not clear?

Also, this answer is about Madhyamika Mahayana. The Vaibhāṣika tenet school was not Madhyamika and so no doubt they would not agree with this answer.

My point was just that this seems to be a diff. way things can "truly exist"--not coming into being or going out, not have any inherent self-nature, existing only as part of a network of relations like the jewels of Indra's net (some Huayan texts also use the analogy of the numbers in arithmetic, which can only be defined in relation to one another, and which are also 'timeless' in a sense). I didn't catch that you were restricting your comment to Madhyamika, but since the question was about Mahayana in general the OP might find this way of thinking about the issue to be of interest as well.

@Hypnosifl do you agree that a truly existing headache must arise in one of the four ways listed above? if so, then which of those four correspond to "like the jewels of Indra's net"?

The way I think of the Indra's net perspective (related to 'paratantra' in the Yogacara teachings of the three natures), the notion of entities 'arising' in the sense of coming into being (or going out of it) belongs only to the conventional perspective, in reality all things past, present and future have the same kind of being (purely as a part of a network of relations, with no intrinsic nature). Past things, like a headache experienced years ago, have not ceased to exist, and future things are not yet to exist.

So in this view you're saying that headaches are merely conventionally existent, but not truly existent... and that the only truly existent thing is this "Indra's net" which is a "network of relations with no intrinsic nature" which is also outside of time in some way? In this view you'd equate the two truths with 1) merely conventional existent truths 2) ultimate truth of indra's net?

This may just be a matter of language, but I would say headaches are truly existent, just not in the particular way we think of "things" in conventional thought (as having their own intrinsic or essential nature, capable of being conceptually severed from the rest of reality).

As for time, I'd say that temporal relations between momentary events or processes (like the headache) are real, but there is no need to posit that past things have ceased to exist or present things don't yet exist--as I mentioned, in western philos. this view is known as eternalism, as opposed to presentism, and some branches of the Sarvāstivāda school of Buddhism have advocated this way of thinking about time (I think it's also implicit in Huayan ideas about 'totality')

In Huayan Buddhism I think there would be a distinction between the notion of the network of phenomena (Indra's net) which exist in an entirely interdependent way, all empty of self-nature, and "The Absolute" which is more like the principle of emptiness itself. So maybe I'm wrong to equate Absolute Truth with Indra's net itself, but my understanding is that they're not saying that things "don't exist" from the Absolute perspective. See for ex. the quote from Cook on p. 59 of http://dharma-rain.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Hua_Yen_Buddhism_Emptiness_Identity_Inte.pdf

Absolutely:

DN34:1.2.11: What one thing should be given up?
DN34:1.2.12: The conceit ‘I am’.

Having given up on identity, the second Buddhist might well respond by brewing a cup of tea with honey, saying, "here is some tea for that headache."

absolute truth is any existing thing that when you look at it matches how it exists.
the only thing like that is the absence of impossible ways of existing ie. emptiness.  emptiness is the only thing that matches the way it appears and how it exists.

Hello and welcome to the forum! I believe what you are describing is the definition of something being “real” rather than absolute truth.

a real thing is any validly perceivable thing.  this is quite different to an object that appears equally with how it exists, which only emptiness can

Hi bw tho, what branch of Tibetan Buddhism do you study? I am giving the account of the Gelug branch, but I suppose it is possible we might be using different terminology?

I take my definition of real from Tsongkhapa and Chandrakirti as explained here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26061/13375

Note: @Tenzin Dorje in the comments to that answer defines real according to the Gelug Prasangika and he is a monk who has studied under Geshe masters from Sera Je so I think his answer is in accord with the def. of “real” as taught by Sera Je monastery in Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism.

You’ll also find in that conversation the def. of absolute truth being that which is found by a mind analyzing the ultimate and this comes directly from Chandrakirti I believe and is affirmed by Tsongkhapa. I can find references if you like.

im gelug also.  being found by analyzing the ultimate is a different way of saying the way something appears and the way it exists match and is therefore an ultimate truth since nothing is concealed


text:
Are there any stories dealing with stalkers or people who violate boundaries in seeking to grow close in the texts?
Have you come accross anything that deals with stalking behavior in the texts?
Looking for something where one is stalked by another but anything close to the theme is good enough.

Is the Bikkhuni Sutta an example of stalking behaviour?

I am thinking more of people obsessively bothering others thinking they have some sort of relstionship or seeking to have a relationship. The Buddha says there is no fellowship with fools but what if a fool is not letting it go and is using intimidation & is acting crazy.

There is a place where the Buddha says that one ought not leave a person who is beneficial to one's training even if being chased away with a stick but i am interested in how to deal with a person who is ought to be chased away with a stick basically.

I recall reading a section in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's book The Buddha Smiles, in which a monk sought out a nun in the forest. He was delirious with sensual passion for her. The nun remedied the situation through a compassionate understanding, pulled out her eyeball and gave it to him, which drained away his desires. Not sure if that's close enough. I think the Buddha was involved in the story and that it was more of a symbolic gesture to paṭikkūlamanasikāra. I can provide an answer it appeals to you?

This story of a Zen nun -- https://itstheliar.wordpress.com/2020/09/17/love-openly/ -- is slightly similar ("She even bruised her face with a hot poker so as to diminish her beauty"). And https://ashidakim.com/zenkoans/6noloving-kindness.html from the same collection. "Intimidation" though -- there are are all those stories featuring Mara. And I guess a homeless monk might walk away himself, and so needn't chase away.

@Neuromax I am familiar with the story of Ven. Subha poking out her eye, an answer would be good.

@Chrisw cheers will take a look at these

Subha is a nun who has gone forth to the holy life. She seems to make it quite obvious that she has completely cut-off all fetters. As she wonders the mango grove, a rogue taunts her with various seductions expressed through a ridiculous procession of flowery, poetic language and overly exuberant and flamboyant promises; forthright and persistent in his endeavours, he is like a duckling following its mother. I think this might define stalking.
NOTE: I recommend reading this from the link because what I pasted here does not follow the right formatting rules. In short, it reads better from the link.

Khuddaka Nikāya - Thig 14
As Subhā the nun was going through Jīvaka’s delightful mango grove, a
libertine (a goldsmith’s son) blocked her path, so she said to him:
‘What wrong have I done you
that you stand in my way?
It’s not proper, my friend,
that a man should touch
a woman gone forth.
I respect the Master’s message,
the training pointed out by the One Well-Gone.
I am pure, without blemish:
Why do you stand in my way?
You—your mind agitated, impassioned;
I—unagitated, unimpassioned,
with a mind entirely freed:
Why do you stand in my way?’
‘You are young & not bad-looking,
what need do you have for going forth?
Throw off your ochre robe—
Come, let’s delight in the flowering grove.
A sweetness they exude everywhere,
the trees risen-up with their pollen.
The beginning of spring is a pleasant season—
Come, let’s delight in the flowering grove.
The trees with their blossoming tips
moan, as it were, in the breeze:
What delight will you have
if you plunge into the grove alone?
Frequented by herds of wild beasts,
disturbed by elephants rutting & aroused:
You want to go
unaccompanied
into the great, lonely, frightening grove?
Like a doll made of gold, you will go about,
like a goddess in the gardens of heaven.
With delicate, smooth Kāsī fabrics,
you will shine, O beauty without compare.
I would gladly do your every bidding
if we were to dwell in the glade.
For there is no creature dearer to me
than you, O nymph with the languid regard.
If you do as I ask, happy, come live in my house.
Dwelling in the calm of a palace,
have women wait on you,
wear delicate Kāsī fabrics,
adorn yourself with garlands & creams.
I will make you many & varied ornaments
of gold, jewels, & pearls.
Climb onto a costly bed,
scented with sandalwood carvings,
with a well-washed coverlet, beautiful,
spread with a woolen quilt, brand new.
Like a blue lotus rising from the water
where no human beings dwell,
you will go to old age with your limbs unseen,
if you stay as you are in the holy life.’
‘What do you assume of any essence,
here in this cemetery grower, filled with corpses,
this body destined to break up?
What do you see when you look at me,
you who are out of your mind?’
‘Your eyes are like those of a fawn,
like those of a sprite in the mountains.
Seeing your eyes, my sensual delight
grows all the more.
Like tips they are, of blue lotuses,
in your golden face
—spotless:
Seeing your eyes, my sensual delight
grows all the more.
Even if you should go far away,
I will think only of your pure,
long-lashed gaze,
for there is nothing dearer to me
than your eyes, O nymph with the languid regard.’
‘You want to stray from the road,
you want the moon as a plaything,
you want to jump over Mount Sineru,
you who have designs on one born of the Buddha.
For there is nothing anywhere at all
in the cosmos with its devas,
that would be an object of passion for me.
I don’t even know what that passion would be,
for it’s been killed, root & all, by the path.
Like embers from a pit—scattered,
like a bowl of poison—evaporated,
I don’t even see what that passion would be,
for it’s been killed, root & all, by the path.
Try to seduce one who hasn’t reflected on this,
or who has not followed the Master’s teaching.
But try it with this one who knows
and you suffer.
For in the midst of praise & blame,
pleasure & pain,
my mindfulness stands firm.
Knowing the unattractiveness
of things compounded,
my mind cleaves to nothing at all.
I am a follower of the One Well-Gone,
riding the vehicle of the eightfold way:
My arrow removed, effluent-free,
I delight, having gone to an empty dwelling.
For I have seen well-painted puppets,
hitched up with sticks & strings,
made to dance in various ways.
When the sticks & strings are removed,
thrown away, scattered, shredded,
smashed into pieces, not to be found,
in what will the mind there make its home?
This body of mine, which is just like that,
when devoid of dhammas doesn’t function.
When, devoid of dhammas, it doesn’t function,
in what will the mind there make its home?
Like a mural you’ve seen, painted on a wall,
smeared with yellow orpiment,
there your vision has been distorted,
your perception1 of a human being—pointless.
Like an evaporated mirage,
like a tree of gold in a dream,
like a magic show in the midst of a crowd—
you run blind after what is unreal.
Resembling a ball of sealing wax,
set in a hollow,
with a bubble in the middle
and bathed with tears,
eye secretions are born there too:
The parts of the eye
are rolled all together
in various ways.’
Plucking out her lovely eye,
with mind unattached
she felt no regret.
‘Here, take this eye. It’s yours.’
Straightaway she gave it to him.
Straightaway his passion faded right there,
and he begged her forgiveness:
‘Be well, follower of the holy life.
This sort of thing
won’t happen again.
Harming a person like you
is like embracing a blazing fire.
It’s as if I have seized a poisonous snake.
So may you be well. Forgive me.’
And released from there, the nun
went to the excellent Buddha’s presence.
When she saw the mark of his excellent merit,
her eye became
as it was before.


text:
Does imagination also create kamma?
What is the difference between imagination and intent?
Does imagination also create kamma?
Can someone help me explain this in simpler terms?

Mental activity is, too, a type of activity.
This includes thinking, imagination, mulling over ideas, cultivating certain mind states and suppressing others.
Repeated thinking on some topic (including imagination) habituates the mind to that theme. Habituation affects the mind's tendencies and dispositions.
Metta meditation works by changing the mind's habits. Imagination is a simple brother of meditation, so it works similarly just at a more crude level.
Karma is not something magical, it only seems magical when you don't understand how it works. It works simply by creating latent causes that change the odds of certain things happening or not happening.
Mental activity such as imagination is yet another source of such latent causes.

There is that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect, it arises as one thing and ceases as another. This element is thought to conceive & perceive the world in the world.
Conception is creation and creation is thought of as an act, intending one acts. Therefore kamma is the six classes of intention; in regards to the eye, nose, ear, tongue, body or intellect.
Sutta expression

That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline.
And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world . The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world.
SN 35.116

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. ...
"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
AN 6.63

"And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications.
SN 22.57

Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
SN 12.44

What's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
SN 12.61

“Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the seamstress, for craving weaves one to this or that kind of becoming.
AN 6.61

Mind precedes fabricated things; Mind directs them, they are mind-made.


text:
Did buddha accepted Brahman?
Did buddha accepted Brahman. The supreme reality according to hindusim.
Or any perfect Supreme God.

I think this is a duplicate of several previous questions tagged [tag:god].

Buddha gave a teaching to Maha-Brahma, so yes: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html (this article summarises material from the Pali Brahmajala Sutta). Buddha gave an account that the cosmos is eternal, and there can have been no one Creator, or supreme consciousness. Compare though, to the Dharmakaya.


text:
How is 'Chanda' (Intention) related to 'Tanha' (Desire)?
How is 'Chanda' (Intention)  related to 'Tanha' (Desire)?
I often hear that Karma is determined by intention. I want to know how they are all related. What comes first? What gets abandoned in meditation and Nirvana?
I know of a YouTuber who claims to have gotten Nirvana, but he said after some time he had to train himself to purposefully generate an intention to talk and explain things to other people. So did he also have a prior desire to help other people? How this three work for Enlightened people and seekers?

Chanda is a reason for Tanha. Ignorance (Avidya) is the cause for Chanda means it's the cause for Tanha. Then Tanha causes to increases the Chanda's density towards something.
Nirvana is understanding Chanda towards something is a useless thing. As nothing in this world is going to satisfy the intention (Chanda) the living beings have. That's why no one can reach ultimate satisfaction. If someone reaches ultimate satisfaction there's nothing he/she needs to do further as he/she is already satisfied. The person who doesn't want anything (as he is ultimately satisfied) is the person who obtained Nirvana.
Someone who obtained Nirvana has limitless metta (loving / kindness) towards the living beans. Due to that reason, they may try to share the path to Nirvana with others.

I often hear that Karma is determined by intention. I want to know how they are all related. What comes first? What gets abandoned in meditation and Nirvana?

Intention is kamma. It is not the only thing that is thought of as kamma. Intending one perceives, intending one conceives.
Origin of kamma is contact.
Contact is one end, origin of contact is the other end, cessation of contact is the middle and craving is the seamstress because it weaves one to this or that state of existence which is discerned in dependence on contact.


text:
Is this considered wrong? (Related to art)
I have a question. I like to draw, and recently think of selling my art (commisssion). But I mainly draw fanart (fanart of celebrities, movie characters, etc).
My question is, in Buddhism, is selling our drawing of real life people (celebrities, famous people) considered wrong? As in 'using' their popularity for us to gain profit?

Why would you think that?
You should read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path#Right_livelihood The core guidance is don't go against the lay-precepts, or directly contribute to others doing so (eg arms dealing).
The supplimentary guidance is try to work towards livelihood that is beneficial and ennobling. Excessive focus on idols may be a problem, but recognising & celebrating people for good reasons, can help champion good behaviours.

@ruben2020 , This sutta: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN9_14.html implies that "not take what is not given" is more than just "not steal"

@Danilo that's a good argument. Then I'll reopen it.

Are you disrespecting the celebrity?

The 18 primary root downfalls of the bodhisattva vows are:[5]
1 . Praising ourselves and/or belittling others

If it's your job and you're good at it you can make use of those skills as a Ngakpa.
If you think it's not fair for the celebrities you can ask them. Is it illegal what you're doing? Does your work benefits anyone even if it's only in terms of income?
There are many jobs and that's your's. If it's social acceptable and moral then it's a normal job.
You can make it as if it's renunciation if you donate part to dharma or if you draw buddhas also/instead. Drawing thangkas after doing mantras and/or study thangka art maybe it seems great for you and fun. It's very good karma.

The art you draw evokes emotion within others. Now there is no profession that is 'correct' according to Buddhism, which is why Buddha advocated homelessness.
Even farming, which is considered harmless; kills insects, scares away animals, destroys habitats etc...
Selling artwork of people won't be considered unethical neither does it fall to the 5 categories of wrong livelihood (Dealing with weapons, poisons, slaves, animals (meat), intoxicants).
You should draw in a way that does not create too many defilements (Eg: Lust) in the viewer. It should be fine if you adopt a moral lifestyle and follow the 8 fold path earnestly.

A case can be made for someone involved with art as maybe being to some extent & on that account 'intoxicated' with living & pleasant forms. As being heedless in regards to developing his good qualities & at that time not focusing on the theme of renunciation, on the unattractive, on the danger & loathsomeness of existent phenomena; and making others heedless & infatuated with living.
A producer of sensual pleasure basically. Trading in sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasures corrupt people.
However it's not like one is selling drugs or weapons. The harm to oneself and others can be relatively trifling for this or that person. I think it's closer to baking cakes.
Household life is problematic in general and one's household trade is best be closest to trading simple crafted goods or attending to good people. The Anagami householders in the texts, as far as i can tell, were either being lay attendents to The Buddha & The Sangha or making clay pots and trading those for essential requisites, not using money.
Their lifestyle too isn't ideal because it falls short of going forth into homelessness. The Anagamis i have in mind did not go forth because of sick parents.