text:
What is Navayana Buddhism?
Recently, I found out there is a new branch of Buddhism called the Navayana.  I read the article on Wikipedia but it did not say too much.  What is Navayana Buddhism and what type of practices does it follow like meditations, sutras, or tantras?  How does a Navayana Buddhist relate to Buddhist of different schools?

It is a radical version of Buddhism propounded by Ambedkar. It is politically motivated and is not as tolerant as say vajrayana buddhism.

Navayana is a proposed fourth major branch of Buddhism after Hinayana (sorry not a great term), Mahayana and Vajrayana. I believe it is a term claimed by the Dalit Buddhist movement which I am most familiar with in the context of Dr Ambedkar - in fact I recently have heard the movement is called Ambedkerism.
The Buddhist Centre that I practice with is a Triratna Buddhist Centre. Like Ambedkerism it sees itself as a reforming movement tailored to the concerns of modern society. The definition of the movements aims is very similar to our own (quoting from here)

[Ambedkerism] espouse an eclectic version of Buddhism, primarily based
  on Theravada, but with additional influences from Mahayana and
  Vajrayana. On many subjects, they give Buddhism a distinctive
  interpretation

Moreover the Indian branches of the Triratna movement see themselves as continuing the work of  Dr Ambedkar. One of the major Triratna charities, the Karuna Trust, was set up to support this work.
The point is this - I practice in a context explicitly linked to Ambedkerism and therefore according to Wikipedia in a Navayana context. However I haven't heard of this term used but I do believe the concept has meaning and merit so I'm basing my answer on that.
The key point to Triratna/Ambedkerism and therefore Navayana is a return to the roots of Buddhism and a distillation of the previous yanas to potentially create a new form of Buddhism. Though radical, I don't think this should come as surprising or shocking because ...

When Buddhism comes into contact with a new culture it changes.
a. Buddhism + Tao = Ch'an.
b. Buddhism + Bon = Tibetan.
c. Buddhist + (Western?) liberal humanism = ????
This is the first time in history when all the scriptures, commentaries etc.. are easily available. The work isn't finished but new stuff is coming into the Western domain all the time. That's new - so is something new going to happen?

I think it's work in progress so what it looks like in the end is still up in the air. There are a lot of people doing new things and revisiting Buddhism generally - some of them hang around on this site. Secular Buddhism, Daniel Ingram's taboo busting, Engaged Buddhism's social activism, Triratna synthesis of Theravada with Mahayana and Vajrayana, the Insight Meditation Society - lots of things are happening.
I don't know if this answers the questions but I feel it's changing, will continue to change and let's see what happens next.

Can the term "Hinayana" not be replaced by "Therevada"? I understood Hinayana is usually used as a derogatory term.

@DirkM I think you are right but am not sure "Therevada is a replacement. I've asked the question http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2271/157

Theravada cannot be a replacement for Hinayana since the former is just one of the many Hinayana branches. Unfortunately all the Hinayana branches except Theravada are extinct today. This gives the wrong impression that Theravada is "the" Hinayana. Akira Hirakawa has used the term Nikaya Buddhism as a replacement for Hinayana.

@DirkM and Soumen Here word 'Hin' means 'smaller' and not derogate. "Hīnayāna" (/ˌhiːnəˈjɑːnə/) is a Sanskrit term literally meaning the "inferior vehicle". So 'Hinyana' can be replaced by 'Thervada'.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Navayana Buddhism is critical and radical movement towards building new society which is devoid of caste, class and other forms of inequality: a society which practices liberty, equality and fraternity in its true spirit based on Dhamma alternative to marxist ideology.
For more understanding read Buddha or Karl Marx on the ambedkar.org web site.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

As everybody knows, there are lots of ancient scriptures regarding buddha and buddhism to understand: which needs deep thinking critically with logic and reason, which is difficult for the common people; and again buddhism got divided in to mahayana, hinayana, vajrayana which are complementary to each other.
So that followers of Ambedkar would not to get deviated with sub-sectional buddhisms, he taught his followers to follow the original teachings of Buddha: which can equated with peace, dhamma, nonviolence, liberty, equality, fraternity, democracy, and justice; and finally he gave a name, "Navayana", which means new way. It looks like the french and russian revolutions mixed together but it's not. To have a clear view, read The Buddha and His Dhamma; and  read about Ambedkar, to understand how Navayana took its birth, and what's the purpose of this interpretation.
And finally Ambedkar?? What Ambedkar is for untouchables of India can be compared what Jesus is for Christians.

a lot of issues with your post:
1: Hinayana being complemetentary
2: Equating Buddhas teaching to arbitary terms without real life references like democracy, equality, liberty and justice.
I hope nobody takes those statements seriously.

@Inb4dead Although I have not read Dr. Ambedkar's books, it would not surprise me if did say something about democracy and so on, in his explanation[s] of "Navayana". You must please avoid criticising other Buddhist sects on this site, especially here where "Navayana" is the actual subject of this topic (of this question-and-answer). Because it explained what "Navayana" is, I thought this was a good answer.

In between traditions it would be a good idea to for example ban the term Hinayana, as it is obviously and undoubtedly deregatory term. How is this not offensive, the term Hinayana is offensive and you should expect reactions every time. Saying Hinayana is a way to invalidate, offend and slander my religion.

this is basic Buddhist history, unless you are trying to make a safe-space for non orthodoxy there should be protection against talking shit about Theravadins too.

Namo Buddhaya. I am a "Navayana" Buddhist from India. Don't completely get misled by google. "Navayana" tradition is a improvised form of "Theravāda", "Mahāyāna", and "Sarvāstivāda" traditions of Buddhism. Bodhisattva Dr. Ambedkar only tried to change a few explanations of few doctrines so that it is logical. It is heavily influenced by "Theravāda" and also has few teachinggs from "Mahāyāna". The holy texts for "Navayana" Buddhists is the "Pali Canon" and the "Buddha And His Dhamma" of which the other one is authored by Dr. Ambedkar. Since, the "Buddha And His Dhamma" has chapters based on "Sutta Pitaka", "Vinaya Pitaka" and some are based on "Mahayana Sutra", I can say "Navayāna" is heavily influenced by "Theravāda" but it  has also borrowed some concepts like "Bodhisattva" from "Mahāyāna" tradition. The differences between "Navayāna" tradition and other traditions are : the real reason why Prince Siddhartha took Parivraja, the logical and scientific teaching of karma and rebirth prescribed by Buddha, the truth about Four Noble Truths taught by Buddha, and the objective of Buddha for creating a Bhikkhu.

To put it simply, it's not Buddhism. It's more of communism where Lenix, Marx, etc. have been replaced by Buddha's figure. Buddha has almost no role other than being a figure. Because B.R. Ambedkar clearly rejected 4 noble truths, Nibbana, etc. as explained by Buddha & interpreted them in light of politics only. Below are the salient points of Ambedkar's-ism taken from Rouledge Handbook of Contemporary India (from Wikipedia) & here or more authoritatively, from here as pointed by @ChrisW.
Buddhas'parivaja -

The Buddhist tradition believes that the Buddha one day saw a sick man, an old man and a dead body in sequence, then he left his princely life and sought insights and a way out of human suffering. According to Ambedkar, this was absurd. He proposed that the Buddha likely sought insights because he was involved in "making peace among tribes".

Four Noble Truths-

Ambedkar believed that this core doctrine of Buddhism was flawed because it denied hope to human beings. According to Ambedkar, the Four Noble Truths is a "gospel of pessimism", and may have been inserted into the Buddhist scriptures by wrong headed Buddhist monks of a later era. These should not be considered as Buddha's teachings in Ambedkar's view.

Anatta, Karma & Rebirth-

These are other core doctrines of Buddhism. Anatta relates to no-self (no soul) concept. Ambedkar believed that there is an inherent contradiction between the three concepts, either Anatta is incorrect or there cannot be Karma and Rebirth with Anatta in Ambedkar's view. Other foundational concepts of Buddhism such as Karma and Rebirth were considered by Ambedkar as superstitions.

Bhikshu-

A Bhikshu is a member of the monastic practice, a major historic tradition in all schools of Buddhism. According to Ambedkar, this was a flawed idea and practice. He questioned whether a Bhikshu tradition was an attempt to create "a perfect man or a social servant", states Zelliot.

Nirvana-

According to Navayana, nirvana is not some other-worldly state of perfect quietude, freedom, highest happiness, nor soteriological release and liberation from rebirths in saṃsāra. In Ambedkar's view, nirvana is socio-political "kingdom of righteousness on earth" in which people are "freed from poverty and social discrimination and empowered to create themselves happy lives", state Damien Keown and Charles Prebish.

So as we see, Ambedkarism isn't Buddhism but mere political ideology. Buddha has no more presence in Ambedkarism than of an icon.

A similar list of doctrines, from a more authoritative source, might be this Introduction to THE BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.

Thanks. @ChrisW . Updating with the source.

Do modern day Navayana Buddhists actually practice their religion this way?

@Luv Yes. Indian Buddhism (that's not Buddhism) unfortunately is actually a political ideology.

Navayana Buddhism is the interpretation of Buddha and his Dhamma by Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar. He interpreted the tenets of Buddha for the upliftment and development of the non-Brahmin lowercastes, especially Scheduled Castes. Navayana Buddhism rejected Theravada, Mahayana, etc branches of Buddhism and has more to do with social and political issues of the backward and deprived castes and sections of the Indian society. The Buddhists that follow Navayana branch believe Dr Ambedkar to be an enlightened Bodhisattva.

Can you explain why (or, preferably, give any reference which explains why) Dr. Ambedkar asked Dalits not to get entangled in the existing branches of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana), and promoted a Navayana ("New Way") instead?

In my point of view, it is the best try in revival of Buddhism. No matter what happens, it is very necessary to obey the Dharma (Buddhist teachings and the rule).

How does this answer the question "What is Navayana Buddhism?"

Bhimayana: Incidents in the Life of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is a graphic biography of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar published in 2011 by Navayana and was hailed by CNN as being among the top five political comic books. It was created by artists Durgabai Vyam, Subhash Vyam and writers Srividya Natarajan and S. Anand. It depicts the experiences of caste discrimination and resistance that Bhimrao Ambedkar recorded in his autobiographical illustrations, later compiled and edited in Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches by Vasant Moon under the title “Waiting for a Visa”. It is one of India’s top selling graphic books.
Bhimayana has been lauded for its use of Pardhan Gond art to signify the experiences of social discrimination faced by Ambedkar. It uses digna (images originally painted on the walls and floors of Pardhan Gonds’ houses) patterns and nature imagery. According to Jeremy Stoll, affiliate faculty at Metropolitan State University of Denver, ‘It is most remarkable for demonstrating the strength of Indian comics culture and providing a strong example of where folk and popular culture overlap’.[1]
It has been published under the title Ambedkar: The Fight for Justice in the UK and the United States by Tate Publishing in 2013.[2] The book has been translated into several languages including Malayalam, Hindi, Tamil, Marathi, Telugu, Kannada, Korean and French.


text:
How can one relate Buddhism epistemology of Thought and Attention to its Western counterpart?
There are at least two possibilities, and no doubt many more besides.
The first one turns around the Cartesian dictum, "Cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am".  René Descartes got off to a brilliant start and then promptly took a wrong turn, completely missing the point of his inadvertent discovery.
He turned right, taking the very 'doubt' that he took as evidence of his 'existence', making it the keystone of his entire intellectual edifice.  Instead, he should have turned left and investigated it.  So as to realise it's causal factors, thereby realising it's true nature, "... thus I am simply the result of that thought".
The second possibility considers the two Grail Legend questions.  "What does it mean?" and, "Whom does it serve?"  The first investigates the object of attention.  The second investigates the subject himself, using the same principles, in the same way, to find the same answer.
One could also think of a teaching given to Carlos Castaneda, Don Juan's "second attention": though others might not agree.

This is a yes\no question with two gigantic umbrella terms. As the question stands, I'd answer simply yes, but if the question was modified to ask for a description of that relation, I wouldn't venture describing it because there are "...no doubt many more besides.". The only thing I can suggest is to try to break the question down so that it narrows the possible answers. To help in this endeavor, you can also ask for certain kind of answers. Depending on how the question is asked, it can, nonetheless, be a fruitful topic.

This question is put on hold - Why? - I think it should be reformulated as "How can one relate Buddhism to Western epistemology?" - It is however a very profound question, particularly on the subject of Attention (and "second attention;") as it introduces the concept of the second extreme, related to the Cartesian/Buddhistic view of Attention. In other words, can we (ourSelves) fabricate an even worse master (than our Self,) that would perpetually enslaves us into this world?

Rob, it certainly is addressing profound and important issues, but it just contains too many to be a good SE style question as it is. For example, what exactly is meant by "relating" in the context? Then, "western" epistemology is a simply vast subject, and I doubt the Buddhist side is much smaller. So to get useful answers, it would need to focus on a specific aspect of those areas. Again, I agree that Peter's question sits on top of some key areas, but it's sitting on a mountain of such areas. It's like asking, "How can we relate medieval French literature to its Spanish counterpart."

We are not discussing epistemology in general, but epistemology of thought and attention. I understand that thought is a vast subject; although it is here confined to the link between thought and Ego (Ahamkara). However, Attention is a very important point to consider, both in Buddhism and Western philosophy. As well as the impact, import and range of "second attention." Of import. Anyway, may be should this question be  better split in two.

I. "I think therefore I am". In Buddhist and Hindu Meditation, thought is simply one more aspect of samsara. Thought is ultimately realized to be a hindrance. The goal is to "go" beyond thought and beyond no thought to one's "natural self" (Hinduism) or "dharmakaya" (Buddhism). One realizes the ultimate truth. (I.e., thinking is part of awareness. In meditation, moving past awareness into realizing one's natural self, or dharmakaya, is possible.) (There is something past or beyond "thought and no thought". There are (seem to be) many alive today in that state of Liberation. )
So, your statement, " I am simply the result of that thought", does make sense. No thought, no "I", but something is still there. Meditation helps you learn what that is/you are.
II. Different strokes, etc. This question actually divides certain Tibetan Schools of Buddhism. Well, seems to. It's more like there seem to be many Buddhist Traditions, and "schools" within those traditions. If everyone thought the same way, only one tradition, indeed only one religion would be needed. My experience has shown me that I am the type that prefers to investigate the subject, "me", as I seem to have more success in that type of meditation. (And don't get me started on Carlos Castenada. I was so disappointed that his books turned out to be fiction. Never read another word after that revelation. Was a fun read up to then, though.)

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Anapanasati: Mindful Breathing Concentration Point
I have been practicing mindfulness of breathing for some time. But I am having doubt regarding my practice. When I focus on a single point on nostril and keep attention there, and note natural breathing. It breaks attention. It seems like there are two objects to concentrate. feel on nostril or breathing?
What am I doing wrong?

"He breathes in experiencing the whole body, he breathes out
  experiencing the whole body": that is, with well-placed mindfulness,
  he sees the beginning, the middle and the end of the two phases, the
  in-breath and the out-breath. As he practices watching the in-breath
  and the out breath with mindfulness, he calms down and tranquilizes
  the two functions of in breathing and out-breathing.

Meditation on Breathing

You can feel anyone of them, but you have to use one of them for whole your meditation.  I prefer breath. First you have to notice that you are inhaling when inhale and you have to notice that you are exhaling when you exhale.  When you do that you may feel lot of things: pain in legs, scratches, mosquito bite like feelings.  Just ignore them at once and make sure before you start meditation you are in a position that will be less trouble some for you.
Make sure you keep your righthand on the lefthand and keep them on the lap after sitting down the proper way.  Don't get too comfortable with a cushion or too uncomfortable with hard floors.
Now concentrate on your breathing, focusing your thoughts only on the breaths.  Then you will feel the larger breaths will slowly give way to short lighter breaths. But continue to concentrate on your breathing. Don't loose your attention. Then you will feel so comfortable with your mind because your mind is entering a state of concentration. But don't pay attention to the comfort because it will also break your concentration.

According my understanding Anapana Sati meditation is consists of several steps depending on your level. Found this page written by Most Ven. Nauyane Ariyadhamma Mahathera (who is one of the best meditation teacher according to me) could be helpful to you. It is quite lengthy one, but please read through for better understanding. In the article Ven Ariyadhamma address your question.
In brief:
Experiencing the whole body

Here, what is meant as "the whole body" is the entire cycle of breathing in and breathing out. The meditator should fix his attention so as to see the beginning, the middle and the end of each cycle of in-breathing and out-breathing.

This point is very important.

The beginning, middle and end of the breath must be correctly understood. It is incorrect to consider the tip of the nose to be the beginning of the breath, the chest to be the middle, and the navel to be the end. If one attempts to trace the breath from the nose through the chest to the belly, or to follow it out from the belly through the chest to the nose, one's concentration will be disrupted and one's mind will become agitated.

So the answer:

The beginning of the in-breath, properly understood, is the start of the inhalation, the middle is continued inhalation, and the end is the completion of the inhalation. Likewise, in regard to the out breath, the beginning is the start of the exhalation, the middle is the continued exhalation, and the end is the completion of the exhalation. To "experience the whole body" means to be aware of the entire cycle of each inhalation and exhalation, keeping the mind fixed at the spot around the nostrils or on the upper lip where the breath is felt entering and leaving the nose.

Couple of Similes:

Just as a gatekeeper examines each person entering and leaving the city only as he passes through the gate, without following him inside or outside the city, so the meditator should be aware of each breath only as it passes through the nostrils, without following it inside or outside the body.
Just as a man sawing a log will keep his attention fixed on the spot where the teeth of the saw cut through the wood, without following the movement of the teeth back and forth, so the meditator should contemplate the breath as it swings back and forth around the nostrils, without letting his mindfulness be distracted by the breath's inward and outward passage through the body.

Hope this helps.

If it breaks your attention you might be better off if you concentrate on whole body/natural breathing.
Citing from "The Experience Of Samadhi" by Richard Shankman:

...
  If practiced with proper intention and guidance, many meditators discover that through mindfulness of the breath at one place, such as the nose, the awareness naturally opens up to include all the experiences of the body, as well as the mind and heart.
  We have many examples of meditation masters attaining profound degrees of insight and liberation through a variety of practices and techniques, and instructions regarding attending to the breath vary from the nose, to the chest, to whole-body breathing.

I hope this helps. I retrieved from this ebook. The ebook can be downloaded from here

Mindfulness of Breathing (ānāpānasati)
This samatha subject can be developed up to all four jhānas. Mastery of the four ānāpāna jhānas greatly facilitates the development of all other samatha practices, as well as the subsequent analysis of materiality and mentality. To practice mindfulness of breathing, you focus on the breath at the entrance to the nostrils. Try to maintain your awareness of the breath as it both enters and leaves the nostrils. Every time your mind wanders, you must bring it back to the breath.

Would you mind copying the text by hand? The picture is unfortunately not searchable. See, for example, this post on the Japanese.SE meta: http://meta.japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/749/what-can-we-do-to-improve-findability

@Hrafn Thank you. I edited my post. Not sure I should remove the image as it's just duplicate of text.

In response to OP's request for personal experience.
I had a similar issue with mindful breathing meditations for a long time. Concentrating on the breath as a whole was OK but one-pointed concentration on the breath leaving and entering the nostrils was very forced and unnatural. Also the transition between them felt bizarre - almost like a video game transitioning. It felt very disconnected and forced.
TBH there wasn't anything immediately I could do with this. Instead I just left the one-pointed meditations for a while and concentrated on feeling the whole breath in the body. Also feeling the arising and passing away of thoughts and feelings was useful during that time. I think I left one-pointedness for 6 months maybe more. In fact I just mentally disregarded it and I almost need to become reacquainted with it to practice again.
But more recently I have gone back it it and it feels a lot more relaxed and integrated. I no longer feel like I'm transitioning into it by forcing concentration onto ever smaller parts of my body. It more feels like I flow into it. I also still get kicked out but it seems a lot less jarring that it did and the practice itself feels helpful rather than a horrible struggle.
This really is just one man's experience so take or leave as useful. For me a central consideration of practice is right effort and trying to work with what that may or may not be. The struggle with one-pointedness for me for symptomatic of a wider struggle with right effort and just been too wound up and forcing in the practice in general. I personally needed (and still need) to kick back more and just experience things without kicking back so much that the entire thing unravels. Getting too goal driven for me is extremely unhelpful and one-pointedness just became another thing to achieve.
Anyway good luck with it all and I hope it works out for you.

There are very good answers here so I will not take long, just one thing I wound like to highlight:
It is ok to lose focus and return to the nostril, everytime you do that you improve your concentration a little bit, the mind wanders and this is normal, the more you try the better your concentration will be, so just to relax and keep doing it might be a good strategy, progress in meditation is not very fast and this is ok, dont worry :)
If you are losing focus too often and you think it is too much, maybe your mind is very busy, maybe you are facing big problems or very anxious about something, in this case I would recommend more time for meditation, the more nervous you are the more it takes for the mind to relax and concentrate!

This makes sense in light of what I'm reading about the 5 hindrances. This would be a possible case of restlessness-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca): the inability to calm the mind.

I recommend to concentrate on the diaphragm, and carefully watch the psychosomatic sensations arising around the moment when the breath reverses its direction.

Could you add a bit more explanation to your answer, e.g. why you recommend concentrating on the diaphragm and the phychosomatic sensations and maybe some references or text if you are refering to anything. Thank you.

One interpretation of Parimukam with appear in nearly all Anapana related Suttas is around the mouth. According to this interpretation the best place is  the triangular area from top of the nose to the mouth, depending you level you can narrow this down to the tip of the nose to the base of the upper lip, upper lip itself or just the centre of the upper lip depending on your sensitivity towards feeling the breath. For more explanation and references see this answer.

When I have focused on the nose as inflow and outflow; it is like getting frostbite at the tip of the nose even in the summer with drops of water as the outflow.
Breathing high in the chest upper dantian brings tightness and anxiety as inflows... breathing with mindfulness/attention in the lower dantian four finger breadths below the navel brings the opposite of the upper, breathing in the middle of both? Balance and resolution.
Breathing just happens; so why not just try to catch it arising in your consciousness as any other distraction normally would? Thought is just past volitional wind trying to give birth to more skandha; which is just inverted thinking that any past action of body, speech, or mind, has ever freed one of oneself.
Such a thing is like putting a band-aid on top of a band-aid.
With freedom? Now never ends; and in such a manner, it is in a sense? It's own bondage... but at least you're free; and honestly nothing can ever change that.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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


text:
How does the Buddha attain nirvana?
It is said that only the Buddha, a fully awakened one, knows everything. I'm not sure if there's a name for that wisdom. So the Buddha got that wisdom and used (all-knowing-wisdom) to see the eight noble paths and attained nirvana or is it the other way round?

Possible duplicate of http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2086/are-saya-asadharana-nana-part-of-nibbana

The question title and the question body don't match up. The body is a duplicate of the above mentioned question. The title is a broad question that will depend on what sect or tradition you have in mind.

There are some differences of opinion between the different schools on this kind of thing. First of all, the Theravada school doesn't accept the idea that the Buddha has knowledge of everything (which Mahayana schools tend to teach) but instead teach that the Buddha possesses unobstructed knowledge and vision, meaning that the Buddha had the ability to find an answer to any question given time and effort, and even the precise meaning of this isn't quite clear. Confusingly, the term "unobstructed knowledge and vision" is sometimes translated as omniscience.
This unobstructed knowledge and vision is the result of having cultivated the ten Paramis of generosity, morality, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, honesty, determination, goodwill, and equanimity to perfection as a Bodhisatta, and when he attained Arahatship on the night of the full moon in the month Vesakha, the cultivation of these Paramis came to fruit and he obtained unobstructed knowledge and vision.
He attained Arahatship that night by means of the Noble Eightfold Path, just like everyone else, and according to the Pali Suttas, he did so by means of Anapanasati.

The Drikung Kagyu Buddhist (Tibetan) has the answer I most think I understand. Each sentient being has "Buddha Nature", like gold undiscovered underground. When the "dross" or accumulated defilements that cause samsara are removed, only the "gold" or enlightenment remains. This unpolluted nature (sometimes called the "natural" nature) is "nirvana". Another analogy is like a glass of dirty water. When the dirt in a glass of water settles, the pure water allows a pure view. The teachings, such as the eight noble paths, etc., are "skillful means" of bringing beings to liberation (understanding the their buddha nature, etc.) in this realm. In other realms, other teachings might be used. (One sutra in Tibetan Buddhism, whose name I do not recall, notes that beings in another realm were being taught by a local bodhisattva through the sense of smell, rather than the sense of sight and hearing, as most teachings are in this realm. Hope that helps.

Samsara is the reiteration of our birth. Our birth either as a human or an animal is a suffering.Nirvana is ending our birth . Gautham Buddha ended his birth.Every pleasure and attachment is a suffering . At the end of the day everything decay and pass away.All our actions have a reaction .Even our thought is a karma which eventually carries its reaction.  Bigger part of our life in any birth is the result of our karma . Now one may think that attaining merits through meritorious deeds and attaining a luxurious good birth is the end.Even though it is reasonable that it is advantageous to attain a human birth with wealth in order to collect merits , one must attain the nirvana by ending birth.


text:
Why do users of psychedelic drugs tend to gravitate toward Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies?
This post was submitted to reddit and I thought it might be interesting to re-post it here. I will now copy and paste the body of text the original poster submitted:
"It seems like so many people who use psychedelics are drawn to the Eastern way of thought. I could probably count on one hand the amount of people in the world who took LSD and became a supporter of Hobbes' argument for the sovereign or any other western way of thought (save, perhaps, existentialism). Conversely, almost any forum for psychedelic drug users will have lots of discussions of meditation, buddhism, taoism, and so forth, especially when discussing how the drugs have changed the individual using them.
What is it about psychedelics and eastern thought that causes this? Why is this correlation exist?"
re: http://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/2aqzgw/why_do_users_of_psychedelic_drugs_tend_to/
So why is this?

Is there any data (other than a reddit post) that the assumptions implied by your question are even true? There are (at least) two assumptions: first, that the users of such drugs tend to gravitate to any particular set of philosophies; second, that the extent to which they do, the philosophies tend to be Buddhist/Eastern. Sounds like the kind of thing very vulnerable to reporting bias.

There is data. I'm sure that if you do some research into psychedelic pop-culture you will find references to buddhism all over. The fact that they gravitate toward philosophy is pretty clear to me. Look up guys like Alan Watts, Terrence McKenna, Graham Hancock, and Joe Rogan (I'm sure there are more people out there). Or just take a look at the sites this people frequent on the internet.

Hi David. While this is an interesting question, it may not be a good fit for Buddhism SE which is geared toward questions which have an answer. Discussion, speculation, and opinions don't work well in this format. (If there are specific scientific studies that can be sited; than I stand corrected.)

It's your question. If you want to ensure a reader doesn't suspect non sequiturs, I think you're the one who needs to produce the research and data. I don't deny that there exist some people who used such drugs and who connected with Buddhism in some way. The fact that Tim Leary wrote a book influenced by the so-called "Tibetan Book of the Dead" is a datum. But there would have to be a lot more than that to make your question robust. You could of course fix it by adding the word "some" before "users", and maybe referencing Leary's "The Psychedelic Experience" in your question.

@David While I think this is an interesting discussion question, as it is written it isn't a great fit for a SE, where questions have answers. If you can narrow it down through edits it can be easily reopened.

I don't think I'll edit it, but I can see why this is true. :) My intention was that answers be speculative (because they really can't be anything else), and if thats not in line with SE, that's OK.

Interesting question, and I even have an answer. The affinity of the two is due to the fact that both are the cases of escapism.

Also, interestingly, in Ram Dass's book, "Be Here Now!", which I just recently read (though it came out in the late 70's, I think), prior to visiting India, and finding his guru, Neem Karoli Baba, he and Timothy Leary did a LOT of LSD, and drugs. His personal finding was that the drugs were awesome in giving him a different view of mind, etc., but he always had to "come down". He turned to Hinduism, (and Buddhism, often) for a way to never have to "come down". The rest is history, so to speak. Just my 2 cents. Take care.

Good question. From what I've read, I've heard many people say their ego had dissolved when taking psychedelics and found a great peace in this. This probably causes them to re-evaluate the nature of their existence and be open to Buddhism as it's a major part of the Buddhist teaching.


text:
How can I work with doubt and existential concerns?
After a 'bad trip' a big hindrance of mine is doubt and the idea that all is just a dream that we have no control over. This brings up terrifying ideas, concepts and images for me. That this may all just be nonsense, even buddhism. I'm aware these are concepts and mental activities, but the panic that they bring on can really deter me and interfere with my practice.
I fear that the Dhamma may just be a temporary fabrication of this reality that I'm in etc. The fact that I suffer and endure loneliness allows my mind to go astray. I'm not a member of any sangha and I dont get any support to continue to practice. I've suffered with misery most my life and this fact brings up many fatalistic fears. I'm wondering how I can try to start overcoming this and progress in the practice.
Thanks

Meditation is the key to beginning to understand your mind. The thoughts, images, indeed all mental activities are not "you". Meditation (in just about every system, religious and not) is about discovering the truth about your self. (The word "self" has many completely different meanings depending on the context of the word so don't get too hung up on the word.)
I suffer from depression. It is my experience that depressive episodes come and go. And I remain. Fear comes and goes. And I remind. So, meditation on who I am (and am not) is more helpful than meditation (or attention) on that which comes and goes. As you practice meditation, the mental noise will decrease. (Thankfully.) At worst, you give your mind some rest. Try it. It works. One day at a time. Good luck!

Thanks for the response. For me I'm suffering the headtrip of nonself. This compounded with existential ideas that bring on panic. When I meditate, I find myself going off on these headtrips and trying to bring my attention back can get very difficult. I feel varying levels of fear that come with letting go, in some sense its akin to death. With meditation there should come peace, but I am confronting the nature of my own mind which is marred by doubt and fear bringing worry. I feel sad and afraid of what my mind brings up for me to confront.

Hi @Buddhah. Are you able to connect with a qualified meditation teacher in your area? While the Buddhism SE community is well meaning, moving beyond such obstacles as you've described might be best done under the guidance of an experienced teacher. Best wishes in your progress.


text:
Can one learn meditation on their own?
Can I learn Vipassana meditation or other Buddhist meditation techniques like Shamatha on my own using books and online videos?
This is because it is sometimes hard to find good genuine teachers.
Or do I definitely need to seek a teacher?

According to my understanding you can learn and start meditation (Samatha or Vipassana) using books and online videos. Of course there are some meditation practices which will be better to learn with a real teacher. Apart form that specially when you have any practical questions or troubles with the meditation or the practice, it is really helpful to get some advice from an experienced teacher.
Further, when you learn by yourself make sure to refer some credible resource (books or online videos) as there are a lot of verities available nowadays. Hope this helps.

Thanks. I started with books. I will go further in this path and will try to find meditation centers nearby. I just wanted to make sure if I wasn't going in a wrong path :)

You can learn meditation with books and videos but it will be very difficult to find the truth and answers to your problems. So a better way is to find a teacher. Try to find a Sangha who teaches meditation. If you can't find one then try with books and others. Anyway my dear friends, never stop the meditation even if you can't find a teacher.
There is an order to meditate.

Sila
Samatha
Vipassana

Sila is following precepts with at least five for considerable time(it depends on person).
Without Sila, samatha cannot be mastered. If someone try to use Samatha without Sila, they will understand that they are just wasting their time with increasing the tension. But with Sila you can feel the real cool nature of Buddhism.
Samatha meditation has 40 categories.
Kasina - 10
Asuba - 10
Anussathi - 10
Brahma Wihara - 4
Arupa - 4
Ahara prathikula Sagna - 1
Chathu Dhathu Wawaththana - 1
Kasinas concentrate on physical characteristics like color, heat and light.
Asubhas  concentrate on dead human bodies
Anussathis concentrate on reminding. Anapanasathi is reminding breath, Budhhanussathi is reminding characteristics of Lord Buddha, Kayagathasathi is concentrating about our body etc..
Brahma Viharas concentrates on Metta (friendliness with everyone), Karuna, Mudhitha and Upekka.
others are not recommended without better knowledge.
You have to select one category according to your characteristics. After having a progress in samatha you can step in to Vipassana.
Vipassana meditation method is only included in Buddhism and first introduced by Lord Buddha. In this meditation method, we concentrates on three facts,

Anicca/Anitya
Dhukka
Anatta

1. Anitya
My dear friends, Anitya is the theory that says everything which is generated from a reason(s) will be destroyed due to the destruction of the reason.
2. Dhukka
If we make desire to objects(not only physical) that generated with a reason then we have to expect sadness after the destruction of the object due to the destruction of the reason (helped to exist of the object)
Think of how I love the shine of my car. Shine exist due to the paint and smoothness. If paint or smoothness are both gone, then shine will also disappear. Then because I loved the shine I will feel sad.
Even when someone's car corroded completely I will not feel sad because I didn't like it.
With this logic Lord Buddha said that sad generates due to the craving towards something(Thanha) and not because of a God(s) or fate.
3. Anatta
with this Lord Buddha has said there is no thing called a soul in us. instead we have a mind. The mind is not a thing that exist the same all the time. It is born, exist and dies very, very quickly. So there is a time that the mind doesn't exist. At the time there was not a measurement to describe about the speed of the mind.
Once a Arhat Bhikkhu make a example to a king; think about 12 carts filled with rice seeds. You arrange all the seeds in a single line one after another. Then you can count all the seeds. Sir, there are more minds in a time of blink born, exist and dies.
There are one and only one mind exist at once. Due to the massive speed you feel it as a one single mind. When this mind takes signals from the body and send signals to the body you feel the whole process as a soul.
That's the process we are going to understand in Vipassana meditation. Then can you imagine the power of samadhi you need to maintain to understand that rapid changes? You can do it. The path is not simple. but it is not impossible.
Namo Budhhaya..

I like the first section of your answer, all the rest doesn't seem to be answering the question. Why did you add that?

Good question dear friend, All the things I have included here are relevant to the question. First part directly answers the question and second part helps to find a good teacher and books. If your teacher doesn't know about those things or your book doesn't say about them then you have to think of other solution. I think my answer will help to lot of people to find good teachers and books for very successful vipassana meditation.

Introduction to Meditation: How To Meditate
For me, I find these videos very helpful.  There are many other videos that Bhante have on his site that talks about meditations.  You can also down load book from this site as well. http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings/how-to-meditate/

No matter what else, it will come from within. If you can learn it at all, a path already exists that may be found even by accident.
Each and every possible teacher you might find would have to have an unbroken link back to the Original Teacher if it wasn't possible. And the Original Teacher had to learn from within.
Whether innumerable missteps might be avoided easier with a teacher is a different question, but even missteps can teach valuable lessons if you choose to learn.

Just for clarification, when you say "have an unbroken link back to the original teacher", do you mean Gautama Buddha? Because I believe Siddhartha Gautama worked with 2 teachers before going off on his own. /\

Consider the case of having two teachers. Either both worked with a single previous or each worked with a different one. If different, then go back another level. At some point, the lines either converge, in which case we only need to follow a single line, or they don't in which case we follow two single lines. Regardless, at some point, every line has a starting point where there was no previous teacher. Whenever (any) Original Teacher is reached, it's a demonstration that it's possible to learn without a teacher. There is more, but that's enough to accept possibility.

I've attended courses run by my local Rigpa group - perhaps there is one near you that you can try out? http://www.rigpa.org/
I have also benefited greatly from the Headspace app https://www.headspace.com/ -- I think Andy is a great teacher for the on-line medium!
Hope this helps - good luck!

Welcome to Buddhism SE! I think the first part of your answer doesn't really answer the OP's question. He/she want to learn to meditate without taking classes. As for the second part, what exactly makes the Headspace app so great?

Welcome to Buddhism SE! In the current form, this is more of a comment like a quick reference than an answer to the question.  I would suggest formatting you answer to explain why these links answer the question.

Thanks for the rigpa link. They seem to be there in many locations. About headspace, I am not a fan of secular meditation. I would like my meditation to retain Buddhist elements. I read a quote of Bikkhu Bodhi about secular meditation which was something like, you get stress relief and would make you a more compassionate person but it would not take you a step closer to nirvana.

When you meditate there are sometimes "storms" or big mental disturbances that happen. So it is generally advise to have a guidance of a teacher through this is not necessary. What generally happens is you react and worsen the situation.
No matter what you should not loose the balance of your mind. You should be always equanimous. If you can do this there then you are fit to do meditation through books and other sources without a guidance of a teacher.

any place to start is the right place, just start.
Don't be too concerned about finding the right teacher or spiritual path. There is a true saying:
When the student is ready, the master will appear.
He, or she, will come running to inspire you, when the time is right, never before.
Please remember that everything is actually pre ordained. Just start.
Very best wishes and have a great week, Rajpal.


text:
Plants may be sentient beings like animals so how do you decide what to eat?
There is some evidence that plants are 'sentient beings' and can communicate (e.g. see this article or this wikipedia page). However Buddhists believe eating meat is wrong because of killing a living entity, what about plants? If this is true what can you eat?

Apart from any new understandings about the lives of plants, as far as the buddha discourses encoded in the canon are concerned, he declared circumstances that are appropriate for eating meat (Jivaka sutta, Majima Nikaya) http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/055-jivaka-e1.html.

A similar question in hinduism

Plants often depend on animals to eat them. Did anyone say what you  do if you don't eat animal or plant? Is that a thing?

Theravada and Vajrayana Buddhists (Tibetan, SE Asian) and Japanese Mahayana Buddhists are not vegetarian. So if you don't want to be a vegetarian, there are plenty of traditions that don't bother with this rule. And as for rules, there are plenty of traditions that de-emphasize rules altogether.
So that leaves East Asian Buddhism. The traditional arguments for vegetarianism are based on the traditional cosmology, which makes a distinction between plants and animals. Sentient beings can be born as animals but not plants.
If we don't believe in the traditional cosmology, the distinction between sentient and insentient remains.
According to wikipedia, some sects see plants as sentient being-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_beings_(Buddhism) (Japanese and Tibetan, which aren't vegetarian). In Tien Tai, the founder suggested plants and even the insentient can attain enlightenment.
I'm not a radical non-dualist, but arguing that everything the same, (plants, animals, rocks) and that all states are the same (living, dead) is a typical radical non-dualist argument. The problem with nondualism applied to ethics is that it makes it easy to justify what ever you want.
And the "science" sounds like bunk. My computer feels pain when it overheats and ice cubes feel pain when they crack-- but only as a metaphor. My computer and the ice in my freezer (and the grass under my feet) has never had an original thought or even a thought. They don't have nervous systems of a sort that I'm familiar with (by my own experience of having a nervous system.)
For there to be a scientific grounding for the idea that plants (and maybe rocks) are sentient, you'd have to demonstrate that they have something similar to a nervous system and can react in the same way that a thinking, feeling creature can.  I admit a scientifically grounded interpretation of sentience still has edge cases-- for example, nematodes only have a few neurons, so they are borderline insentient.

Buddha said that we could eat meat under a few conditions:

You cannot kill the animal
You cannot ask for someone to kill a specific animal for you to eat, or suspect the animal was killed for you
You cannot see the animal being killed
You cannot hear the animal being killed

the Buddha also said that we should not eat certain types of meat like elephants (because they belong to the king)
It is nice to be a vegetarian, really a beautiful thing to do, but you dont need to be one in order to be a Buddhist in most traditions, the Buddha himself ate meat, even HH Dalai Lama eats meat, on the other hand most mahayana monasteries dont serve meat, its a matter of choice.
source: Ven Dhammavuddho Thero
book "only we can help ourselves"

thanks for the edition, I know my english is not very good and it is very kind of you to edit it, I appreciate it.

My theory is that it is not wrong to directly deprive plants of their life, in order to eat them, unlike animals, because they don't have the five aggregates. In my opinion, plants do not have mental formations and consciousness although they have form, sensations and perception. Without the five aggregates, they are not sentient beings.

Plants are amazingly sensitive to changes in their environments. However, there is no good evidence that they are sentient (i.e., consciously aware of what is happening to them). I suggest that whoever posted this question actually read the two pieces linked to.

Welcome to Buddhism.SE! We've put together some useful information for getting started on the site here: http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post

There is nothing wrong with eating plants.
Keep your body alive and strive to gain knowledge. As when you gain knowledge, liberation will follow, and great will be the goodness of the liberated one.
Or ... start worrying. And stop moving your body ... One tea spoon of soil contains 1000 millions microorganisms (http://archives.microbeworld.org/microbes/bacteria/where.aspx). You don't want to kill all these beings, don't you? So? Stop moving your body. Don't walk. Don't eat. Die.
Or ... completely stop worrying. And start killing ... there are millions of edible animal species. Kill. Eat. Live.
Big is this mess of suffering. Too big.
Neither of these two extremes lead to liberation.
The answer is the "middle way".

Questions of this nature can put one off course and is not beneficial to one and all. Meat eating is a very sensitive topic. There are many different views on this and each may be right to a certain extent, but they may not necessarily be wise. In this case, we should put aside our personal views and be open enough to look at the Buddha’s views. This is crucial as he is the Tathagata who knows and sees.
The Suttas and Vinaya will be our source of reference because in AN 4.180, the Buddha said that if some monk claimed that such and such were the words of the Buddha, those words should be compared to the Suttas (discourses) and Vinaya (monastic discipline). Only if they conform to the Suttas and Vinaya can they be accepted to be the Buddha’s words.
The next consideration is which Sutta and Vinaya should we refer to? Although various schools of Buddhism have different interpretations of the Buddha’s teachings, all generally agree that the four Nikayas (collections), namely, the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, and Anguttara Nikaya, and a few books of the Khuddaka Nikaya, are the earliest authentic discourses of the Buddha.
Furthermore, these earliest books are consistent throughout with the flavour of liberation, while later books sometimes give contradictory teachings. The Vinaya books of the different schools of Buddhism are all quite similar to the Theravada Vinaya. For this reason, the earliest Suttas and Theravada Vinaya will be our source of reference.

The Buddha was quite clear that people should think for themselves and not follow blindly.  There are many problems with meat-eating, not only the fact that animals are sentient beings.  There are strongly compelling environmental and health reasons as well as the fact that any truly kind, thoughtful and loving human being must be able to see the brutal cruelty and suffering inflicted on animals used for food.  It is why slaughterhouses are hidden away so that we can pretend they do not exist.
Human beings can live perfectly without slaughtering and eating animals therefore to continue to do it simply out of greed, ignorance and habit (addiction/grasping) is a serious barrier to following the Dharma.  The Buddah's rules about not eating meat only if specifically killed for you etc were aimed at monks who had to eat what they were given, and needed to spread the teachings, therefore had to refrain from offending people by refusing their food.  None of those reasons for permitting the eating of meat apply to the average person today, yet I am constantly meeting people who grasp at them as ways to excuse their indulgence.

More crops are grown to feed livestock than grown to feed humans
(And yes livestock do eat non-edible parts of plants and other stuff like fish-flour and dead bodies of other livestock animals and animal feces but that is on top of crops grown specifically for them)
** also grass fed meat which is sold at stores and is a tiny amount of all meat sold - comes from animals that were fed crops at some point and animals eat a lot of crops so even one way to give it to them is a lot of crops as well  ( fattening a few months before slaughter - when animals are indors during winter - piles from crops lied in the field for bonus feed etc ) so even that isnt a real exception
so if poeple would go vegan then there would be less crops grown and eatn
so even if plants are sentient  a vegan diet is best in that regard  - so its best for the plants as well you go vegan
And no you dont have to be vegan to follow thervada buddhism (what i follow) or reach enlightenment but i do think its a kosala (wholesome)  thing to do that can aid in the practice if done right (not hating those who eat animal products - "carnists"  - and not hating animal abusers etc)    -  its a way to control cravings better to feel more metta to more beings more easily etc

Our primary consciousness is said to have existed from beginningless time. Both Samsara and Nirvana are likewise said to be conditioned from beginingless time. There may be as many sentient Beings 'as the whole of Space'.This is traditionally interpreted as meaning 'infinite'. Thus representing all possibilities and variations of sentience.
'I am not you. Yet you are all of me'.
All Sentient Beings exist on a spectrum of sentience.There is no sharp boundary between sentience and non sentience.Stones may have just one of the five aggregates (Form).Plants may have three (Form, Feeling, Perception but not impulses/mental formations or consciousness). Humans seem to have all five.
It seems that a Sentient Being requires all five aggregates in order to be able to purify 'their' afflictions and 'their' subtle latencies. This is traditionally said to be done through the accumulation of the two 'treasure' piles of merit (which can only lead to the 'height of Samsara') and wisdom (being the 'opposite antidote' to the obscuration of ignorance). It is only through 'the wisdom that discerns the emptiness of inherent existence' that Buddhahood is finally 'attained'.
This wisdom is a facet of our very nature.It exists in our 'naturally abiding Buddha nature'(Buddhagarba) but not not in our reality. If this were not so then purifying our afflictions would be impossible and the whole Buddhist path would be false.No true origins. No ceasations. No path....
Karma is an action with intent. It requires 'freewill'(the ability to respond to the environment rather than be in a reactive trance like state). This requires mental formations and consciousness to at least some degree.Primates may have this.As for dolphins and elephants?.....
There may well be extra-terrestrials residing throughout the Universe with varying degrees of both organic and non organic sentience.Thus the traditional hierarchy where human life (spiritual potential wise) is the most precious/useful may only be relevant for this planet.The Buddha was teaching in a particular time and place. His teachings were focused in order to be both relevant and compassionately useful.He was encouraging humans.Thus the needful bias. Lord Jesus also had 'a bias' towards his own people during his lifetime ministry.But then afterwards things broadened out.....Same with the Dharma.
All six realms can be found around us in this very human life. This is the higher meaning of the teaching. Look around you!There are said to be three 'turnings of the wheel'.The third is sometimes equated to the vehicle of the Bodhisattva (or put it more profoundly to the emphasis upon the subjective continuity of the primordial clear light mind in naturally abiding and transforming Buddha nature).
Can we walk this highest path as a meat eater? Lord Jesus and the Lord Buddha did. Are we then to say that they were not of Bodhisattva heart?
It is therefore for the individual to make choices according to their unique mix of challenging Karma.Beware of distractions and keep to the moderate.Do your best in your own circumstances. Do not be too hard on yourself.
Let kindness be our whole religion. Wisdom naturally unfolds compassion. Two sides of a delicate spider's web.
May all Sentient Beings be well and happy. Andy xxx

I have been a vegetarian for 20 years, and have only recently started eating meat upon the advice of my physical therapist.  My uninformed opinion is that meat can be eaten for necessity, but one should not develop a desire for it or come to savor it, just as one should not take delight in other sense objects.
The Buddha taught that his own monks had been slaughtered as animals countless times in previous lives.   If true, then surely I have as well.  Perhaps I am being eaten alive by animals whenever I am bitten by a mosquito, or by bacteria whenever I develop a skin rash or catch a cold.  The microbes will eat me up completely when I die.
All humans eventually die, as do chickens.  If I was reborn as a chicken, I suppose I would be a Buddhist chicken.  Would I allow myself to be eaten by a Buddhist human who needed extra nutrition for health reasons?  Would I be accepting of having my fertilized eggs, embryonic baby chicks, used to culture viral samples for vaccines that save millions of lives?  I hope I would, but maybe not.
I am a blood and tissue donor, in my present life.  So maybe?
Shades of grey, all.


text:
Can meditation cause you to sleep less?
Over the last few months I've started meditating late on a night (as well as my usual morning practice). I'm finding that I am sleeping less but not feeling tired because of it. Is there any information around about how mediation may or may not affect sleep patterns?
For instance Dipa Ma, the Indian housewife and meditation teacher was up at 4.00 am every morning to meditate for a few hours presumably finding that perfectly OK. That said Margaret Thatcher only slept for 4 hours a night and I would hesitate to call her a Buddhist meditation master.

The first 2 videos on this page might be of some help https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=yuttadhammo+bhikkhu+sleep

Also, the Buddha slept for only one hour each night and occasionally took a nap in the afternoon - and he too had quite a busy teaching career. You can read more about the Buddha's daily routine here, just after the introduction (These are Mahasi Sayadaw's words): http://www.saraniya.com/books/mahasi-sayadaw/pdf/mahasi_sayadaw-1966_discourse_on_the_bhara_sutta.pdf

The reason the body do not need as much sleep when one do a lot of meditation is because while we meditate, we are getting some rest that the body needs. Meditation increases the production of melatonin in our bodies. Melatonin is a hormone known for creating restful sleep.
This article might help.

Meditation can definitely cause you to sleep less. When meditating one is naturally entering a calmer state of mind.
When doing Samatha meditation one is temporarily suspending the hindrances thereby limiting the effect of worries, excessive thinking, restlessness, cravings, aversions, anger etc. This naturally leads to a more simple and unified mind. Such a mind will affect the physical body and calm it down.
The human brain uses more energy than both arms and legs together on e.g. cognitive processes. All the stress from the hindrances will sooner or later manifest itself in the physical body as stress, i.e. an increased secretion of stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenalin. This will create a lot extra tension and load on the internal organs which in turn will increase the demand for energy.
The result of that is the need for more sleep.
Now if one removes the above things then one naturally needs less sleep.
If we take a look at Vipassana Meditation then here we are directly working with the hindrances, i.e. by weakening them to the point where they can be eradicated completely. In vipassana meditation we learn to see reality for what it is, meaning that the mind do not extrapolate on phenomena. The mind do no follow after phenomena thereby launching a process of ideation and planning on how to posess the object.
A non-meditator, i.e. the untrained mind will not have this ability to see clearly. The untrained mind will see an object for a brief moment whereafter it will launch the process of ideation, extrapolation, judging, imagining, liking, disliking etc. Imagine how much energy these cognitive processes demand.
If one trains in clear comprehension one gradually builds the ability to stop the mind from launching these cognitive processes by applying mindfulness to mental and physical phenomena as they arise and cease. With time and training the mind will become deeply rooted in the present. It will become calm, peaceful and equanimous no matter what arises.
A reduction in mental stress levels results in the physiological processes of secretion of stress hormones will be stopped and reversed resulting in a calmer body and a lot less load on internal organs.
At night the body regrows tissue, builds muscle and bone and strengthens the immune system. When there is less load on the body then it also needs less time for restitution, i.e. less time to sleep.

In Dvedhavitakka Sutta it is said that thinking tires the body. So I believe that meditation helps the body be more energetic by taking away some of the tiring thinking.
[...]

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with renunciation arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with renunciation has arisen in me; and that leads neither to my own affliction, nor to the affliction of others, nor to the affliction of both. It fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding. If I were to think & ponder in line with that even for a night... even for a day... even for a day & night, I do not envision any danger that would come from it, except that thinking & pondering a long time would tire the body. When the body is tired, the mind is disturbed; and a disturbed mind is far from concentration.' So I steadied my mind right within, settled, unified, & concentrated it. Why is that? So that my mind would not be disturbed.

[...]

More you meditate less sleep you need. The need for sleep is based on how energetic you are. Meditation stirs up more energy and you become energetic.

Similarly, when you go to bed at night, close your eyes and feel sensation anywhere within the body. If you fall asleep with this awareness, naturally as soon as you wake up in the morning, you will be aware of sensation. Perhaps you may not sleep soundly, or you may even remain fully awake throughout the night. This is wonderful, provided you stay lying in bed and maintain awareness and equanimity. The body will receive the rest it needs, and there is no greater rest for the mind than to remain aware and equanimous. However, if you start worrying that you are developing insomnia, then you will generate tensions, and will feel exhausted the next day. Nor should you forcefully try to stay awake, remaining in a seated posture all night; that would be going to an extreme. If sleep comes, very good; sleep. If sleep does not come, allow the body to rest by remaining in a recumbent position, and allow the mind to rest by remaining aware and equanimous.

...

At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation.

Source: The Discourse Summaries


text:
How do Buddhists express condolences?
Since converting to Buddhism, I've been unsure how to express condolences when people pass away. Everything familiar that I might say comes from a Christian perspective such as "being in a better place" or "with the Lord now".
Simply letting the family know that I'm thinking of them works. But I'm wondering what is typical or traditional in Buddhist countries (or among experienced Buddhists in the west) where teachings of impermanence and rebirth may change the mindset regarding death. What is the typical way to express condolences among Buddhists?

Great question Robin111. I have had the same concern myself, even though I wasn't raised in a Christian family, Christian values seem to pervade my entire culture and language.

My best friend is Buddhist and lives in Hong Kong. Her father just passed away and I want to send her something to let her know I'm there for her and I share in her loss. I would like to send something special to let her know she is loved and help her through this difficult time. Sending a simple card does not seem enough. Please let me know if you have any condolence gift ideas fitting for a Buddhist whom I love very much. Thank you

Here in Sri Lanka, we typically say "Anicca Vata Sankhara" or "Vaya-dhamma Sankhara" in the bereavement notices. When you meet the family members, you put your hands together and greet without smiling. You are not expected to say anything unless you are giving an eulogy. When you talk to people, you are expected to talk quietly and not to gossip. You can either inquire about funeral arrangements or engage in a Dhamma discussion.
I suppose in the West, it's customary to say something. So you can probably say "May he/she attain Nibbana soon!"

One concern for Westerners like myself is, if we say something like "May he/she attain Nibbana soon!" it will make us look strange, because the idea is not common in our culture.

That would be a good entry point to introduce Buddhism to your relatives and friends. You can of course use an English word instead of 'Nibbana'. Ex: Enlightenment, Final Liberation.
But using the word 'Nibbana' can also make them curious to find out what that is.

@qweilun, I agree mentioning anything about Nibbana to a grieving family who believes their loved one is now in heaven for all eternity; probably wouldn't be appropriate. But Sankha, I really liked your answer. It's interesting to see how things are done outside this little corner of the world. Thank you! :)

Most buddhists knows the process of death and that understanding would be preceeded by their feelings of loss, so most do not mourn the way other cultures might.  Most buddhist would wear white clothing during this time to show mourning. Just let them know you're there for them if you should need you.
This article from BuddhaNet deals directly with this, discussing funeral arrangements, ceremonies and rituals.

Buddhist philosophy teaches you to act with sincerity and not to speak for the sake of speaking. Given that, I don't think you need any particular line for expressing condolence. A simple "I'm sorry for your loss" or letting them know you are available to talk/listen should suffice as long as you mean it.
Remember that there is nothing you can say to end their grief. Your condolence/compassion is (ideally) expressed through your behaviour and intent to act for their long term good.

With true understanding and sincerity we cannot be sorry for their loss, as they have not lost anything. They never 'had' anyone to lose to begin with, yet we know we have always and always will have each other as we are never truly separate - of course a funeral is not an appropriate time for explaining such concepts.
For me, the only appropriate speech from my Buddhist perspective, would not to be sorry in the conventional sense, i see that as pity with false emotion, indeed it is better to say nothing. We should focus more on remembering the great times spent and celebrating the life that touched everyone there. We can do no more honor than to pass on the love and compassion the deceased gave us in their lifetime.
Speak truthfully and with correct understanding, you'll know what to say.

My Muslim friend's family just had a member die. On much reflection on what to say I re-edited my christian upbringing so it was true to my buddhist beliefs but not condescending to hers. "Our thoughts are with you and your family at your time of loss and reflection. Please pass on our love". The person has died but the living can know they are loved and we love everyone, don't we :)

As a Buddhist raised in a Christian culture, I know that using words such as nibbana, nirvana, enlightenment, would not be understood by most.  As condolences are for the living, then best to speak from the heart:  "May your sadness soon be replaced with only happy memories."

May he be dwelling at a higher abode.
In Myanmar language, ျမင့္ျမတ္ေသာ ဘုံမွာ စံစားႏိုင္ပါေစ။

An English translation would be helpful.

I think that "May he be dwelling at a higher abode" is the English translation. Google Translate for the phrase gives, "May you enjoy the sacred realm."


text:
Details for Kasina Meditation
I've searched through the web and also Wikipedia regarding Kasina meditation and could not find detailed information. Can the meditation object be anything? (Say anything green or blue for those Kasina meditations?)
How does one concentrate on the object? Any thought or mental note (like green green? Earth?) Is the breath watched like in Anapanasati?

Did you look in the Visuddhimagga?

Thanks @SankhaKulathantille I did find what I'm looking for. :)

Here in this answer I am going to give some resources I found in the web and not going to copy and past anything here as the process is quite lengthy and detailed. You could learn about Kasina meditation from "Visuddhimagga (Path of purificaiton)". If your refer page 117 and onwards describe the details about "Earth kasióa". If you need a shorter version please refer here.
Further you could refer this page which describe how the create "Earth Kasina"(object) and describe how to do the meditation in details. Hope this helps.

There are 10 Kasina meditations. They are categorized due to the object that meditater concentrate in meditation. Meditation method cannot be anything. If you use non-kasina object, it is just loose the time and you will never be able to concentrate. Anapanasathi is not included into Kasina Meditation.
When you select meditation method, it is better to meet a teacher. Best option is Sangha. Those Kasinas are here because of a reason. Meditation is like medicine. Those Kasinas are prescribed due to the characteristic of the student. Those color Kasinas are suitable for people who have angry. Other Kasinas are suitable for anyone.
Basically first you should follow Śīla with at least five percepts for some time(depends on person) before start the meditation.
So Those 10 Kasinas are,

Patawi Kasina (Concentrates on Solids)
Aapo Kasina (Concentrates on Liquid, best option is water)
Thejo Kasina (Concentrates on Heat)
Wayo Kasina (Concentrates on Air)
Nila Kasina (Concentrates on Blue color)
Pitha Kasina (Concentrates on Yellow color)
Lohitha Kasina (Concentrates on Red Color)
Odhatha Kasina (Concentrates on White Color)
Aloka Kasina (Concentrates on Light)
Awakasa Kasina (Concentrates on Space)

1. Patawi Kasina
That method is the method that has translated as Earth Kasina. But the correct meaning is the solid. During the meditation the meditater use self created Solid object. Usually we use clay(which use to make Bricks).
2. Aapo Kasina
Use water as the liquid. normal way of doing the meditation is done with looking at natural lake or tank filled with water.
3. Thejo Kasina
Here meditater concentrates on heat. the heat must not be unbearable and very low.
4.Wayo Kasina
This concentrates on air. hence air cannot be seen, meditator can use the breeze or waving leaves in a tree.
5-8 Nila, Pitha, Lohitha and Odhata Kasinas
Those Kasinas represents Blue, Yellow, Red, White respectively. Here use Wide single colored image as the object.
9. Aloka Kasina
This is the light Kasina. use candle light or oil lamp light as the object. Don't use electric bulbs,LEDs  and other powerful light sources. because they will harm to your eye.
10. Awakasa Kasina
Here we targets on empty space around us. (The free space in between objects)
It is better to make your object by yourself before meditation when needed. As a example there is no need of make Awakasa Kasina. you have to just find a good place.
these Kasinas are to enter the samadhi. first we look (or feel) at the object with continually concentrate the object in mind. when we do light Kasina, we say(Think) Light, Light, Light, Light............ until we can imagine the object with mind for long time.
then we should meditate with the imagined object.
please make sure that you meditate targeting vipassanā Meditation. vipassanā targets on understanding true nature of ourselves.

This link goes into detail about how to construct and use a colored-wheel kasina device. I have been using this 'method' for a few weeks now to some good effect...there is something about being able to concentrate on a tangible visual object that makes it easier for a beginner like myself to cultivate and sustain concentration.


text:
How to combine Buddhism with being a parent?
Buddhist philosophy says that we shouldn't get attached and try to form bonds with something and desire or crave it because everything is essentially impermanent and this will lead to suffering. But how can you raise a child without being attached? Wouldn't that make you lousy parent?
Of course the older a child gets, the more you'll have to let go. Every child needs to find his/her own way in life, but that doesn't take away the fact that, especially in the early years, there is a big attachment to your children.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the concept of attachment? Or is there another explanation?

Love and attachment are only incidentally related. Of course that depends on how you define love.
I would propose that love can be crudely understood as the act of giving. Naturally "investing" yourself in any "thing" particular will cause attachment to that particular "thing". And when we give, we have a tendency to at least subconsciously perceive that as an investment.
You can however rid yourself from these reflexes. You can give without expecting. Without succumbing to remorse if your feel your gift is non accepted or squandered. Children have a talent for giving parents that feeling.
Please note that I am not saying that you should not have any expectations towards your children. I believe you should. But you should not think of these goals as the desired fruits of your love. You should love unconditionally and independently set these goals in terms of what you genuinely believe will make your child happy. You will need a certain level of detachment/distance to make that assessment. You will even need to accept that your child (or anybody that you love) may reject the goals and head straight for something that makes them unhappy. If that is so, it is an experience they must be allowed to learn from (at least to the extent that the resulting harm to them is not devastating). Not expecting anything in return for your love will make it a lot easier for you to give it even then.
Try seeing the child not as your child, but the child that you choose to love regardless of the outcome. That is love without attachment.

Parents are supposed to practice Brahmavihara towards children. Attachment doesn't benefit them in any way. What benefits them are kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity. Attachment or clinging just makes you sad and afraid. Lord Buddha had no attachment. But he still preached the Dhamma, Vinaya and created a system which benefited many beings. Sometimes he would travel a great distance to help people attain enlightenment. He advised the Arya Sangha to do the same. Even after 2500 years, millions of people around the world still benefit from it. All that good work is done because of compassion. Not because of attachment.
You provide for your children because of Metta (friendliness).
When they get sick, you take them to the doctor because of Karuna (compassion).
When they study well and get into good positions in the society, you become happy because of Muditha (sympathetic joy).
When they get married and leave you or when they get busy in life and don't visit you as much as they used to, you stay calm because of Upekkha (equanimity).
Attachment doesn't do any of that. It only makes you sad & afraid.

I’m a clinical psychologist. I wonder if the various definitions of ‘Attachment’ might be the cause of some confusion? In psychological literature ‘Attachment’ is a crucial element of a healthy parent-child relationship. It refers to unconditional love and sensitive, empathic and compassionate parenting. It is not referring to a parents misplaced sense of ownership, or a way of imposing ideals, or living vicariously through their children -  all of which (to my limited knowledge) may come under the Buddhist concept of ‘Attachment’.

While you have attachment, you also have love for your children. Attachment is the cause for wanting to do things that you think will make you happy. (And ultimately will not.) Love is the cause for wanting to do things that make others happy.  Buddhism (and most, if not all, religions) makes the case that there is no greater compassion then that of parents, especially mothers, who work so hard and endure so much pain (and poop!) for the sake of their children. Love will make mistakes but we don't know the result of all of our actions so, if you are acting with Love, and trying to act with as much wisdom and compassion as you possibly can, I think you are doing good stuff! You, a future Buddha, are raising children, future Buddhas themselves. That's pretty awesome. (My twins graduated from college in 2013. Sweet! and Whew!)

IMHO, the answer boils down to difference between beginner's and advanced practitioner's attitude.
In beginner's mind, there is a strong conflict between Samsara of day-to-day life, and the peace of Nirvana. Buddhist practice is seen as a mean of cutting the fetters that keep reengaging one in the endless cycle of Samsara with its pointless activities and endless frustration. The challenges of day-to-day life are taken as nuisances or obstacles distracting one from study and practice.
In an advanced practitioner's mind though, Samsara is seen as an inverse projection of attachments, and Nirvana is understood as a fully integrated experience free from conflict between desirable and undesirable, not a place apart of Samsara. For such practitioner, all activity becomes dharmic practice, with glimpses of Nirvana hiding in the here and now, behind the curtain of dualistic mind.
As someone who's been married for ~19 years, and a practicing Buddhist for about the same time, I can say that married life provides endless possibilities for overcoming one's pathological habits, dropping one's hang-ups, surrendering one's egoistic facades, and sacrificing one's petty personal goals in the name of the higher good. As long as one operates in the right context, basically that growth requires overcoming the ego, married life becomes the best dharma school one could ask for.
As far as actual parenting (my son Matthew is going to be 16 in March), there is nothing as satisfying as helping another sentient being emerge less caught up in illusions than you were.
Finally, when we speak of attachments in (Mahayana) Buddhism we don't mean commitments or responsibilities. We mean attachments to preconceptions, prejudices, to (illusory) certainties, to self-image, irrational attachments to unrealistic expectations, all kinds of obsessions etc. In this context the answer to "How can you raise a child without being attached?" becomes very obvious -- the less attached you are, the better you do as parent.

I didn't understand, "... an inverse projection of attachments".

When we attach to something over there our here-and-now becomes unbearable. That's what I called "inverse projection of attachments".

There are many teachings to consider in buddhism's appx. 3000 year history. Today, the prescribed practice of buddhism for the modern age allows any individual to better understand and experience one's own enlightenment, without undergoing the austerities that Shakyamuni had to prescribe based on the people's capacity to understand at that time.  Obviously, there are many transient things that would be considered "normal" necessities in any time period, such as food, shelter, clothing, etc. In reality, it is those very needs and desires that propel us to strive for bigger and better ideals and goals.
Although on the surface, the teachings of Buddhism might be interpreted as implying that we should rid ouselves of all attachments, which would be impossible, the true intent of the teachings is that we should not allow our life to be ruled by attachments. In the complete picture, our ultimate mission as humans is to relieve the sufferings of others.  Being a parent is another vehicle that gives us the opportunity to manifest our innate enlightenment.  Embrace your children, encourage them to always do their best, and live your life fully so they can learn by example.

There was an interesting thread on this a few years back at Dharma Overground, where Stefanie Dunning gave a parental viewpoint. The "Actual Freedom" she mentions is some kind of modern very hard to understand (that's not a criticism; I just find them opaque) branch of contemplative practice, but I think her comments can apply to the Buddhist practitioner.

I heard someone say yesterday that if it wasn't for attachment, the longing, a mother's desire for her child, then she may be more likely to leave their child and not look after them.  Up until a certain age a child will need someone to look after them and it is important they have someone to look after them.  Loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity may provide the child with the emotional security the child needs but that will be broken if the parent abandons the child or does not provide those elements to the relationship at the right times or the attention is unpredicatable (this is what attachment theory discusses).
I have looked at buddhism and meditate regularly but I am not an expert on what the Buddha said however...I think that what is most important is that we recognise our emotions and urges and we act on them if they are sensible and in that way we are not so 'attached' to the emotions and urges to a degree that would cause distress.
In a mother and child relationship they will have a natural biological and psychological strong bond but if the mother is attached to the extent that the desire for her child overrides logic then problems will arise.  How good would a mother be if she kept a child in a dangerous situation because she was so strongly attached to the child?  No good at all!  It is of course natural for the mother to feel distressed after separating with her child but feeling it and acting on it blindly are two different things.
The child may still crawl to the mother and put itself in danger of course but that is because it is a child and has not learnt to separate its emotions from its actions, it knows no better and it does literally need its mother (or someone else) to survive. This programming is hardcoded into the child's brain.
This is for me what the buddha meant by non-attachment, we practice it, we recognise when it is sensible to look after someone through our responsibilites and love (equanimity, compassion, loving kindness, sympathetic joy) and the current situation and people we are dealsing with and we are able to then easily work out the correct situation regardless of our attachment.  The buddha spoke about ignorance in equal measure; the mother also needs wisdom in the same level as non-attachment.
Husband and wife relationships I feel are slightly different because if, in an ideal world, we are so free of attachment people could go off and do their own thing at the drop of a hat then we wouldn't stay in relationships for very long!  However we have a preference to be in relationships, possibly a slight preference to monogmous relationships (based on my open relationship / 'polyamourous' friends experiences they do seem more complicated!).  To know someone takes time so to chop and change partner can cause difficulties, also it is beneficial to know that you have someone committed to you in times of trouble, also our sexual 'needs' puts you at risk if you have many sexual partners and the natural distress of a breakup I think can also be factored in here (it would be natural to feel sadness but we don't need to be attached to it and can let it fade).  Emotions may guide us to split up (hatred, dissatisfaction) or keep us together (neediness) but it may be possible to overcome difficulties by not being so attached to our emotions and stay together or separate if that is what our good wisdom really tells us is the best course.
Practising non-attachment and understanding allows us to detatch ourselves from our naturally arising emotions and be able to behave in ways which are ultimately more compassionate, kind and loving.

Yes. The question is a complete misunderstanding of the Buddhist concept of attachment; having incorrectly applied the teaching of non-attachment to the wrong context or situation. Since Buddhism is about preventing and ending suffering, obviously it does not teach parents to not be attached to their children, in a manner that would lead to neglecting the welfare & well-ending of the children.

Householder THelper, parents, interested,

Children, Bullets
A gun shoots its children — its bullets — outward. We shoot ours inward, into our heart. When they're good, we're shot in the heart. When they're bad, we're shot in the heart. They're an affair of kamma, our children. There are good ones, there are bad ones, but both the good and bad are our children all the same.
When they're born, look at us: The worse off they are, the more we love them. If one of them comes down with polio and gets crippled, that's the one we love the most. When we leave the house we tell the older ones, "Look after your little sister. Look after this one" — because we love her. When we're about to die we tell them, "Look after her. Look after my child." She's not strong, so you love her even more.

once having received a guest wishing to make use of your offer and depends in many, nearly all regards, on you till able to go on if wishing, it's a great, nearly unrepayable gift of yours, how ever large or small it might be.
Having a guest means not only to to welcome him, but also that it's not ones own, can not be controlled, and will in all cases depart one day.
All you do is a matter of your generosity, free will, and nobody would have an inherent right of your many sacrifies. That being the case, a child has huge debts and whether seeing or not, parents are the children first Gods, sometimes the only.
When ever a child comes proper after his duties toward the parents, it's proper to reward the main duties:

"In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:

(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

If being not only the first god, but able to give secound, teacher in the world, third, teacher toward heavens, or even the highest, teacher toward liberation, that that of what your child owes to you increases strongly.
The later kind of Gods have certain duties in regard of giving ways to freedom and release and this is something one should mostly focus on, since on day there will be seperating. What can be more of joy for a God as to see his heirs in boundless states, overcome the misseries of bounds.
Even the Lord Buddha, no debts and duties at all, looked always toward this for his children, his monks, and departed on his own last journey only after he knew that his guest could gain of what their wished to attain, right view and the path to liberation.
So no more gift for a guest as to give him/her samples of right view, giving into higher and Sublime and not tending backwards and toward lower.
That's way people with right view, right directed, are not bound by their following, but "pull" them, headed in the right direction, if the guest wish so, toward liberation.
So be really a God for them, someone "liberal" and not someone devoted to lower, bound and worshipping those who actually would owe one much. What ever one gives, one gain: so there is no higher gift as that of giving toward release.

Vines
Children are like vines. Wherever a vine sprouts up, it has to look for a tree to climb up. If one tree is 15 centimeters away and another 10 meters away, which tree do you think the vine will climb up? It'll climb up the nearest tree. It's probably not going to climb up the tree 10 meters away because that one is too far off.
In the same way, schoolteachers are the people closest to their students. They're the people who children are most likely to take as examples. So it's essential that you schoolteachers have good manners and standards of behavior — in terms of what you should do and should abandon — for children to see. Don't teach them just with your mouths. The way you stand, the way you walk, the way you sit — your every movement, your every word — you have to make into a teaching for the children. They'll follow your example because children are quick to pick things up. They're quicker than adults.

So watch out of what and whom you fall for, venerate and regard as worthy to give into. That will be the foremost orientation your child could gain from you.
No one is more lost if been send of into pseudo liberal orphanage of no orientation.
Good to look that you yourself, do not become again such a heavy burden for many, as suffering comes from what is dear, taking no more birth in any womb, headed to heaven and beyond. Look out the mass fighting and killing for their childs.

The sorrows, lamentations,
  the many kinds of suffering in the world,
  exist dependent on something dear.
      They don't exist
      when there's nothing dear.
  And thus blissful & sorrowless
  are those for whom nothing
  in the world is anywhere dear.
  So one who aspires
  to the stainless & sorrowless
  shouldn't make anything
      dear
  in the world
      anywhere. (to sample mother Upasika Visākhā)

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)