text:
Why the nature of things is such as it is?
Namaste. My question is
Why the nature of things is such as it is?
I think that the question cannot be answered, because it points outside the grasp of our mind, but I am interested in possible deep evidences pro or contra.
Thanks.

When you say the nature of things i am assuming you mean things being:
1.Impermanent (anicca)
2.Suffering/Dissatisfaction/Dis-Ease (dukkha)
3.Non Self (annatta)
1.Why is the nature of things impermanent?
Because conditioned phenomenon is constantly in a state of flux.Why?Because something causes this to happen than this causes that to happen then that causes that to happen then...and so forth.
2.Why is the nature of things suffering/dissatisfaction/Dis-Ease?
Because the conditioned phenomenon keeps changing.(impermanence).And we keep grasping at it.What happens when you try to hold on to something that keeps moving and your adamant about staying put.You hurt yourself.You stress yourself.Let go.
3.Why is the nature of thing Annatta?
I can not answer this.It just IS.
Both Samsara and Nibbanna are devoid of an Ego.Both conditioned and the unconditioned have no permanent self/Ego.

This is a broad question, perhaps a whole category of questions.

Is the world like it is because it was created that way (by a creator God) for some reason?
No, Buddhism doesn't accept/teach about a 'creator deity'.

What do we know about the creation of the world?
Not much: it has "no discernible beginning".

What ought we to care about the creation of the world?
The Buddha said that instead of talking about such things, his intention was to teach about suffering and the end of suffering.

What is the nature of things?
The nature of things includes the 'three marks of existence', the laws of 'karma' and 'dependent origination', etc. etc.

Perhaps some interesting questions include:

Why do we perceive the nature of things to be as we perceive it?
Answers to that question include the theory of 'skandhas' and of 'identity view'.

Can we change the nature of things?
Well, good actions and evil actions, skillful and unskillful actions, have an effect.

Can we change our perception of the nature of things?
Supposedly yes: doings so is pretty well the purpose of Buddhism.

Short Answer: Because that's the way it is, and it doesn't matter.  Please read The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.
Long Answer:
There is no satisfying answer to this question because we're only asking because things happen to be this way.  If they were another way, we'd ask why things were THAT way.
It may be better to ask instead why you are asking that question.  Why not just accept that this is reality and that's that?  The very question you ask implies an attempt to give human existence cosmological importance. If so, what does this say about the attachment to your belief in your importance?  In short, is the question itself a symptom of an anthrocentric bias or agenda?
Now let's bring this back to Buddhism.
If you want to know why things are the way they are, then there is a Buddhist parable which is THE BEST Buddhist teaching I've seen on this and other metaphysical questions. It's called The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.  If you haven't read it, I recommend you do.  It teaches that only thing that matters is relieving your suffering, so stop the pointless speculation.
If you spend your time worrying about these things, then not only will you be distracted from the only thing that matters (relieving your suffering), but you may increase your suffering by agonizing about something you can't change.  Yes, nothing is more conducive to suffering than worrying about what's out of your control.
Which brings us to suffering. Buddhism has its 3 Marks of Existence. I'd interpret that as the 3 Marks of Experience. After all, suffering does not exist in the universe -- rocks, planets, and hydrogen atoms don't suffer, or at least I don't think they do.  Suffering is our REACTION to things, a reaction we can change, and this is where Buddhism is (and should always be)  situated.
Trying to elevate suffering into some kind of cosmological principle misses the point, and makes relieving suffering harder, by dramatizing it. Realizing the true role of suffering can put it into perspective and this itself is a big step towards relieving it.

The parable of the poisoned arrow always seemed like a cop-out to me. The historical Buddha seems happy to speak of many other esoteric, metaphysical things not directly related to the goal eliminating/escaping suffering, so his silence on the “unanswerable questions” on that basis seems suspect to my deluded, ego-attached mind.

@BrentCaldwell which is as it should be.

We don't see the nature of things since:

our mind is not focused enough
our mind is clouded by perception

So my developing insight leading to the cessation of perception and developing concentration you can see things as they are.

Before we come here, it is not easy  to see that a)
to get to b) means... I will suffer this and that. Before we come, all we
know is we wish to get from a) to b). For beings who are willing to see
 past the illusion, it works.

To give you personally fulfilment and happiness in everything you do. Could there be any other meaning for you? Some questions are merry-go-rounds, all take part and everyone goes round and round for fun. This one isn't like that. Or if it is, it is a roundabout for one.


text:
Subtle sensations in Vipassana and Zen
In Vipassana retreats (as taught by Goenka) there is a relevant emphasis on bodily sensations that may arise.
They first ask you to do Ānāpānasati (to focus on sensations above your upper lip and below your nose, whil breathing) and then to scan your body, with the goal of perceiving sensations that may arise
On the other side, in Zen (soto), at least in my experience, they do not tell you what to focus on, and it seems that there is no emphasis on bodily sensations.
I asked to a Zen meditation teacher if he ever feels something in his body while meditating. His answer was ''No''.
So, my question is

How can it be that two traditions have so radical approaches to our body ?
Is it true that in Zen there are no stages where bodily sensations arise ?
If subtle vibrations arise while doing Zen, what is the right approach to them ? Ignore them ? Analyze them ?

How can it be that two traditions have so radical approaches to our body ?

They have different teaching methods. Also, zazen is not usually presented with discrete steps (though there are some milestones), as opposed to the original "sati" meditations (anapanasati, satipatthana)

Is it true that in Zen there are no stages where bodily sensations arise ?

I've never heard this said.

If subtle vibrations arise while doing Zen, what is the right approach to them ? Ignore them ? Analyze them ?

The stock phrase in zazen is "you just sit".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Impermanence is Buddha nature / Buddha nature is impermanence
Can anyone please explain these aphorism / these aphorisms?
Thank you in advance.

What is here to explain? Impermanence is Buddha-nature; Buddha-nature is impermanence! ;)

I don't know, so the following is a complete guess, and I hope someone will give a better answer.
Apparently the aphorism come from Dōgen.
Dōgen has a perhaps-non-standard view of Buddha-nature, which he calls Busshō.
My guesses are:

If according to Dōgen everything (real) is Buddha-nature then (because everything real is impermanent), therefore everything (i.e. Buddha-nature) is impermanent.
So for example any description of Buddha-nature and anyone describing Buddha-nature and anything to which the term Buddha-nature could be applied is impermanent.
As for the converse (i.e. impermanence is Buddha-nature), is that related to the third noble truth, or to rise and fall?

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


text:
Material wealth and dukkha
This article on money and happiness prompted my asking myself:

Are the wealthy experiencing dukkha in a different way to the poor?
If so, in what way? Are they experiencing it in a more / less refined way?
What did the "Buddha" say about money and suffering?

1.Are the wealthy experiencing dukkha in a different way to the poor?
We all experience dukkha differently depending on our karma.The wealthy can afford to experience happiness born out of sensual pleasures than the poor.
2.If so, in what way? Are they experiencing it in a more / less refined way?
How refined their dukkha is depends on how strong they attach to the happiness their wealth brings to them.The more they attach to it the more painful their dukkha is the less they attach the more subtle it will be.
3.What did the "Buddha" say about money and suffering?
Money or wealth does not bring suffering.It is our strong craving/attachment to it that brings suffering.Wealth is actually in a way kind of like a blessing.It is one of the karmic resultant of practicing generosity in previous lives and the result of being hard working and industrious.The Buddha often instructed lay people on how to preserve their wealth.And in the Adiya Sutta even describes the benefits to be obtained by having wealth.Adiya Sutta:Benefits to be Obtained from Wealth So don't see money or wealth as a cause of suffering.you can easily substitute the word money for anything under the sun and the only way it will cause us suffering is through our strong attachment to it.

hi, thanks for the reply, but i wasn't asking if wealth caused suffering, i think

Please forgive me.Did you want to know what the Buddha said about:
1.Just Money
2.Just Suffering
3.Or the relationship that Money has to  Suffering
Thanks

i only meant to say that's not a complete answer :)


text:
Does yesterday have buddha nature
I am asking because I think that if the past has buddha nature, and the dharmakaya is impermanent, then there is nothing left of the enlightened when they die.

Dharmakaya is not impermanent. Where did you get such an idea?
Buddha nature/dharmakaya is not impermanent. Dharmakaya = the idea of Self, Buddhanature, Allah, Brahmin, Substrate... it's the thing that is beyond existence and nonexistence... it's beyond separation and non-separation. It's the thing that stands beyond time and exists without existing.
"Past" is a way of categorizing time.
It is just as much a figment of imagination as "present" and "future".
The only thing that exists is the "now" but even that is speaking relative to a "past" and "future" which do not truly exist except in your imagination.
Nonetheless, the imagination is an important tool for discussion, desire, economics, etc. It is the foundation of our worldy and supernatural discoveries.
Anyway, to give you a clear answer to your unclear question, the past does not have buddha nature since it is completely imaginary, dharmakaya is permanent (it is all-that-is), and your logic does not follow about enlightened people.
On the other hand, it is true, much is left behind through the bodhisattva path including the fetters which bespeaks of the fear you have of "nothing being left".

i think the dharmakaya is impermanent.


text:
Do beings without conscious experiences have buddha nature
A philosophical zombie is defined as follows,

Zombies in philosophy are imaginary creatures used to illuminate problems about consciousness and its relation to the physical world. Unlike those in films or witchraft, they are exactly like us in all physical respects but without conscious experiences: by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave just like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness.
Few people think zombies actually exist. But many hold they are at least conceivable, and some that they are possible. It is argued that if zombies are so much as a bare possibility, then physicalism is false and some kind of dualism is true. For many philosophers that is the chief importance of the zombie idea. But the idea is also of interest for its presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and how the physical and the phenomenal are related. Use of the zombie idea against physicalism also raises more general questions about relations between imaginability, conceivability, and possibility. Finally, zombies raise epistemological difficulties: they reinstate the ‘other minds’ problem.

Using this definition, would a being which is "not conscious" have Buddha-nature?
I ask because I want to know if the Buddha is dead and inanimate matter, and inanimate matter has Buddha nature, that means that the Buddha senses what inanimate matter does?
Moreover, I want to know if a non cognition of emptiness is "like" a cognition.

The Question is invalid! Zombies don't exist!

it's a thought experiment :)

Meditate "thinking.. thinking..." whenever you get that thought ;)

hahahaha, maybe

They have Buddha nature in the same way that Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters have Buddha nature.

@SankhaKulathantille I don't completely understand the question, but I think that some examples of "beings without conscious experiences" might include a tree, or a stream, or a mountain.

@user3293056 Re your last question, "I want to know if a non cognition of emptiness is 'like' a cognition", the quote "by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie" suggests that the answer is "no" or "mu": because 'qualia' is defined as (and cannot exist without) 'introspection' and 'conscious experience'.

Voting to close. The idea of the philosophical zombie is currently nothing more than a thought experiment. There is no evidence that zombies exist, and the notion that they could exist even in theory is highly controversial. I don't see how any of us could remotely know the answer to this question. It's sheer speculation and similar to asking if the Dementors in Harry Potter would have Buddha nature.

ok, tho thought experiments can be helpful

@ChrisW i am not sure what i mean by "like" there. can something be qualitatively "like" the smell of apricot, but have no qualitative likeness? it may seem, trivially not, but what about synaesthesia, a smell or touch can be like a smell, but not in any way actually smell at all

This question may seem speculative, but I think it actually has a basis in Buddhism. There is a class of beings called nonpercipient beings that don't have any consciousness at all. However, they are basically just a body that doesn't do anything, not a zombie per se.
Such a being would have Buddha nature because by the Tathagatagarbha Sutras teach that all beings have Buddha nature.

If we start differentiating conscious and non-conscious entities, and ask which one has Buddha nature, that would be implying that conscious entities have a permanent self and non-conscious entities have no permanent self. This conflicts with Buddha's statement that "all phenomena is not self".
If "Buddha Nature" refers to Nirvana, then Nirvana's nature is that it is something that is uncreated, not-destroyed, permanent and non-changing. It has nothing to do with being conscious or not. But without consciousness, mind and sufficient intellect, such entities cannot escape from suffering.
But are such entities actually suffering? That follows the statement that "all conditioned things are suffering", which means "continuously changing existence is suffering", rather than "life is suffering". So, yes.

Yes..
Even plants have been argued to have Buddha nature... after all Buddha nature is all-encompassing, the root of existence and non-existence..
My perspective:
Nothing has Buddha-nature! Nothing but "Buddha-nature" exists.
Buddha nature is the Universe. The world, items and conscious beings are just constantly changing interdependent items bobbing around within it...
Bodhisattvas thus identify themselves as the whole universe and not just as a person.

Zombies?? They are one kind of lives In our religion, we call them ghosts. We frighten them but they don't want us to frighten. They want us to donate something for them. Because their positions are lower than us. In our religion, the last time in our lives is very important for us because when we feel the evil things we know it that we are going to reach the evil where such as hell, lives of the animals. So that is the important time for us. Moreover we can also reach the zombies lives. When we have any donations, we can't change the other lives. So we can also call them interval lives between changing from one to another due to the last time. Therefore I want to tell you the zombies also exit. That is my thought.

The question is about a different kind of zombie. It's a shame that the philosophers even use the word because people often confuse it with the other kind. The philosophical zombie is simply an aspect of a thought experiment where the relationships between brain, mind, and consciousness are explored.

I have never seen a zombie. Is this an invention of human fear? If I told you that I have dreams about flying cows, would flying cows have a Buddha nature?
What keeps us from seeing Buddha nature is the concept of self that we entertain in our hearts and mind.
If the cup is empty, it can be filled. If the cup is full of muddy water, you can put nothing in it till you empty out the muddy water and wash the glass.
A koan in Zen is "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" Some masters say yes and some say no. It is unanswerable unless one uses it as a koan. More on this here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)


text:
Is it true that Physics confirms some of the Buddha's teachings?
I've heard it said that some observations in modern Physics effectively confirm some of the things the Buddha taught.

Is that true?
If so, could someone provide some examples?

@Apple, this was in my review queue and while the English was hard to parse, I reckoned it was a good question underneath. As a result, I pretty much beat it about the head with an editing baseball bat so it's quite possible I've broken your intended meaning (especially over that word "order" which I reckon meant "teaching"). Don't hesitate to change what I've done if I got it wrong (or for any other reason).

It's OK. I am not expert in Eng. So I can make a lot of mistakes. Thank you for your correction for me.

I fail to understand how this is a question of Buddhism, or something that Buddhism is concerned with. This seems to be more of a science question. I would challenge someone to find a teaching of the Buddha that was concerned with Buddhism being verified from a materialist point of view.

@Ryan I think it was on-topic because there are some people who claim "what the Buddha said is true, and that has even been confirmed by modern science/Physics" ... I might also have seen someone imply that some of the Buddha's recorded observations imply miraculous/superhuman powers of observation (e.g. to view microscopic or cosmos-scale events), recently confirmed by "modern Physics".

This is dangerous ground, and liable to a lot of fluffy thinking, especially when referring to the area I like to call "Quackum Mechanics". But fluff aside, I think the notion is indeed true. And it's not a surprise since both Buddhism and Physics are trying to understand the nature of reality.
One example is in fact that very-prone-to-new-age-woo area of Quantum Mechanics. Staying clear of the woo, and although there's still a lot of debate over how to interpret the results, I don't think there's much if any debate over the idea that whatever reality is, it's not what it looks like.
Now until QM came along, that idea -- that the underlying cause of our experience cannot be said to be the same as the experiences it causes -- was respectable among philosophers and philosophically minded scientists which, back in the day was almost all scientists. After all, "Physics" was often called, until only very recently, "Natural Philosophy". But it wasn't at that point a "scientific" idea. It was metaphysics.
However, with the advent of QM, the double-slit experiment, entanglement, and so on, we now have scientific reasons to believe that idea, as well as philosophical/metaphysical ones. We now know, for example, that whatever an electron "is", it's not simply a wee ball whirling around a blob of slightly larger balls. Now some interpretations of QM would go even further and say that whatever an electron is, it's some function of a consciousness interacting with something else. In other words, that interpretation says that "reality" is not properly described as subject/object -- that is, reality is "non-dual".
So I'd consider all of that to be a confirmation of one aspect of the kind of metaphysics proposed by the Buddha. He claims to have experienced some aspect of these things -- the illusory nature of our experiences, and the non-duality -- that only now, 2,500 years later, our Western science is beginning to pick up on.
Now, again, caution is needed. I don't for a minute think that the Buddha knew about the double-slit result, or could work with Schrödinger's equation and so on. In understanding his position in this I'd use the analogy of selective breeding versus genetic engineering. The Buddha is like the expert cattleman who over years of selective breeding transforms wild animals into domesticated cows. But he may not know the full details of how he does what he does. Then, in that same analogy, the Physicist is like the modern gene expert who now understands in scientific detail what the cattleman had figured out in general by practical trial and error.

You state a striking comparison: The cattleman experiments with cows, the gene expert experiments with genes. The former does not even know about the existence of genes. Apparently, he cannot ask any questions which help to investigate genetic selection, much less he can conjecture helpful answers.

Well, it's merely an analogy, so I wouldn't push it too far. But I guess a point is that the cattleman doesn't need to know about genes in order to influence them or ask questions and conjecture answers about how to make more useful cattle. Similarly, an old Tibetan master doesn't need to know about the brain's default mode network in order to shut it down (if indeed that's what is partly involved in awakening -- I'm not arguing that it is) or ask questions and conjecture answers concerning the various proposed methods of doing that.

I'd add that even today, despite our increasing knowledge of genetic engineering, if I wanted to breed cows I'd still call on the services of an expert cattleman rather than those of a gene scientist.

Did the Buddha experience and/or talk about "the illusory nature of our experiences, and the non-duality"?

It was not Buddha's point to teach on science. The focus of his doctrine was to improve the human condition and to stress ethical considerations.
Buddha's knowledge about natural phenomena was confined within the bounds of his time and his society. It was the society of the 5.th century BCE living in the Ganges flood plain. The great advancement of modern physics presupposes quite different methods of observation and theoretical methods, e.g. from mathematics.
I conclude that physics does not confirm any of Buddha's teaching because he left no teachings on physics at all.

To add to tkp's answer, here's a description of dependent origination by Sogyal Rinpoche (Sogyal Rinpoche (2009), The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Harper Collins, Kindle Edition):

...all things, when seen and understood in their true relation, are
  not independent but interdependent with all other things. The Buddha
  compared the universe to a vast net woven of a countless variety of
  brilliant jewels, each with a countless number of facets. Each jewel
  reflects in itself every other jewel in the net and is, in fact, one
  with every other jewel... Think of a tree. When you think of a tree,
  you tend to think of a distinctly defined object; and on a certain
  level...it is. But when you look more closely at the tree, you will
  see that ultimately it has no independent existence. When you
  contemplate it, you will find that it dissolves into an extremely
  subtle net of relationships that stretches across the universe. The
  rain that falls on its leaves, the wind that sways it, the soil that
  nourishes and sustains it, all the seasons and the weather, moonlight
  and starlight and sunlight—all form part of this tree. As you begin to
  think about the tree more and more, you will discover that everything
  in the universe helps to make the tree what it is; that it cannot at
  any moment be isolated from anything else; and that at every moment
  its nature is subtly changing. This is what we mean when we say things
  are empty, that they have no independent existence.

The following article in Wired last year discusses almost the same thing based on quantum entanglement and the arrow of time:

If the new line of research is correct, then the story of time’s arrow
  begins with the quantum mechanical idea that, deep down, nature is
  inherently uncertain. An elementary particle lacks definite physical
  properties and is defined only by probabilities of being in various
  states. For example, at a particular moment, a particle might have a
  50 percent chance of spinning clockwise and a 50 percent chance of
  spinning counterclockwise. An experimentally tested theorem by the
  Northern Irish physicist John Bell says there is no “true” state of
  the particle; the probabilities are the only reality that can be
  ascribed to it.
Quantum uncertainty then gives rise to entanglement, the putative
  source of the arrow of time.
When two particles interact, they can no longer even be described by
  their own, independently evolving probabilities, called “pure states.”
  Instead, they become entangled components of a more complicated
  probability distribution that describes both particles together. It
  might dictate, for example, that the particles spin in opposite
  directions. The system as a whole is in a pure state, but the state of
  each individual particle is “mixed” with that of its acquaintance.

The above describes dependency between entities at a particle level, while the following quote from the same article describes dependency between entities at a macro level:

In the new story of the arrow of time, it is the loss of information
  through quantum entanglement, rather than a subjective lack of human
  knowledge, that drives a (hot) cup of coffee into equilibrium with the
  surrounding room. The room eventually equilibrates with the outside
  environment, and the environment drifts even more slowly toward
  equilibrium with the rest of the universe. The giants of 19th century
  thermodynamics viewed this process as a gradual dispersal of energy
  that increases the overall entropy, or disorder, of the universe.
  Today, Lloyd, Popescu and others in their field see the arrow of time
  differently. In their view, information becomes increasingly diffuse,
  but it never disappears completely. So, they assert, although entropy
  increases locally, the overall entropy of the universe stays constant
  at zero.
“The universe as a whole is in a pure state,” Lloyd said. “But
  individual pieces of it, because they are entangled with the rest of
  the universe, are in mixtures.”

The above statement that "information becomes increasingly diffuse, but it never disappears completely" also resonates with Buddha's middle way teachings for e.g. the discussion of what happens when a person dies. He does not have a permanent soul that transmigrates, according to the Buddha. The newly born person is also not the same person as the one that died, yet not completely independent. However, the "information" is not completely lost and it reappears to a certain extent in the newly born person. This is a middle path between eternalism and annihilationism. There is a description of this in the Acela Sutta and some discussion in my previous answer to another question. Of course, this part is only my conjecture and rebirth is not described by science.
So, the article from Wired discusses that there is no eternalism (no independent particle and no independent cup of hot coffee), yet there is also no annihilationism ("information becomes increasingly diffuse, but it never disappears completely"). It also says that everything is interdependent (“The universe as a whole is in a pure state but individual pieces of it, because they are entangled with the rest of the universe, are in mixtures").
The above also coincide with Buddha's teaching that all conditioned things are impermanent.

Is it true that Physics confirms some of the Buddha's teachings?

I'm not sure how much value one should put into the phrase "confirming". That is because science is limited and that most of what we know is theories that change when new evidence is found.
I have divided the answer into 2 parts. First part is about the "limitation-aspect" of modern science. The second part is about how science could confirm/back up some of the Dhamma.
Here is a quote from the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda. The quote is from the chapter: "Limitations of Science", p. 363-364:

Limitations of Science
Often one hears so much about science and what it can do, and so little about what it cannot do. Scientific knowledge is limited to the data received through the sense organs. It does not recognise reality which transcends sense-data. Scientific truth is built upon logical observations of sense data which are continually changing. Scientific truth is, therefore, relative truth not intended to stand the test of time. A scientist, being aware of this fact, is always willing to discard a theory if it can be replaced by a better one.
Science attempts to understand the outer world and has barely scratched the surface of humanity’s inner world. Even the science of psychology has not really fathomed the underlying cause of human mental unrest. When a person is frustrated and disgusted with life, and the inner world of this person is filled with disturbances and unrest, science today is very much ill-equipped to help him or her. The social sciences which cater for human environment may bring a certain degree of happiness. But unlike animals, humans require more than mere physical comfort andneed help to cope with their frustrations and miseries arising from their daily experiences.
Today so many people are plagued with fear, restlessness, and insecurity. Yet science fails to help them. Science is unable to teach the people to control their minds when they are driven by the animal nature that burns within themselves.
Can science make human beings morally better? If it can, why do violent acts and immoral practices increase in countries which are so advanced in science? Isn’t it fair to say that despite all the scientific progress achieved and the advantages conferred on humans, science leaves their inner selves unchanged: it has only heightened their feelings of dependence and insufficiency? In addition to its failure to bring security and confidence to mankind, science has also made everyone feel even more insecure by threatening the world with the possibility of mass destruction.
Science is unable to provide a meaningful purpose of life. It cannot provide humanity with clear reasons for living. In fact, science is thoroughly secular in nature and unconcerned with their spiritual goal. The materialism inherent in scientific thought denies the psyche goals higher than material satisfaction. By its selective theorizing and relative truths, science disregards some of the most essential issues and leaves many questions unanswered. For instance, when asked why great inequalities exist among people, no scientific explanation can be given to such questions which are beyond its narrow confines.

Once the Buddha was sitting at the Ganges River with his monks. Then a piece of foam came floating down the river and the Buddha said, you see o'monks that piece of foam. The monks said yes we see Ven. Sir. The Buddha then said that materiality, i.e. the 1st aggregate of form is like that piece of foam. From a distance that foam looks solid. It looks like it has a structure. But when one inspects that foam closely one will come too see that it is hollow and empty of any structure. - Chris W. provided us with the text-reference SN 22.95: Phena Sutta: Foam.
Modern science have figured out that physical matter is almost empty space. It's like 99,9% is empty space and the rest is physical matter. But even that physical matter that looks so solid is also devoid of structure and solidity.
When one examines that matter in a powerful microscope one will come to see atoms. When examining those atoms one will come to see that they too are made up of smaller parts such protons, neutrons and electrons. When examining those parts one sees that they are made up of even smaller parts such as quarks. Science believes that quarks also have substructures but does not yet have the technology to confirm that.
With quantum mechanics they have now gone a level deeper. All this have now turned out to be a cloud of probability meaning that an electron can be multiple places at once and that it "chooses" its location only when its measured by an external observer. For more information on that see the "Double-Slit Experiment".
An important thing to add to the need for an external observer is that without an observer there cannot be a universe existing outside the awareness of that observer, meaning that it makes no sense to talk about non-conscious experience. If there is no observer to consciously observe a phenomena then that becomes imagination. Imagination belongs to conventional reality which is based on concepts and has nothing to do with the true nature of reality, i.e. Ultimate reality.
These things could be understood to confirm or back up what the Buddha knew and taught 2500 years ago.

The 'piece of foam' sutta is presumably Phena Sutta: Foam

Yes! Thanks Chris i didnt know where it was because i heard it in a dhamma talk.

The sutta says, "suppose ... a man with good eyesight were to see it". I don't think it's talking about subatomic structure: I think it's talking about impermanence, that foam arises from the river and is fragile and breaks up and goes.

@Chris. Science is talking about subatomic structures, not the Buddha.

Yes. Also I suspect that the double-slit experiment is more about a physical observation, than about a conscious observer: that it's the slits, i.e. the physical/experimental setup, not the observer's consciousness, that forces the photons or particles to a specific place/state. (Of course it's also true that the conscious observer doesn't know the results of the experiment until he/she observes them). https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat#Copenhagen_interpretation says, "The most commonly held interpretation of quantum mechanics is [etc.]"

I do not agree. Without an external observer the electron cannot collapse into a specific location. It makes no sense to talk about non-conscious experience since it can't be verified. That makes it imagination with no real point of reference.

The so-called observer effect is "the result of instruments that alter the state of what they measure in some manner" ... instruments, not consciousness. Similarly in Heisenberg's quantum mechanics maybe it's the gamma ray (not the consciousness) which affects the state of the observed electron.

@Chris. I do not agree. Without an observer there is no conscious experience. Even if an instrument is the "observer" you still need to have a sentient observer to look at the instrument or the measurement that the instrument made. If there is no sentient observer in the equation, there cannot be conscious experience.

@ChrisW. Friend, I realized that thinking I understand quantum physics I haven't really understood it at all. You might very well be right in your argument.

There is someone such as Paul R. Fleischman that in some way would agree with such a claim. For example in its Karma and Chaos essay he highlights how the Chaos theory enables we modern people to understand terms such as kamma, anatta. Elsewhere (Vipassana meditation and the scientific world view) he tracks other parallels such as:

Modern cosmology (vs Buddha's "cosmology", time and space expansion)
Compounded bodies (vs anatta)
Vibrational nature of ultimate matter (vs anicca)
Information theory (vs dhamma)
Again, Chaos/Complexity theory (vs kamma)

Another classical source on this topic is Capra's The Tao of Physics book.

I would advise caution.  This is a very tricky subject and it is too complex to be answered in a short way.
If you are interested in this topic I recommend you read the book "Choosing Reality" by B. Alan Wallace and was published by Snow Lion (now Shambhala Publications).
Alan studied physics at Amherst College, graduating summa cum laude. Later in 1995 he got a PhD in religious studies from Stanford University.
Since 1970 he devoted himself to study and practice Tibetan Buddhism and since 1976 he has been teaching in Europe and North America.  He is a real expert.
Choosing Reality is the best book I have read about physics and Buddhism.  It should answer your questions very well, as it did to me.

One of the things that has always impressed me about the Dalai Lama is that he has said that scientific discoveries should supersede scripture (exact wording may need correction, but that's the gist of it). Over the years I've followed science and technology news, and many times I've observed it appearing to provide evidence for Buddhist teachings, or beliefs, term used loosely. For instance, there's heavy emphasis on the notion of emptiness, and we've since learned that on a subatomic level, we're mostly empty space. That's just one of many examples. I would be extremely interested to see a listing/database of all of these occurrences supporting the insights from ancient wisdom traditions, realizations obtained by many generations of human mediation. Honestly, I'm a little baffled by some answers here--they appear to imply the question is almost irreverent, or view it as a forbidden question/knowledge, possibly because they are unaware that a very solid argument can be made that modern physics, chemistry and quantum theories actually very much tend to back up Buddhist perceptions. I think it would add quality and value to this Q&A site if we actually researched this question further and compiled a list, I know there are many more but can't think of them off the top of my head. In fact, I found your question by searching on whether this question had already been asked, because I am more than curious myself to see a compilation of such documented correlations.

Before answering this, you must know a bit about science, so read this: (it is an image)
https://up1.ca/#DZ7gVZ7ijMLB1aRZCwNMEQ

Hi, and welcome to Buddhism.SE. I see that you've linked to a rather large body of text in an image without any description as to what it is. This is bad form, as it is very difficult on the readers, who may want to know what  they are reading before they commit the time. Please consider editing your answer to include a summary of what you link to. Another point to keep in mind, is in general one sentence or excessively brief answers are discouraged. Thanks. Looking forward to your contributions.

Is it true that Physics confirms some of the Buddha's teachings?
No: no, in my opinion that's basically not true.
The Buddha wasn't teaching Physics. The Buddha said,

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

The Buddha also said that things have characteristics: as stressful (dukkha), as impermanent, and as not-self.
These are statements about the truth of conditioned things. They are not statements within the realm of Physics. Physics cannot make those statements. And Physics cannot talk about ethics or mindfulness or wisdom, about good or bad, about profitable and unprofitable, about the end of stress.

Suppose a poet were to say, "When two people come together, then they love each other and they feel attracted to each other; but then when they're separated, they no longer feel that attraction."
Suppose that a Physicist (Isaac Newton) were to come along later and discover the law of gravitation,

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Would you then say that,

Newton's law, "inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them", confirms what the poet said about "love": i.e. attraction when they're close and less attraction when they're apart?

I don't think you should say such a thing, I don't think such a claim would be true: they (i.e. the statements of the poet and of the physicist) are two different statements, describing different types of object and different types of behaviour.

Suppose the Buddha were to say that it's not wise to see the skhandhas as self. Suppose that statement were understood as saying that skhandhas are "not-self" or "empty of self". Suppose that "everything is interdependent and conditioned" were added, and that the statement were further revised so that now it says, "everything is empty of self"; and finally, just says "everything is empty".
Suppose your car were to become empty of fuel; or your bank account, empty of money; or your cup, empty of water. Would you say, "This confirms what the Buddha said: everything is indeed empty"?
Suppose science were to discover that strong nuclear radiation can penetrate through brick and other matter. The fact that it can be penetrated by radiation shows that apparently-solid matter is mostly empty. Again, would you say, "This confirms what the Buddha said: everything is indeed empty"?
I don't think you should: they're different statements describing different types of object and different types of behaviour, based on different types of observation, and making different predictions.

The above is the bulk of my answer, but I have a few small points left to clarify at the end:

Physics does not contradict what the Buddha said. Insofar as it doesn't contradict, it is compatible with: so in that sense, it could be said to 'confirm' it (but not really: if they're talking about something different then they "don't deny" each other rather than "confirming" each other)
Modern physics (or more generally, modern science) does appear to contradict some aspects of Buddhist (a.k.a. Hindu) cosmology. For example Mount Meru (or Sumeru) isn't evident on any modern geological map of the world. I don't see that as important.
Modern physics is unable to contradict some other aspects of traditional cosmology. For example, maybe Buddhism and/or Hinduism says there's a sequence of universes. Physics supports several theories. Someone could point to the Big Bounce theory and say that that "confirms Buddhist and Hindu cosmology", but I don't think that's justified.
Statements about Buddhism remind some people about Physics, and vice versa. Some of these statements originated from Westerners who started to learn Physics and then started to learn Buddhism; they might read something about something like "emptiness" and think "suppose that were connected to what I've learned about in Physics?" Again I don't see that as important: it's just a subjective "Do you know what? That reminds me of something else ...".
There's a slight extent to which Buddhism does make statements about Physics, with claims like "things are impermanent" and "things are interdependent". Physics may in various ways confirm those Buddhist observations; however I think those observations were probably meant to be so obvious that it didn't need modern Physics to prove it; it's almost on a par with saying that Biology confirms that creatures eat and breathe.

On the subject of "this reminds me", this reminds me of the few paragraphs in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which begin ...

Aristotle fouled up what Phædrus wanted to say by placing rhetoric in an outrageously minor category in his hierarchic order of things.
  It was a branch of Practical Science, a kind of shirttail relation to the other category, Theoretical Science, which Aristotle was mainly
  involved in. As a branch of Practical Science it was isolated from any concern with Truth or Good or Beauty, except as devices to
  throw into an argument. Thus Quality, in Aristotle’s system, is totally divorced from rhetoric. This contempt for rhetoric, combined
  with Aristotle’s own atrocious quality of rhetoric, so completely alienated Phædrus he couldn’t read anything Aristotle said without
  seeking ways to despise it and attack it.

... and end with ...

Phædrus guessed that Aristotle’s diminution of dialectic, from Plato’s sole method of arriving at truth to a "counterpart of rhetoric,"
  might be as infuriating to modern Platonists as it would have been to Plato. Since the Professor of Philosophy didn’t know what
  Phædrus’ "position" was, this was what was making him edgy. He might be afraid that Phædrus the Platonist was going to jump him. If
  so, he certainly had nothing to worry about. Phædrus wasn’t insulted that dialectic had been brought down to the level of rhetoric. He
  was outraged that rhetoric had been brought down to the level of dialectic. Such was the confusion at the time.

Similarly, equating Buddhism with Physics seems to me mistaken.


text:
Does using or watching YouTube break a bhikkhu's rules?
Would using YouTube or other social media, where one is exposed to music or forced advertising/entertainment, be breaking the rules for monks?

"the watching of entertainments are stumbling blocks"

This makes watching any of YouTube (Number 7 of the eight precepts) an area of
concern.

It is my personal experience that frequent games, movies, TV, YouTube, smart phone use and browsing definitely reduce one's mindfulness.
This is a  fundamental question about all entertainment - why must entertainment be eschewed? The nature of boredom is that it arises out of a mind that isn't at ease with itself. The nature of thought at the moment a bored mind arises is to gravitate towards the outside world - towards sense pleasures.
Distracted thought gets reinforced with every application of distraction, so much so, we live in a world where hardly anyone reads long pieces of text voluntarily and people find even Twitter too difficult to concentrate on.
The nature of boredom is that it gets excited by violence rather than peace. It reinforces duality, of the entertainer and the entertained. It is thus a quality of mind to be safe guarded against.
YouTube itself is just a tool, it is neither good nor bad, it is the nature of the mind that watches YouTube that is the determining factor. There are a good many dhamma talks on YouTube for example.

I have seen many references to this such as
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanavara/uposatha.html

The seventh precept speaks of refraining from dancing, singing and the
  playing of musical instruments. Is it not proper for one to ask
  another to perform so that one may watch? It is not proper.

I guess that in a strict order of Buddhism, this precept may have its place as a form of discipline. In other areas I have studied, this would be considered the letter of the law. It makes sense if you want to keep the passions cool, do not raise them with music and drumming and dancing with members of the opposite gender.
However, in the spirit of the law, Zen Shakuhachi flute music can be part of a practice in meditation as is archery, sword, and flower arranging. Listening to or playing this music for purpose of going deeper into meditation seems perfectly sensible under the spirit of the law.
When you meet a restriction on personal liberty, it can be instructive to examine the intent of the rule and also examine the intent of the practitioner of not following it strictly. In a monastery, breaking the rules can be an exit sign. In life, the rules are guidelines for novices. Those who have broken the wild stallion can refine the art of riding far beyond the initial guidelines for taming the wild thing.
If you go to youtube to hear music that is not filled with words, and does not stir up the passions, in other words pure music, then that can be an aid in meditation practice just as sitting, walking and lying down meditation all have their place. Intention is the key to understanding ourselves and the path we walk.
Thank you for the question.

I think I'm right: 7 says:

You most certainly are right in some contexts. Unfortunately in being right, you are also immediately subject to being wrong. Uncertain is closer to the middle and less likely to engage inner conflicts.

Youtube is just a tool... one doesn't watch youtube, one watches a movie, a vídeoclip or a Dhamma talk.
Think in youtube as a simple channel of communication, if you use it right, watching, let's say, Dhamma talks or guided meditation, how can that be bad or breaking a precept?

No not necessarily because Youtube is not synonymous with entertainment although the masses do use it for this aim.
In fact, Youtube is one of the best learning programs in existence. With all the video tutorials and such.
Also, use an adblocker. It DOES go against mental self-cultivation to be exposed to all the inappropriate content on the internet including blatant advertisements and sex appeal. It will unsettle you and break your vows to be exposed to all sorts commentary and "sexual education" material as well.
Focus on Buddhadharma videos and videos relelvant to your particular trade (e.g. business, cooking, product development, etc.).
Another thing, customize your feeds. If you do not customize your feeds you will not get the particular educational programs that you are looking for (if you're a java programmer, java feeds will show up, thus improving Right Livelihood).

Householder jmkjuy, interested,
good to consider for your self whether such entertainings and use of given with string will lead to debtslessness and toward liberation at first place.
Yet one can walk on not without debts but one is wise to consider toward whom and what. What and who gives toward release?
Regardless of kammic impact and long term happiness or bonds of such for all in all modes of life being a natural law: watching entertainments, music, films... all of that is breaking even the basic eight precepts, not at all proper and given for monks.
Using not personal giving resources, aside of "emergency cases", similar to approach common charity alms food, touches in many cases even ease thieving, aside of possible ceating, not able to keep or go into contracts.
Sharing Dhamma for commercial and even bad use with approve, maintain others trade with it with approve, also this can be easy thieve, at least total improper.
See also on explainings and encouragements on social media use.
Giving the heritage of the Sangha intentional away for commercial use or such as common propaty (both incl. bad use by law, even non-commercial and creatives, open-sources... are incl. bad use by law!) is simply thieving from the Sangha and often very aware, yet based on wrong views.
May all take care and be wise enought to build on their good conditions in all regards.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

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


text:
Can the dhatu elements be considered as permanent?
Can the dhatu elements (earth, water, wind and fire) be considered as permanent?

No I don't think they ought to be considered as permanent.
Modern physics and chemistry use the word 'element' to refer to the various types of 'atom'.
The word 'dhatu' is translated as 'element' in a different way:

Whatever is characterized:

by hardness (thaddha-lakkkhana) is the earth or solid-element;
by cohesion (ābandhana) or fluidity, the water-element;
by heating (paripācana), the fire or heat-element;
by strengthening or supporting (vitthambhana), the wind or motion-element.

All four are present in every material object, though in varying
  degrees of strength. If, for instance, the earth element predominates,
  the material object is called 'solid', etc. - For the analysis of the
  4 elements, s. dhātu-vavatthāna.

Any compound object (for example, a tree) might have some of these characteristics: but the object (e.g. the tree) is impermanent, and (therefore) the characteristics of the object are impermanent.

I believe that both answers are correct. In the book 'Buddhism. One Teacher; Many Traditions' (The Dalai Lama & Thubten Chodron - 2014), p. 144: Six Elements Are Not The Self: '(...)  The Pali commentary on the Majjhima Nikaya (MN 140:8) explains: "Here the Buddha expounds the reducibly existent by way of the irreducibly existent. The elements are irreducibly existent, but the person is not irreducibly existent. This is meant: "That which you conceive as a person consists of six elements [the 4 elements + space + consciousness]. Ultimately there is no person here. "Person" is a mere concept.'

I don't read MN 140 as saying that something is "permanent", and I don't read "irreducible" as meaning "permanent". I think it's talking about "properties of experience" (different views, like different filters, different ways to analyze experience). I think it's like saying that, "A (composite) painting of landscape is (is composed of, or, can be reduced to) a bunch of colors." But the painting isn't permanent: and neither are the colors IMO (because the colors, IMO, depend on the painting and on being perceived).

See also The All.

Indeed, Chris, this short Sabba Sutta explains all.

As far as I can see any thing is impermanent. What is impermanent defies description or conceptualization.
Here is more info on the subject.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm

All things arise due to causes and conditions. As causes and
  conditions are impermanent and will cease one day, all things will
  also cease correspondingly. When there is rising, there will be
  falling; when there is existence, there will be extinction. The rising
  and existence of things has its natural tendency towards cessation and
  extinction. It is like a wave; it comes and goes. Thus, when one sees
  the truth of "what this is, that is; this arising, that arises", one
  should also see the truth of "when this is not, that is not; this
  ceasing, that ceases". The Law of Dependent Origination pointed out
  the possibility of ending worldly suffering. It shows the way of
  liberation that corresponds to the Law of Cause and Effect.
"When one is born, one will die.  One who admires high status will
  fall one day."
This is the natural Law of Cause and Effect. It is also an inner
  implication of the Law of Dependent Origination. It can be called the
  Cessation Process of the Law of Dependent Origination.

As soon as one starts discussing permanence, it is already in the field of impermanence. Intellectual understanding may suggest a path. The practice of the path can lead to the unknowable. No one who has been here has ever said anything that could describe it.

See comment above


text:
How is His Holiness the Dalai Lama able to watch TV?
I watched a documentary of his life and he was using the remote to change the channels on his TV. Does this not break any of the rules? (227 bhikkhu precepts) Thanks.

Why did you edit this?

Why can people edit my posts? How does editing work? FYI I agree Crab Bucket's edits, i.e. the new 'tags' (e.g. 'dalai-lama' and 'modern-world') are a better description/categorization of this topic than the previous tags (e.g. 'prayer' and 'layman') were.

That is just rude. I'm dyslexic. It is not your place to be trying to fix any part of my disability.

Please see also What are tags, and how should I use them?

Right, I'm off. You can enjoy fixing each others posts..lol

I think you are a little bit obsessed with these questions, this is the 3rd question I see from you touching the same topic. Is there anything behind those questions you would like to ask?

Do edditors normally modify a Righter's work without an agreemint between writer and edditor?

@Uilium Yes, editors usually just go ahead and fix spelling mistakes etc. without explicitly asking permission. On the other hand, an editor shouldn't change the meaning of what the original author wrote. Apart from the Help which I linked to, see also this meta-question. The site gives users permission to edit each others' posts, within reason and hopefully/usually without any conflict.

ChrisW is right. SE sites sit somewhere between a forum, where input belongs to the inputter, and a wiki, where it's more of a communal thing. The aim here is to get the questions and answers to as useful a state as possible for everyone. It's not done to be rude; rather it's meant to help. It's really an implicit condition of participating on SE that one accepts that one's questions and answers are open to editing. There are plenty of straight forums for people who want otherwise.

I understand the rules for SE but what's wrong with asking permission anyway? I don't know but it seems like that might promote goodwill toward people. when we all have bad habits.

I've seen accomplished zen masters apparently check their phone. It didn't really freak me out, at all. Honestly I think there are better things to worry about.
Not even because they are accomplished enough to break the precepts with skilful means, or because the precepts are surely meant as practical guidelines not categorical prescriptions.
But because checking your phone or watching the discovery channel isn't the sort of thing that they were created to guard against. It may sound absurd trying to guess the intentions of the Buddha in creating the vinaya, but it was for the good of the sangha and neither arbitrary nor IMO a divine law.
If you think that the HH the Dalai Lama is accruing bad karma by having a television, then I think you misunderstand his job.

In an interview the Dalai Lama says he watched shows like Discovery. He says he does not watch entertainment shows and does not listen to music. He apparently uses television like an educational book.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/25/pmt.01.html
CTRL F type in television in the search box and you will see the interview excerpts.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama does not put conditions on anyone of any religious orientation or intellectual direction. He accepts all as they are. He eats meat every other day due to a medical condition. He tries to be the leader of a country and a spiritual branch of Buddhism and stay relevant to the latest technologies.
If your branch of Buddhism restricts media access, and that is acceptable to you, then follow the path you are on. We are all headed to the same destination, if there is a destination.
Thank you for the question.apparently

Thank you for that. But what does ''Thank you for the question.apparently'' mean?

if i may, i think he means that whatever your intentions "thank you for the question". i'm not a programmer tho!

A question to me is a gift. I thank someone for a gift and a question. I leads me to see myself more clearly. Thank you for your comment. That too is a gift.


text:
discursive meditation
Dear Venerable and friends,
Instead of anapanasati, some of us like to meditate on a subject; like contemplation.  For instance; inevitability of death & uncertainty of the time of death and being a mortal... or contemplation on 5 body parts (asubha).
My question: When sitting shall we use a short sentence? Like: Death is inevitable. I am a mortal being. Like me all beings in samsara will face death when the time comes. Hence, we must transform our minds in accordance with the Dhamma.
Is there any short comprising of 2 words/phrase that can be recited while inhaling & exhaling like mantra chanting (Bud- dho) in order to strengthen our contemplation.
How to establish a solid foundation and make progress while doing discursive meditation?
Thank you all, best wishes.

My question: When sitting shall we use a short sentence? Like: Death is inevitable. I am a mortal being. Like me all beings in samsara will face death when the time comes. Hence, we must transform our minds in accordance with the Dhamma.
Yes.Short sentences like this helps the mind to focus on a theme/truth.It helps the mind penetrate its meaning.
Is there any short comprising of 2 words/phrase that can be recited while inhaling & exhaling like mantra chanting (Bud- dho) in order to strengthen our contemplation.
Now unless your contemplating on the breath,this is where it gets complicated.You are trying to understand a certain truth.For example,"Death is inevitable".But a 2 syllable word.One for the inbreath and the other for the outbreath.May narrow your concentration to a point where it hinders your ability to investigate/contemplate (especially if your object of meditation is not the breath).Investigation is whats needed in Discursive Meditation.
Mantra chanting is good to do before you start your discursive meditation or investigation as a means of stabilizing or anchoring the mind.But i don't see it as a way to strengthen contemplation.In fact i think it hinders it.By splitting the object of meditation in three.1.The Breath.2.The Mantra.3.The Meaning of the Mantra (Death is inevitable).

For myself the expression "Don't know" covers so many facets of mindfulness development, it is surprising more people are not aware of it.  The Zen practice of the "Don't know mind" that 'empties' the mind, is not what is intended here; but of a meaningful enquiry so as to keep focused on just about any object of contemplation.  One of the basics of Dhamma is Anattaa, hence any object under investigation will respond to the genuine exclamation of "Don't know" simply because all objects lack any substance and thus ain't objects.
Unwholesome objects will become 'stressed' or rejected; whilst wholesome objects will gladden and develop, until such time as increasing subtlety renders such objects unwholesome so as to give way to states of ever greater subtlety and wholesomeness: etc, etc.
For some practitioners the best results might come when the so called 'heart' centre is focused on, whilst synchronising the breath. The space behind the sternum joint at the first visible rib pair: which is drifting off topic.


text:
How are bhikkhus using social networking sites?
I thought bhikkhus were to not to be involved with entertainment. Thank you in advance.

I don't think their intention is to entertain but to to teach.Social Networking Sites can be used as a form for communication.Especially in this day and age.It's likened to them writing a letter or giving a dhamma talk.Since i don't attend any Buddhist monastery or retreats or groups,I have benefited from monks teaching the Dharma on Youtube or contacting a monastic via facebook when i had any questions etc.It is also a way for the monastic to keep in touch with the lay people.So intention plays a big role in why monastics use social networking sites.

My experience is that there are two types of using social networks in a monastery.
One is a collective use made by the whole community of monks and nuns, and this can be very wholesome, for giving teachings, reaching people and connecting with those who otherwise could not be in contact with the monastery.
The second one is the individual use made by individual monks and nuns who have access to Internet, and this is up to the single person and his practice on how to use it. In some monasteries  there are not strict limitations and monastics could use social networks as a lay person would do. If a monastic is truly dedicated to her practice, then she will use the social network in a wholesome way.
If one monk, for example, uses social networks for entertainment, he should recognize it, observe his mind, see that it is not beneficial and so he can make an effort to stop doing it. I think the same can be said also for lay people.

Youtube/Facebook etc. are just tools... one doesn't watch "youtube", one watches a movie, a vídeoclip or a Dhamma talk for example.
Think in youtube as a simple channel of communication, if you use it right, watching, let's say, Dhamma talks or guided meditation, how can that be bad or breaking a precept? Same thing goes for facebook or blogs...

Good householder,
Of course one living on alms wouldn't easy stay fault and remorseless if going into contract with common undertakings and use things which are actually not given to one (like as with posting here, if not personal invited by company). Yet less take the meaning "homeless" and depending on gifts seriously, even spread demands toward provider, as if they where customers. There are plenty of "monks" out there who even blame and criticize those who they "steal" from and motivate followers to do likewise.
How ever, if "taking in trust" is possible (knowing owner personal, he has expressed the offer of using personal or toward thega Sangha, knowing that he would be glad if using, still alive), one could make use.
The matter of entertainment shouldn't be one at all, of course, as such brings additional faults as well as communicating separated or exclusively with other gender or "eating" together with householder...
As for special circumstances, if depriving from the allowance for monks to receive alms from charities if just for 2, 3 times, it would be possible to "take temporary account" if perceiving a social network as charity (which is hardly found, sadly...).
As for laypeople, who, when wise, are after conductive deeds for themselves, good if organising given possibilities as if not it's natural to be only in contact with monks who don't care much on virtue, those not having left home. This should be what can be drawn from the topic for oneseft, aside of reflecting about the steady consume of not liberal intented offers. Hardly a layperson who would sacrifices proper to stay in contact, or? Nothing is for free but some bond to liberation, such as virtue and wise giving.
Do virtuous, act generous, be careful, keeping good and bad in mind, in regard of own actions.

In regard of what's not given, like most, it's impossible in good ways. And of course people drift away if not giving condition at first place, will be just slaves of there unwillingness to give at first place. Slaves of huge IT-Brahmas (Maras), like here, corrupting the tradition of the Noble Ones for worldly gains.
As it isn't remorseless, faultless possible at all and would lead only to corruption, it's maybe an inspiring occasion that a generous developer gave a question and answer software toward the Sangha this days.
Giving of a Question+Answer Software (Q&A) toward the Sangha
My person can only encourage those who have gained certain faith and love similar format to put efforts into development.
Of course, who ever feels good inspired, is given to implement such via given server and domain, and it's also garanted that open speech as well as non-harm, non-censure, will be secured by keeping precepts and virtue at first place.
As for communities and 'chat-like' talk, an email based software was given for the Buddhaparisa:


text:
How does our inactions contribute to Karma?... For eg:How can you justify act of your cook killing an animal for your non buddhist guest?
I came to know His Holiness Dalai Lama serves his guests meat at his residency.... Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest or further is it not your dharma to ask your cook to not kill an animal?..
So as to avoid confusion.. My main question is how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. Like here for eg. Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed...

Maybe this question is already answered by Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong? and/or by Are all Buddhists vegetarian?

Yes partially... But actual question is much deeper.. Can we overcome sufferings by our actions alone?... Should not we be concerned about the consequences of our inactions too?

if inaction is the main question, perhaps change the title so it better conveys your intention -- and so its better to search later for questions related to this?

Thank you for the suggestion i  have made the question more direct

I came to know His Holiness Dalai Lama serves his guests meat at his residency
Yes but is the meat bought at the supermarket or he keeps animals to slaughter for food?
If it's bought at a supermarket than I think it would be less bad karma than if he had it slaughtered.
Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest or further is it not your dharma to ask your cook to not kill an animal?..
Yes I definitely think asking your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest is Not dhamma.I think it generates bad karma but only the level of intensity varies according to our intentions.I don't think we can kill another being even for food and get away with it.Though killing an animal for food is better than killing them for fun for sport.So the karma varies according to our intention. I don't know maybe it's just personal opinion but i just can't see that.My conscience won't allow me too.Which is why If I have to eat meat,which I do everyday, I say a little prayer and allow them to kill me for food in the future if a time like that should come.It's an act of compassion to give yourself to sustain others.Though i'm sure some of these animals we're not given a choice.so that's why I feel gratitude.For the food itself.So i do think it's wrong and i do accept all the consequences.We are the owner and heir to our karma.If we must kill an animal for food then we should do so in the most humane way and make use of all it's parts, for meat,hyde,fur for clothing etc.In some cultures that shows respect for the animal you've hunted.And I'm sure that's in line with the spirit dhamma.
My main question is how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. Like here for eg. Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed...
Karma is intention.Action with intention.
What is your intention for killing an animal?
and What is your intention for not doing anything to stop the animal being killed?
This will contribute to the fruits of our karma.

Buying meat from the supermarket isn't bad Karma.
Also, not doing a certain type of good deed isn't necessarily a bad deed.

Non-action is an action (e.g. allowing a child to continue hitting another child in front of myself would cause bad karma to me). Permitting an action to take place is the same as non-action.

Wrong! There are plenty of ways to not interfere without committing bad Karma. ex: Doing Satipattana: "seeing... seeing..", doing metta meditation: "let them be devoid of anger, devoid of hate etc.", doing Karuna meditation: "let them be devoid of  suffering, devoid of pain..." or simply observing it with Uppekha.
But you will get bad Karma if you enjoy, get saddened or start hating the violence. :)

@SankhaKulathantille "Buying meat from the supermarket isn't bad Karma.""If you say so.I see buying meat from supermarket as contributing to the supply and demand of meat in the market for which i am guilty of."Also,not doing a certain type of good deed isn't necessarily a bad deed".Depends on what the certain type of good deed is,if somebody is hurt and you could save them but choose to do nothing or better yet, use that moment to practice satiphatana while you watch them continue to get hurt..??honestly...that just sounds like indifference.

@Orion, If that is the case, buying vegetables & fruits also contribute to all the animals being killed due to pesticides and deforestation. Karma is intention. If you don't have the intention to kill, it's not going to be bad Karma whether someone holds you responsible or not. :)
"that just sounds like indifference" - the problem here is you assuming that all kinds of indifference is bad Karma. A mind state becomes bad Karma only if it involves greed, aversion and ignorance. Doing Satipattana means Samma-sati which is devoid of those defilements.

@SankhaKulathantille the problem here is you assuming that all kinds of indifference is bad Karma.All kinds of indifference is bad.Indifference should not be mistaken for equanimity.

Well, 'indifference' is an English word. For it to be bad, it should contain 1 of the 3 roots of evil. So it really depends on what you mean when you say 'indifference'.

@Orion If what you are saying is true, you are Karmically responsible for eating your lunch today instead of giving it to an animal who starved today. You gain bad Karma for spending time to answer questions here instead of spending it to help a sick person or a beggar :)

@SankhaKulathantille Alright: Buying meat from the supermarket is not bad karma.Greed: You crave the taste of meat.Ignorance: Your ignoring the fact that an animal had to die for you to eat it in the first place.Aversion: Your indifferent.

@Orion And how is that any different from buying fruits? Greed: You crave the taste of fruit. Ignorance: not being aware of the animals that are killed in the fruit production and so on  :)

In fact, whether it is meat or not, the real ignorance here is taking the taste as something good or taking it as "I tasting". The animal killed in the past is irrelevant.

I feel indifference is a bad karma.. If you are the only person who follows the perceptions and nobody else in world follows it and actually violates all of them while you show indifference do you think you will be able to achieve an end to all sufferings in this life... What happens around you also affects you... So if it is upto you to lead others into good karma shouldnot you try it?.. Doesnot that becomes your dharma?..

'You', 'others' are all concepts. If you note seeing as just seeing instead of seeing a person, you will not be creating any Karma. Same with hearing, smelling, tasting etc. Read the Satipattana sutta and it'll be easier to understand. Also read the Sabba sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

@SankhaKulathantille On the subject of "indifference" FYI there's this: "The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably upekkha. The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. ... Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings."

@ChrisW So it is ok to use the word 'indifference' to refer to 'Upekkha' apart from 'equanimity'. Cool!

@SankhaKulathantille I think Bhikkhu Bodhi was saying that Upekkha (equanimity) ought to be understood as meaning, "I am indifferent to (unconcerned with) my own ego" ... and does not (or should not) mean, "I am indifferent to the well-being of other human (or other sentient) beings".

@ChrisW: If there's no 'I', there's no 'other'. Both are fabrications made of basic experiences. So the question of being indifferent to the well-being of others doesn't even arise.

And Upekkha doesn't always have to be devoid of ego. ex: The 4th Jhana. The Upekkha gained in Samatha meditation isn't without ego.

Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest

If Dalai Lama asks the cook to kill an animal, he violates the 1st precept and commits bad karma.
If he asks the cook to just prepare meat without intending him to kill, he does not violate the 1st precept. He will get good Karma for arranging a meal for the guest.

Does the person who actually prepare meat create bad kamma by, for example, cutting the meat (prior/or) cooking the meat? That sounds like dealing with flesh.

No. Only the one who kills or orders to kill

One who kills no doubt will create bad vipāka of killing but no bad kamma committed from cutting and cooking the meat, not at all? If there is unwholesome kamma from cutting and cooking meat, what would that be?

It depends on the mindset of the person at the time. Otherwise, It's the same as cutting a vegetable.

But we are not enlightened (yet), the mind is therefore filled with greed, hatred and delusion. Is it even possible to cook or cut meat with a mind  free from greed, hatred and delusion?

Is it possible to play a guitar with a mind free from greed, hatred and delusion? :)

But you said: It depends on the mindset of the person at the time. Otherwise, it's not the same as cutting a vegetable, right?

If the mindset is the same, cutting a vegetable has similar Karmic consequences to cutting meat

how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. Like here for eg. Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed...

If the above "inaction" was not driven by volition associated, it is reasonable to admit it does not affect karma (ie. there wasn't, in fact, an action).
If volition led to, eg, not stopping an animal being killed, there was karma, since there was action. It just wasn't observable.
Presumably, the kind of karma is dependent on the volition, not on the fact that an animal wasn't saved. So I think it would be premature to simply conclude that inaction in these circumstances are bad.
AN 6.63:

cetanāhaṃ bhikkave kammaṃ vadāmi
Intention, I tell you, is kamma


text:
Is there a german-language online-resource for the prajnaparamita sutra "perfection of wisdom in 8000 lines"?
The title says it all: I'm looking for a german translation of that sutra:
Is there a german-language online-resource for the prajnaparamita sutra "perfection of wisdom in 8000 lines"?
(Note, I've the "Heart"- and the "Diamondsuta" which more-or-less belong to the set of Prajnaparamita-sutras, it's just I want to have a look in this specific version of the (possibly earliest) mahayana-sutra)

I'm afraid the answer seems to be, no there isn't. This is somewhat surprising since many Sanskrit Buddhist texts were translated into German.


text:
How Can One Tell The Difference Between The Spiritual Mind And The Physical Mind?
Is there any information in the texts that tell you the difference between the spiritual mind and the physical mind. I know there are ways to transcend, but that's not what I'm looking for. What I'm asking is complicated. At what is a thought or action created by the physical mind/brain, and when is a thought or action created by the spiritual mind, or super-consciousness, or whatever. Or, are all thoughts/action created by the mind?

What do you mean by "spiritual mind, or super-consciousness, or whatever?" Is it something like Jung's collective unconscious? Maybe god, or gods or something else? Can you explain it better?

There are other sources that support the notion that there is only one mind or consciousness in all that is. Here is one such source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_the_body

In contrast with many Indian religious traditions, Buddhism does not
  regard the body and the mind or spirit as being two entirely separate
  entities- there is no sense in Buddhism that the body is a "vessel"
  that is guided or inhabited by the mind or spirit.[1] Rather, the body
  and mind combine and interact in a complex way to constitute an
  individual. Buddhist attitudes towards the body itself are complex,
  combining the distaste for sensual pleasure that characterizes the
  general Buddhist view towards desire with a recognition of both the
  individuals dependence on the body, and the utility of the body as an
  aide in the development of insight.

Roshi Suzuki has given lectures to American students teaching what is beginner's mind. It might be of interest.
www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/zenmind.pdf
When thoughts stop, there is nothing but sweet nothingness.

There's no physical mind. Brain is Rupa(matter). There are only 2 aspects to the universe.

Nama - mental aspect
Rupa - physical aspect

These 2 are further subdivided into five groups called the Panchaskanda(five aggregates)
Usually what we call as thoughts belong to the Sankhara group. Thoughts are caused by both physical and mental causes.

I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and we have a notion of the reactive mind and the creative mind. The reactive mind is small and governed by habitual responses. The creative mind is big and can respond to situations in a more positive and open way. With practice we can access the creative mind however even then the reactive mind will be there but as a part of this greater whole. There is a lecture about this or some lecture notes if you prefer.
From the lecture notes - the reactive mind is..

[..] also a repetitive mind. The reactive mind tends to do the same
  thing over and over and over again. That’s another reason why it’s
  like a machine. It gets the same stimuli - the same old newspaper
  open, the same weather or whatever it may be

while the creative mind is

[...] active on its own account. The motive power, the force, the
  drive, the inspiration, as it were, of the creative mind, comes from
  the depths within the mind itself. Not just from external stimuli.

I personally find this way of thinking moderately useful however it can lead one down the path pf a very goal orientated and grasping practice if not taken in the right spirit. Also it's interesting to note that this concept was nicked from the Scientologists who, i think it's fair to say, have a mixed reputation as a spiritual community.

There is no such thing as a physical mind. The mind has no form, color, size, smell, etc.
The brain is the organ that controls the body.
A thought is always a mental process originated in the mind. Once a thougth arises it can create an emotion and from that comes the "motion" or action.
The mind control the brain and the brain controls the body.

This is based on what?


text:
Strengthening dis-identification in normal life
How we can strengthen dis-identification in normal life? How can we free our attention from self-reference?

You might want to elaborate, to attract more answers...

We should try to see everything as "impermanent, unsatisfactory and uncontrollable"
When you see and contemplate that you can not control anything, not even your body, then you will understand that nothing is really yours.
I mentioned the body because the Buddha used to give this example, as you cannot control it, you cannot prevent it from getting old, sick or die... then what is really yours to control?
Another good technique, very common in Mahayana Buddhism, is to see "emptiness". When you see that everything comes from something else you will understand that everything lacks a self, a true identity, our bodies are just pieces of this planet, combined in a certain way based on the DNA of our parents... See dependent origination
In Theravada Buddhism, they would probably recommend you to focus on anatta (non self), as the Buddha used to say: "This is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self". There is no soul, a permanent soul would contradict impermanence, there is only a everchanging mindstream, so where is the identification? Hope it gives you something to think about!

It's not good to mix up actual daily living with meditation principles and practice. First one should master meditation and then one will naturally do "dis-identification" spontaneously and quite perfectly during day-to-day life. If one forces it to happen before one has that foundation, it will not be a real dis-identification and will damage both one's meditation life (2nd training) and one's life (1st training).
It's like training for the Olympics. Meditation is the training, the Olympics is day-to-day life. A participant, once already in the contest, should not think about "training"... one should just enjoy the road and live rightfully as best as one can, free of technique. When training on the other hand, the Olympian practices those techniques with all his might, strengthening and teaching his muscles.
One should work similarly on exercising the various facets of meditation, specifically the Wings of Awakening.
Thus, make special time to practice Vipassana and dis-identification will happen gradually. Don't force indifference in daily life or try to meditate. Just live mindfully and right. People are not meditation objects.
Make that special time throughout the day, even 2 minutes of moderately-powered Vipassana can completely change the way you would respond to anger-causing, delusion-causing, love-causing situations...

Sorry could you clarify the first paragraph, or should I ask that as a separate/new question? Is there a technical name for or authoritative description of what you're describing there, and/or are you speaking from your own experience? What does "forcing it to happen" mean, how do you do that (i.e. what exactly should you not be doing)?

Its the difference between indifference and natural detachment/equanimity.

The former tends to have no practice component to it but can be mistaken for the wisdom of the latter which is caused by wisdom either at the mundane level or supermundane level.

Identification is due to notion or perception. How do dis-identify is by cultivating opposite perception as in Girimananda Sutta. Also perception results in conditioned metal reaction which creates sensations followed by formations when you react to the sensation. Much of these sensations are generally around the head based on the volitional formation. These can be dissolved slowly by brining your attention to them maintaining equanimity and knowing their 3 characteristics.

Dis-identification as a practice is really, really, hard.  Probably also not as helpful as you would want it to be either.
Even as you try and explain insights to yourself, you will find yourself confused, identified with your insight.  Given the way our language is constructed, we are hopelessly bound to conventions in our thinking and everyday experience.
An Example: "I think it is going to rain".
That sentence is just f*cked from the get go.
First: I think - implying that you are there apart from your thoughts, and you are taking the action called thinking - and as you're taking this action; thinking has revealed to you some content called going to rain.
Second: it is going to rain. -  It is?  Who is going to rain?  What will he do after he is done raining?  Why is he doing it?
But there's no clear language for saying something like: "Consciousness says wetness coming", or whatever.  If you talk like that, people will stop listening to you.
So, as we are bound by convention, trying to disentangle the threads of identification is extremely difficult, because in our language; there is only identification.  The more you try and disentangle yourself, the tighter the trap gets (think Chinese handcuffs).

What is powerful; what is extraordinary; what is beyond measure is to be aware of identification as it arises.
I've played some powerful games in life; some ridiculously competitive games that bestow upon the winner the admiration of the spectators.
There are basically three ways to deal with winning a game like this inside the context of dis-identification.

Reject it completely.  Do not for one second take pleasure in the victory, and ignore the admiration.  Make sure that at no time do you in any way gain pleasure or conceit from the admiration, and focus at all times on the fact that you are not special; they don't admire you, but rather your position or accomplishment.  Know that it is impermanent - and the success can be taken away at any moment.
Allow yourself to freely indulge in the admiration.  Become dependent upon it for self-worth, and freely step into the role you are playing.  Define yourself as your accomplishment, and embrace the status it bestows upon you.  Live in the role with all of yourself for as long as you can, and ignore any concerns you have about what the future may hold.
Love god and do what you will.

Okay.  The last one was spoken a bit tongue and cheek, and I'll say more about it, but #3 is where you will find peace.
#1  Leaves you in a state of constant tension - embracing what is not so much a state of being open and aware as defensive posture designed to protect you from identification and subsequently loss.
#2 Thrusts you fully into the realm of the Gods.  Short lived and exciting, but devastating when lost, and difficult to escape from.  This is like the ultimate context of attachment for people with worldly success.
#3 Play the game fully.  Why not?  Holding back to protect yourself is every bit as egotistical and constraining as falling in love with yourself as a winner.  All the time playing the game though, you are open and aware of your sense of identification.  You can't stop it when it arises, but all there is to do, is to see it; to notice it; to bring the attachment into the light of consciousness and observe it.
Whenever you truly give your whole self to something, you disappear.  There is no you as the doer; no thing that's getting done.  But if you find yourself indulging in identification, love yourself for it; laugh and let it be.
There is nothing beyond this; no prize for dis-identifying completely.  There is just seeing and letting go.

Please note below my answer is based on my personal experience.
I can feel your question and I'm fully aware of this situation. What I'm doing is "trying" my best to keep my "attention" focused on part of the body .
Start from something easily could feel in your body. In my case it was touch of lips and chest. To hold this attention you need effort . Be careful this does not mean that you have not kept your attention on your daily tasks.
Do an experiment when you walk next time in a park. You will notice even if you keep attention still you can walk without any problem . If not ,that is a warning that you have identified with the sensation of that body part. By balancing you will find your sweet spot.
But still you will see all your "ego" plays only thing is now it will have less impact. In my experience still this was not help me with emotions . I'm still keep identifying with emotions. But this helped me most of the time with unnecessary Ego "thoughts" / inner chatter  .


text:
buddha and the fear?
Fear is something that can hold us back in inaction. Fear is something that i have in me regarding my presence and purpose of existence. Apart from my social life, apart from whatever i can do for my family i have an instinct to have much more potential in me. But fear of loosing my present keep me in inaction and i am unable to step forward to my purpose (meaning of my existence). So many doubts and real life barriers are also here. I want to know at what point buddha overcome his (level) fear ? And how it feels to be fearless (completely) ?

Fear is a primal instinct which has its function as it enables us to avoid dangerous situations, thus fearlessness is in itself dangerous and there is such a thing as pathological fearlessness.
Complete and permanent fearlessness came for the Buddha with Awakening, of a different type than pathological fearlessness: for us still shackled by the Hindrances there is only temporary release in the Jhanas and learning to accept fear as part of existence. Moreover, as Acharya Buddharacitta writes, the Buddha taught the Karanya Metta Sutta to his monks in order to help them develop mindfulness as some disgruntled devas were oppressing them with frightful visions:

Monks, go back to the same spot! It is only by striving there that you will effect the destruction of inner taints. Fear not! If you want to be free from the harassment caused by the deities, learn this sutta. It will be a theme for meditation as well as a formula for protection (paritta).
  Then the Master recited the Karaniya Metta Sutta — the Hymn of Universal Love — which the monks learned by rote in the presence of the Lord. Then they went back to the same place

So that's also a way to deal with fear.
EDIT As others have noted, fear comes from aversion (and this is why the Karanya Metta Sutta dispels fear by replacing it with loving kindness). Thus, the Buddha vanquished fear when he  destroyed aversion. This happened before Awakening.

According to the Palicanon-sutras he had to fight with his fears in the seven years of initial life in the homelessness. The key of overcoming the fear was his deep determination to go that path whatever might happen.
I think the "lion's roar" sutta is the one in which he describes something of the process before his awakening (but there are a couple of other suttas dealing with this) and some moments of real fear and anxiousness in the deep and dark forests.
And the "gosingam forest"-sutta closes with his proposal, what makes this forest getting a holy glance: a monk, determined to sit-down and meditate and not to stop before getting the full insight/before destroying the illusion.
So his precept was, just to bear the anxiousness/the fear. When it occurs to look at it: to look inside oneself, to look at the fear how it arises, to breath and to observe the breathing and let go any anxious emotion and look how it goes down again... and steadily proceed on the path.

Fear is an instance of aversion. Aversion is 1 of the 3 roots of evil. You eradicate aversion when you attain the state of Anagami. Buddha attained the state of Anagami before attaining Buddhahod in the last watch of the night on a Vesak full moon Poya day,  about 2603 years ago.
To know about how it feels to be completely fearless, read about the life of the Buddha; his encounters with Angulimala the thief, Alavaka the demon. Nalagiri the drunk elephant etc. You can also read stories about Arahaths and Anagamis.


text:
How do I practice Buddhism to attain peace of mind and know the inner self?
I am distracted by the surroundings and at times lose my presence. I think deep down on the perspectives like meaning of life, purpose of life, focus on the one who really are, but get distracted many times.

Read the Satipattana Sutta and the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta and do Satipattana meditation. Examine the things you consider to be the self and see if they are worth taking as a self. As for the inner self, examine if there's anything inside you that is worth considering as a self.

I allow myself to recommend you to look at two books: “The Joy of Living: Unlocking the Secret and Science of Happiness”  by Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche and “Zen training” by Katsuki Sekida.