text:
Meditation outdoors
I've been trying to find some info on meditation outdoors here. But I don't. My reason for asking is that I like, as far as possible, to sit outside in meditation. In my country, Norway, there's a lot of forest in the vicinity, even in the cities. And as I understand, Siddhatta Gotama and his followers were were also (at least outside the Rains) sitting outside.
A forest is never quiet. You notice that when you are quiet. And it's not "neat and clean" (When instructors talk about places for meditation, they usually say the place should be neat and clean). A forest is usually pretty noisy, uneven and unruly. It's full of stuff, sounds, insects, and animals. But for me this is not disturbing, sounds, (human) animals and "stuff" is more disturbing inside. This might be because I've always felt peace and ease in the forest.
So I'd like to hear from you more experienced people if some of you have been doing any meditation outdoors and what your experiences and advices would be.

Meditation is about going deep into the silence within. This is why quiet and solitary places are preferred. Nature can provide a good background for people to meditate. But as you mention, it can also cause distractions. Do the best you can wherever you are. Just remember the purpose. Traditionally renunciates have lived in caves or the forest and so they meditate outside naturally. They have to learn to deal with all the distractions of bugs. You should not add impediments. If you want to renounce and live in the forest, you will probably have to go to the Himalayas and find a guru. Otherwise, meditate wherever helps you go deep into yourself. The key principle is that where you meditate should not be a preoccupation. The mind is enough of a challenge.

Quiet, but not necessarily solitary? People also meditate together.

Quiet and solitary are not absolutes, but they are preferred generally when it comes to a day to day practice that is independent. Meditating with the guru is a good thing. Meditating with a group is better than not meditating. When I say preferred I mean that is how traditionally it is done, to avoid disturbances. It's just logic that generally you are less likely to be disturbed if you find somewhere that is solitary. There are cases where you would prefer to meditate with the guidance of the guru, the instructions of the guru will always take precedence.

We are talking about ideal circumstances here, for going into silence. It's not necessary to do the exact ideal to make progress. Do the best you can.

Do it as much as possible. When ever there is a remote forest left, there is still a "birthplace" for another Arahat.
At least, its not only to get wean of what you are attached to, but also a place that changes very very quick and no chance to control it, whether, tracks, beings, coming and going, disturbances, pleasure... no one in charge of all your fruits, of this world.
Where ever you find a lot of insecurity there is the place to make understanding of anicca secure. There are many scholars and teachers today, but actually very less forest dweller. If one need some inspirations, Atma had seen, that Upasaka Robin occasionally writes about forest experiences.
How ever, please keep also this sutta in mind, since it is not so easy as it seams: (just fail to remember... A "romantic Monk requested to live alone and meditate on a beautiful spot he had seen, the Buddha refused serial times (learn first!) but at least he went, being confronted with nothing but unwholesome thought, he soon returned)

It is generally advisable to have a small enclosed room (Kuti) if you are a beginner. This generally protects your from disturbances. The wind or weather can sometimes be a distraction.
When you are accomplished perhaps a cave or even under a tree when the weather is good might be ideal.

When I was on holiday at my sisters's place aside a forest in Finland I had my best meditation-practices in my early years of practice. That what you might call "distracting" was soft: a soft wind , some insect making a little noise - it even helped to step outside of the "focusing objects"-mood of the mind and to fall into the detached "being-aware". Of course, there is a limit for the loudness - especially for the beginner that I was, but happily it was always below that level when I have been there.
In my hometown it is much more difficult for me to stay in meditation when sounds distract/disturb, perhaps that sounds are more aggressive. I remember, however, when I was a child and have been at my grandma's there was a big wooden clock softly clicking and sometimes a sound from the tram two streets away - and which as well helped to flow into a deep peaceful meditative and still aware state.
I like the answer of Samana Johann where he says "When ever there is a remote forest left, there is still a "birthplace" for another Arahat." That's really a nice observation, indeed!

Maybe valued Upasaka (?) Gottfried Helms (klingt als würden Sie Deutsch sprechen), is doesn't likes it much, if Atma would suggest Upasaka to spend much on meditation in the home town. There seems to be more base to investigate Dhammas and not to much enjoying just fruits. There is certain "romantic" danger with it although that the righteous gained and enjoyed place of Arahants have been always remote nature: Upasaka might enjoy some of the Theragata to get much inspirations to do not avoid the task in the jungle home town.

Welcome @Samana Johann, ja ich spreche Deutsch viel besser als Englisch... Especially I miss many words for the discourse on the Dharma - but, well, does this really matter...

So is it, so ist das, it really does not matter in Dhammic sense, es macht im Sinne des Dhammas nichts aus. You are as all others, welcome to join sangham.net for dhammic purposes, language does not matter in German is the main language at this time there.


text:
Iconography in Buddhism - from the Greeks? And why isn't the Buddha bald?
When you read or hear about Gotama leaving his home and family, the story is usually something like "he shaved his face and head and went out to be a wandering monk". But very few depictions of the Buddha (perhaps apart from the laughing, fat buddha) is of a bald man. Why is that?
I've also heard, but don't remember the source, that in early times there was no iconography in Buddhism. As far as I remember hearing, depictions of the Buddha did not appear for many hundreds of years. Actually I've heard that the iconography of Buddhism actually comes from the Greek,,that the first to make icons of the Buddha were Greeks living in India.
There's obviously a lot of variations over time and between traditions. But can anyone give me some  information, and sources about Greek influences on  Buddhist iconography? Also I wonder why Buddha almost always is depicted with hair?

this question has been asked before - http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2804/hair-of-the-buddha

The question you are referring to is not about Greek influences on Buddhist iconography. It's also not a general question about iconography

But very few depictions of the Buddha (perhaps apart from the laughing, fat buddha) is of a bald man. Why is that?  <- is this not a question? This is the only question that I see , Aside from asking for source material? And what I linked is the source material you're looking for, as per why the Buddha isn't depicted as having hair.

Also, the "laughing, fat Buddha" , isn't the Buddha, its : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

Part of the question. The one you refer to answers neither my question about Greek influences nor about iconography in general.

The question I linked provides an answer to the question as to why the Buddha is depicted as having hair. Please take the time to thoroughly read what I linked :)

perhaps though this should be split into two question?

Yes this might be better as two questions: one about whether and why hair is shown, and another about whether and what Greek influence their was on iconography. They might be independent, i.e. either could be answered without the other.

About the Statue called Laughing Buddha...
The Statue called Laughing Buddha is not Lord Buddha or any Buddha. He is some local divine figure in some culture in the east and this statue is misunderstood as a Buddha because it has a name that sounds a lot like Buddha. It's correct pronunciation should be like this or something close - Laughing Budhai

About the Greek connection...
The statues were not made by the Asian artists because of respect and the fear of their creation being not god enough, This should go withot saying Gauthama Buddha was considered the most charming person in India and people even became monks just to see Buddha's beauty.
As the story goes the appearance was unique and it was not alike with any other person (But as the suttas say only The great arahant kashyapa looked a bit like Lord Buddha). With the scientific knowledge we have today we can say the DNA structure of a Lord Buddha is either unique or a complete anomaly.
A king called Kanishka who ruled a certain part of India took a Greek wife and with her came a lot of people as it was a tradition to send skilled people as gifts with princesses who marry to countries abroad.
At the time Buddhists had many other depiction of Lord Buddha to worship Like the "Anandha Bodhi" - Video and Lotus carvings on rock pallets.
The princess questioned the king Kanishka why there is no statue of Lord Buddha in his kingdom and the king explained why. So she ordered her people to create a statue and with time finally Asian artists came up with their designs.
Why Buddha is not bald and what was the appearance of Gauthama sage?
When Prince Gauthama started his journey he used his sword to cut his hair. But later on even though Lord Buddha advised monks to shave the hair there is no mentioning about Lord Buddha shaving hair. This should go with the special look all the Lord Buddhas shared "The hair with very small curves." A lord Buddha never appears without hair and the unique hair is sign for others to know who it is.

As it happens, there is an article on this very question, by Eisel Mazard, entitled "The Buddha Was Bald," located at http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2010/12/30/the-buddha-was-bald/. Obviously I cannot quote it here in full, but I quote part of the conclusion:

"Thus far, we have demonstrated that (1) the core canon explicitly describes the Buddha as a bald-shaven man; moreover, (2) implicitly, these texts are incompatible with the historically-subsequent assumptions about the Buddha’s physical appearance now commonly found in statuary. The ancient texts can neither be reconciled with the image of the Buddha having a full head of hair, nor with his having magical curls of hair, nor with his having a freakishly deformed skull. There is no doubt as to the antecedence of one source of information over the other."

Re. the hair or head (but not the Greek influence) I found some references:

Ushnisha (Wikipedia)

The ushnisha was not described initially in the Physical characteristics of the Buddha spelled out by the Buddhist canon. Rather, there are several mentions about a topknot:

"His topknot is like a crown." (Secondary characteristics, No 53)
"He has a topknot as if crowned with a flower garland." (Secondary characteristics, No 80)

The hair and the Usnisa on the head of the Buddha and the jinars

So by the time when
      the sculptors  of Mathura began to carve images of
      Gautama   Buddha  there  were  two  rival  traditions
      relating  to hair on the Buddha's  head: an older one
      now preserved in the Pali Nikayas represented Gautama
      as  mundaka  or  shaven-headed   monk;   and  another
      tradition    preserved    in   the   Mahavastu,   the
      Lalitavistava  and the Nidanakatha represented him as
      having cut his hair with his sword leaving part of it
      intact on the head.

Usnisa-siraskata (a mahapurusa-laksana) in the early Buddha images of India

The correct interpretation of this
      peculiarity  of a Buddha, especially in connection
      with its representation  in Buddhist iconoplastic art
      of different  periods, has engaged  the attention  of
      many a scholar.

For more about prefigurative and early iconography, see answers and comments to these topics:

Examples of early Buddhist art
Why did physical representations of the Buddha only start to appear a few centuries after his death?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Rationalism and The spirit of inquiry
Is a logical questioning process of every thought(almost) a useful way to break through thought itself and possibly understand enlightenment? For eg:- What is this thought? What is the mind? And try to inspect it clearly. If no answer appears, (because you see they are difficult, almost impossible questions) that is still ok, but you begin to question things with a scientific temper and rationality.

Logical thinking about Buddhism is like route / trip planning. The practice of Buddhism is the journey which will take you to the desired destination.
The Buddha has his for or adventure over countless lifetimes and found a long lost path and said this take you to this place. Thinking and pondering on how to take the trip is at the realm of logic. Travening is the realm of pratice. Arriving at your final destination following the direction and landmarks is the final realisation. As not body can fully describe the city to the minute details he just mostly mentioned how to get there with some attributes of the destination to entice you to try out the journey.

I'd like to think I understood what you said. But my logical thinking does involve meditation and vipassana. In a way. I understand the arising and passing of thoughts. But rationally looking at it would enable me to understand that it actually passed and figuring out mostly how the thought came may help me understand the patterns more clearly. But is there a confirmation bias from the reading and knowing the Suttas or other sources? Yes, I think so. And that's where we might falter.

When the description is of a path, landmarks on the path and obstacles on the path without taking and without taking the path and seeing the landmarks and obstacles. Trying to logically infer this is very difficult. If say simply it is said there a tall hotel here there are so many ways you can imagine it to be than when you actually see it. Say if there is road block here there any many ways you can imagine it to be without seeing it.

Similarly for the final destination at the end of the path.

I am also beginning to understand why Gautama thought that it might NOT be worthy to tell others about his experience. Because people may be ignorant and delusional. Sure, a lot of people are. In that case it becomes very difficult to convey the path. I can say he attempted to. And it helped some people, and to most others, it didn't. And currently, there is a lot of time overhead. So some of the aspects of thought might have been lost. So I am thinking is it necessary to restart the whole process? Maybe.

There are 2 aspects to approach learning the Buddhist teaching: 1) listen, memorize and retain, pratice 2) learn the theories, practice, realise

There are 3 modes of development of wisdom: by learning - this sounds about right, logic - this is logical, realised wisdom. The highest is realised while rationalisation comes under the 2nd level.

While we are discussing the role of rationality and logical questioning of every thought as a way to understanding and enlightenment, an analogy may help.
How would an amateur rational astronomer with scientific temper looking at sky would go about understanding universe? S/He would not start from first principles. He starts with an established body of knowledge, tools and techniques already discovered. He won't spend time on any theories that are based on Sun revolving around earth, he takes planets orbiting around Sun as an established fact.
I think similar approach is needed to understand the mind. The issue with logically analyzing thoughts is, a thought is not an individual entity standing independently apart on its own. It arises based upon conditions within and outside the mind body complex. Not only it depends upon the current sensory inputs, it stems from what happened in the past and how it was processed and stored in memory.
Let us consider another analogy of tracking and destroying a missile. By the time a thought arises it may already be too late to analyze and understand it, just like trying to destroy a missile that is close to its target.
If a missile is launched and is following an unpredictable path, how can it be tracked and destroyed? One way is to launch another missile that uses some features of the original missile (like heat seeking) to follow and destroy it. I think there are similar challenges in understanding the mind. The thoughts and emotions that spring up in the mind are like missiles launched by the surrounding conditions. We don't know when a thought or emotion springs up and what path it will follow. But I think it is feasible to come up with some general guidelines and practices that can be used to set up thought patterns in the mind that follow (just like the heat seeking missiles) to observe and then strengthen or weaken the arising thoughts.

You may make edits to your answer to suit a heavily edited question.

[Note: the question was revised, yet I decided to leave this answer as is for the benefit of the earlier points asked.]
You make a couple interesting points that I wish to say more about. Point 1:

We may not question it enough because it becomes uncomfortable.

This is important because much of life appears to me to be an attempt to keep safe and comfortable. This is a great way to realize the First Noble Truth: we know it intuitively because of what we do to prevent it! When we stop trying to escape from suffering, what happens? It gets worse, but we gain insight. Eventually, we see how most people are trying to escape suffering by distracting themselves, self-medicating (with things like alcohol, smoking, food, television, etc) and we see why those things are to be avoided: we cannot get in charge of our minds until we stop running. This realization can bring compassion as well, when the huge extent of actual suffering is clear.
If we find a "way" that promises to end suffering, it becomes enshrined in our minds in such a way that again, we do not want to look too closely, lest it unravel. Then all hope would be lost!
Your Point 2:

But in propounding some theories, he may have taken away some of the
  aspects of the beauty of the process for "our own individual
  experiences".

I realized recently that my desire to "help" people can have the wrong effect. It is possible to turn people away from insight by presenting it before they are ready, or too strongly, or in the wrong way. This is worse than useless. Another problem is, as you say, that we can take away from someone else's experience or realization by "previewing" it for them. This deflates the experience of overcoming something, and so the person might lose heart by thinking that they did not really achieve something worth persisting in.
These are important points and I am glad that you brought them up. I wish for you strength and peace.

Thank you but not just because you agree with me. This is somewhat true because I see a pattern in answers here on Stack Exchange. Even in my own practice. I feel like the results are already out before I know it for myself and I start to compare THE results with mine. And it doesn't feel right. I may be misleading myself. Sure the practice is not for everyone, and they may choose something else. But I am just making the point about what I personally felt as a hindrance maybe. And also the suttas in translation into English and also the time overhead may have lost its essence.

I am not against Gautama or the teachings. Please note. It is just that we could allow people to experience life in ignorance as is and probably their time will come when they liberate naturally.

@BlackFlam3 you are stating a point of view which is compatible with Self Inquiry and nondual awareness. There is less "canon" and scripture involved with that, and so more allowance of people reaching realization in their own way. You could do some exploring of that topic.

You may make edits to your answer to support a highly edited question.

@BlackFlam3: I wondered for a minute when I read an Answer from you that read like the Question I remembered. Thought I was having a bad memory attack! I don't know how to change my answer to meet the revised question and still say what I wanted to say, so I guess I will leave it. Wow, now I see that the Question has been edited almost to the point of incomprehensibility. Really not sure how to save my answer.

Well, of course Stack Exchange is a question-answer based forum, and that is fine because that's how it should be. And I had a lot of opinions in the question and just more opinions would have been made with it really going nowhere. So I only merely left out that one question.

Logical reasoning and rationalism are necessary tools but they can only get you so far. Awakening requires much more than just logic. Imagine a muddy and constantly agitated pool of water, one can use logical reasoning to deduce what lies beneath the water surface. But only after the water has become completely stilled would s/he be able to see things as they really are. Similarly, the direct experience to awakening only happens after much effort and cultivation to "still the water", or the complete stilling of all physical, verbal, and mental defilements.

Is a logical questioning process of every thought(almost) a useful way to break through thought itself and possibly understand enlightenment?

First and foremost: to understand enlightenment, one needs at least some clear sense of what it is to achieve it. As analogy, if one is going to a specific restaurant -- specially when one is not there yet -- one needs some way to refer to it and to identify it: things that distinguish it from any other place, so one doesn't end up in the wrong place without knowing it.
In Buddhism, enlightenment is the permanent extinction of dukkha.
Having established that...

For eg:- What is this thought? What is the mind? And try to inspect it clearly. If no answer appears, (because you see they are difficult, almost impossible questions) that is still ok, but you begin to question things with a scientific temper and rationality.

What you describe above is roughly -- at least in spirit -- the Buddhist method1. Now, one could question why not try to figure out the path on your own own versus try out the buddhist practice.
As analogy, imagine yourself popping up in the middle of a desert somewhere in this planet having to figure out which way to go in order to reach your home. You can take any direction and, if you think about it, the great majority of the possibilities will be fruitless -- you will be only walking endlessly to reach nowhere. The risk of you not finding home is huge.
But that's still not much a good analogy to current circumstances. So let's say you're given a bunch of maps. They are all different and they all diverge on where you are, where your home is, and how to go there.
Some people pick the map they think is the most comfortable. Some people are annoyed by all the maps and go on wander on their own. And some people test the maps they have to see which one is correct (there's the problem of one having to learn a bit of the specific cartography language of each map in order to understand what they mean, but that's another issue).

But in propounding some theories, he may have taken away some of the aspects of the beauty of the process for "our own individual experiences".

Leaving aside that he did not just "suggested some theories", he did emphasize that this is something to be carried out individually by one's own effort. Now, if you think the method he proposes takes out "the beauty of the process", you are naturally free to try out own your own.
There's legitimacy in following your own nose, but may I suggest how this may not be as virtuous or effective as one might fantasize? Take calculus: no reasonably intelligent person will try to come up with calculus on their own: they will try to learn what has been developed. It took specific circumstances in the development of science and mathematics and specific characters with a specially strong will to answer specific questions to be able to successfully develop this subject. Disappear with all knowledge post-calculus from earth, and it could take many centuries  to rediscover it again -- if that soon.
Extinguishing dukkha does not require one to figure out everything from scratch. It requires extinguishing it. If some teachings are known to be useful, there's only one reason not to use it: if one wants something else than extinguishing dukkha (for example: to experience some particular kind of beauty in an spiritual process)

I hope this message is clear. Each individual needs to question for himself/herself, the procedure to achieve something or why they are here. Sure you may go by faith, but I am afraid that might be a hindrance to true experience.

The buddhist sutras advert against blind faith. But there's ordinary faith: a weak type of knowledge that is useful to make a decision with partial understanding while one is still in the process of gaining knowledge. We all use this daily.
So, in a sense, a buddhist go by faith in the Buddha's teaching in the same way one goes by faith in a calculus text book. One scans the summary of chapters and provisionally accepts (i.e.: believes) it is a text book that teaches calculus. Then one reads the chapters, performs the exercises, and if one comes to conclusion that one learned what that chapter is about, and if one understands that chapter to be a steeping stone in the path to understand calculus, one's faith is made stronger and one will likely continue.
If otherwise one learns the contents of the chapter and comes to the conclusion these subjects won't lead to the declared goal, one's faith is made weaker, and one might end up abandoning such book.

1: Of course, there's more to it than simply questioning what is something that is present in our mind. Buddhism not only helps with how to frame the questions and observations to yield progress (instead of falling in an endless loop of silly and sterile interrogations), but practices to help we see with greater precision (a precision required to be able to see what we are looking for). Hope it goes without saying that mere logical inference is broadly insufficient for an investigation that requires experimenting and experiencing.

The Buddha came up with some theories, the basics of which are common sense to me. He cultivated a practice and figured some things out. There are stories and practices about how and what he found. Sure he may be the Blessed one. But then maybe I have missed out something here. I can't help but think he may not have gone through his thought process completely ? When he talks about the five aggregates and consequences and hindrances, that is all fine. But how do I truly know for myself? So I may have a different method to figure that out.
What I am saying is that, the Buddha may have had "his experience". But a combination of many people translating and propounding some theories and giving explanations, they may have taken away some of the aspects of the beauty of the process for "our own individual experiences". The Buddha himself didn't make the "religion" as it is now.
I hope this message is clear. Each individual needs to question for himself/herself, the procedure to achieve something or why they are here. Sure you may go by faith, but I am afraid that might be a hindrance to true experience.
I'd like to add that I sense some amount of confirmation bias might creep in when we try to understand the Buddhist philosophy and actually practice that.

In my own search, as a non-Buddhist, I have found that logical questioning is useful, but it has limits.  In particular, it is reasonably effective at identifying paths that cannot lead to enlightenment once you have decided on characteristics of enlightenment that are important to you, and reasonably effective at identifying the general direction towards enlightenment in many situations.  It can be a useful tool to assist you in your search alongside the advise of those teachers you respect.  In particular, it can be a powerful tool for upsetting existing assumptions in your own mind.  These assumptions can be dealt with in other methods but sometimes logical thought can arrive there faster.
If you go far enough down the path of trying to apply logical thought, you'll eventually come across Gödel's incompleteness theorems or Tarski's undefinability theorem.  These theorems demonstrate limits in mathematically rigorous thought when dealing with self-referential systems (such as nearly any religious statement including the word "I").  They demonstrate that, for a large body of questions which are highly related to enlightenment, logic simply cannot provide the answer.  Often it can barely even phrase the question.
From experience, I can also provide a warning: if you rely too heavily on logic, once you reach its limits you can feel lost.  Always try to find a happy medium between logic and the more traditional approaches such as meditation and vipassana.  Also be ready for that ideal balance to both change as you grow and to be extremely difficult to quantify using the logical and mathematical part of your approach.

Agree. Also, Heart Sutra is a good counterbalance to overly-rational ideation. "Those who are not shocked by it have not understood it." (well, not exactly)

One path to resolution is thought itself and where it leads to.  That is pure Buddhism along with the awakenings and suddenness of the mind.  How to say, you could also see the process of exploring your thoughts in the kantian way while letting ideas collide. Anyways, good luck.

If you learn to apply episteme, the way Foucault, Derrida and Kant had used, in de-constructing the key Buddhist Pali words, you may find other deeper meaning to them that are of a supra mundane nature. For example you will find nine different ways the word ‘Mind’ is used.

@SapthaVisuddhi out of curiosity I asked a follow up question about your comment here : https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/20968/nine-different-ways-the-word-mind-is-used

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


text:
What makes Brahmas come back to human world at death?
If a human dies after obtaining a Jhana(and preserved it) he definitly gets his rebirth at a Brahma world.
So, what makes a Brahma come back to human world upon death? Is it possible that he was unable to preserve the Jhana?

Everything is impermanent. What the Brahma enjoys is the Pala or fruit. The fruit of any Karma including that arising from developing the Jhanas also passes after sometime. If you develop the Jhanas they also have a finite duration which you can have them before you loose them. The duration can vary based on past pratice, but as always finite. As in many cases if you lose the Jhana before the point of death then you will not be able to go the Brahma world as you need to have the Jhanas at the point off death for it to bear fruit.

'Passes after sometime': You mean the Jhana 'passes' ? Does it happen because they stop meditating?

See if it is more clear now?

"he definitly gets his rebirth at a Brahma world" I would not speculate such in a linear manner. It's not sure when fruits are actually ripen. As Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena mentioned, it would need to be your passing awarness.
In regard of why does one not stay at a level of merits: You could see it like having earned a lot of money. Once you have it, you dwell in a pleasant adobe. Yet in this adobe, you have no possibility to earn money at all. So its secure a matter of time, that your earnings will go to an end. That's why it is not seldom to even fall into very low levels of existence, till such a precious live like a human could be gained again, which is not for sure. That is why the Buddha always recommended to gain stream entry and lesser seek for a certain not lasting existence, how pleasant it ever might be.
Some other aspects and how it happens when Devas die see Iti §83

Exhaustion of merit in the deva worlds eventually results in rebirth in lower worlds, since devas have little opportunity to earn merit (an exception being the brahma Sahampati, who earned great merit by successfully encouraging the Buddha to teach after His Enlightenment).


text:
Maintaining respect to their previous faith while explaining Buddhism to a person who is in another school of Buddhism or another religion?
I have a Blog and a lot of people come to learn Buddhism in it. I want to start doing articles on Theravada Buddhism and i do not have any idea if i can do it without being a bit corrosive in certain topics.
I want some advice how to do this.
So can you guys help me?

There has been a language error and i did not expected this kind of replies to my question. I thank everyone who answered this question and i am sorry for my bad use of English. I am closing this question.

Question closed as per request.

It is most honorable to do whatever you can so that people who take what you give take it smoothly. However, what you can do in this area is limited.
To paraphrase Lama Tsongkhapa, if he who receives what you give is like a vessel turned upside down (not open to listen, to receive) nothing will enter; If he is like a leaking vessel (forgetful, not paying attention), whatever will enter will not remain; If he is like a dirty vessel (having a faulty motivation) the pure nectar you will pour in by way of teaching the Dharma will turn to mud.
However, there are things you can do to make sure people listen to you with an open mind. For instance, one is likely to be open if you are an example. If a beggar was to tell me the same thing my teacher tells me, it would not sink in in the same way because I would not  be as open as I am in relation to my teacher. This is because I have more respect to my teacher, I trust him and I trust his words, his guidance, his intentions. Therefore, that your reader trust you is important. If he does not trust you, his ears will be closed. And in order to be trusted, you have to be trustworthy, you have to be exemplar, for instance in showing respect for others and other traditions. Maybe you can include Links to websites of other traditions on your blog, as a sign of openness, and interest from your part.
Moreover, I noticed that in the West, many people prefer being told that "it is a method, it is a practice, it is a path among many others, and it works in this and that way" as opposed to "it is the truth". We like being right, we hate being wrong, we dislike being proven wrong. So, if you emphasize (1) the practical aspects and (2) contexts, that might help not dwelling to much on the 'right or wrong' type of approach.
Finally, I visited my teacher recently. I also, tend to be a bit corrosive with regard certain topics and debating with him showed me that it was due to my own pride, my own arrogance. It's always the "I know, others do not" tendency, or the "How could anyone even think in this or that way?" tendency that tends to take over. If you reduce your pride, you will naturally be smoother and more respectful.

I heard the "upturned pot" analogy once long ago, not sure why I don't see it more. I wonder if the respect of teacher at the expense of respect for beggar is two sides of the same thing? Also arrogance: "My teacher is so great that I have the truth!" I prefer something useful or effective to something true. There is lots of information out there nowadays, which I have no useful application for. People are often very goal-oriented.

Its good to ask one self, "what do I like to gain?" And then it's good, to ask one self, "what would I need to sacrify?"
The rest is then a consideration of which way one likes to take. One is the journey to nibbana, the other wandering on in Samsara.
As for how the Buddha saw this point very clear, this Sutta might help you, to have no doubt of what you actually have already in the back of your considerations, as reason for this question: Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya So no "mercy", either in this or in that direction. One no mercy is for your and the benefit of many, the other is for not for your benefit nor for that of many, and your possibilities in action, are simply a matter of karmic-depended "accidents"
Especially if you talk on Dhamma or what the Buddha taught, keep always this sutta in mind: AN 4.83: Avannaraha Sutta - Dispraise
The Truth stands above the wish for harmony, since it is actually real harmony, aside of notions of attachment.
As for respect, just to be informed. For a Bhikkhu within the affliction of the Buddha, giving any sign for respect to Wanderers of other sects or to Bhikkhus who deserve "punishment" would be a fault. In the case there is a wanderer of another sect, even so, if he/she speaks Dhamma, its proper to pay respect.
As for one who does not really know now, of what is Dhamma and what is Adhamma, its good to be critical and respectful in both directions of course but bring them together and listen carefully about there arguments and reasoning.

Why is zugangzureinsicht content not shareable on this site? FYI I usually assume that it's Fair use to include (as referenced/attributed quotes) small extracts (e.g. a paragraph or two).

So it is with accesstoinsight's and with every dhamma given in line with Dhamma, may one uses this question, Upasaka Chris. Sorry for making you maybe troubles with that. It has nothing to do with fare use, if somebody asks you if he could sell a little of your Dhamma, so agree that it is sold. Its not a legal thing, its a little above. Fare use is a try to decriminalize criminality and only known is US and some other states.

The Buddha said that in teaching/conversing with members of other sects, first establish common ground, then discourse within that universe of discourse on the basis of truth.

Mr. Alexander Duncan, Atma is just this moment not aware of such an advice. But maybe its just the formulation. Could Mr Duncan provide and resource of this statement?

These are common notions found throughout the Pali Canon. However, I will provide specific references in the next day or two, since you asked. In the meantime, consider the Buddha's practice of visiting gatherings of ascetics of competing sects at parks and gazebos in the vicinity, early in the morning before alms round.

Atma does such often, not only consider. Just being back form alms and before. Sadhu for your will and effort to do such.

Some examples of situations where the Buddha demonstrates the principle of finding common ground are DN 1, 3, 5, 8, and 31; and cap. 1 of Bhikku Bodhi's In the  Buddha's Words. With respect to "the basis of truth," see MN 56.

"the basis of truth" is accepted, yes of course and we can use this as our ground here. If such is, than go on. But in no way seeking "first establish common ground" as such would require you to step down from the first, Mr Alexander Duncan. One could of course search for a base truth reachable for the other and lift him/here up to a broader view out of this base, of course. (btw. Atma does not have Dhammabooks sold in shops, so no way to read such.)

See DN1 under nr. 5.

As a Buddhist priest who has struggled with being too "caustic" in both that and other realms (music criticism, etc.) I have found that being explicit with your concerns about your own ability to address certain topics is good, in two ways. Firstly, it sends the message to those listening that you are thinking about how best to convey your topic. Second, it is a reminder to deepen your practice.
I am concerned, though. You seem to indicate that you are a monk, but in your statements on this thread you seem pretty confused about Buddhism. Are you part of a tradition where you can find someone (abbot, dharma teacher, etc.) who can mentor you through this process? I'm concerned about someone who claims to "teach Buddhism" yet not really know much about it.

Spoken of confused: Atma is a little bit confused of whom Mr. JigokuBosatsu is talking about, since the question raiser whom you answer here (Mr. Theravada), does not seems to be a Priest nor a Monk. So just that there is no misunderstanding out of confusion.

I don't think it's an unreasonable concern to have. The question raiser references his blog, and on that blog he wears a saffron robe and has segments titled "Ask a Monk".

Is mr. JigokuBosatsu sure? There are many pictures and videos of monks there on this page. Atma is not able to really load this page, since it has so many scripts and his connection is a 56Kb one. "Ask a Monk" could be Ven. Bhante Yutthadammo, as such is his "lable". Mr. Dhamma Sith as assumed being Mr. Theravada here does not display a picture of a person.
It would be not good to discourage enthusiastic lay followers in there experiments in the way it would be maybe proper in regard of someone who gives the notion of being someone who knows.

Us discussing this doesn't seem to be helpful, considering there seems to be a language barrier, and it's not really in the spirit of Stacked change. I had a concern/question regarding the OP. He can address it at his leisure.

It's a right insight, that discussing such later is not right, and its a right insight that we would not know, if we would not simply ask the questioner or put our statements under an if. To ask him fist, would have been the releasing insight, so maybe to just take it now in faith that such would good in this case, since this last insight seems not having been accrued. And wouldn't a concerning question not a matter to put it in the discussion of the question and formulate it as a concern rather than indirect, if such has been really the intention? That are no matters of language barriers.

Hello @JigokuBosatsu, welcome. We've put together some tips for new users asking and answering questions on the site.

I am not a monk, and i am not teaching anything. I actually translate good sermons and books i find into english. But thanks for the answer!

(note: Quotes have been taken form the discussion here and are form Mr. Theravada, the questioner)

For example if you try to explain the reason for the sudden rise of extremist terrorism it is hard to explain it without looking like an Anti-islamic explanation. As you can see these things are complicated and when asked we must answer too.

It is not always necessary to answer: i.e. "when asked we must answer too", does not apply.
For example there are various questions which the Buddha famously left unanswered because answers to those questions wouldn't have been helpful.
Sometimes "the only winning move is not to play".

So what is your thought on this?

Someone asked that question (about a reason for terrorism) on Parenting.SE and I tried to answer it there.
The people (teachers) who teach children are trained that the doctrines and teaching materials must be "age appropriate" or "developmentally appropriate".
I judged it better to not even try to explain (and inevitably mis-explain) "terrorists' motives" to school children.

For example when people believe something like this, "Killing a non believe is a good thing and they will have heaven for that" it is clearly dumb and it will only feed a genocide. But some religions have these in their core.

I classify that as "hate speech". I'm unwilling to believe it.

And these innocent people ask us what should be the reason they should believe otherwise we must answer in a way that would make them understand while remaining respectful for their own belief as they are not still out of it.

You can perhaps use an 'I-message', something like, "The Dhammapada says that, Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal."
By doing that you might hope to talk about Buddhism, instead of talking about some hopelessly misunderstood version of something else.

People see with their ego and see everyone like themselves.

Really?

it is their own dilemma to deal with.

Buddhism teaches "a middle way between extremes"; so Buddhists can beware of engaging in so-called 'false dilemmas', for example:

"Is it better to be starving, or to be a glutton?" -- no.
"Is it better to kill or to be killed" -- no.
"Is it better to attack or to defend" -- no.
"What's the reason for the sudden rise in extremist terrorism?" -- no.

Another thing is that Buddhism is clever at identifying abstractions: abstractions like "aversion", "Taṇhā", etc. Applying (or not applying) those abstractions to real-world (or not-so-real-world) entities takes something else (some other kind of skill, experience, I'm not sure what).
Still I find that Buddhism when it talks about abstractions isn't very insulting or corrosive: so keeping the talk quite abstract or non-specific, can be helpful (although, to be honest, people may not want to hear even the first noble truth).
So (about abstraction), saying "hatred isn't proper" is quite abstract and not specifically insulting anyone. Saying "you hate and therefore you're hateful" would be a lot more specific and a lot worse; so keeping things abstract is one way to avoid offending.
Maybe it's non-corrosive to teach general tools, vocabulary, logic, practical behaviour, and let other people accept and apply it in their own mind/life/time.

Another thing though (i.e. the opposite extreme) is that people can get to arguing about abstractions when they would have no argument about more concrete subjects.
Someone once suggested that I could categorize topics of conversation according to how near or far, how personal or impersonal, they are:

The distant past or distant future is further away than the present
The far away (distant in space) is more impersonal than what's here
Talking about other people is more impersonal than talking about ourselves (you and me, or our families)

Anything reported in the mass media tends to be very distant: it's reporting on events which aren't now, aren't here, and aren't you and me.
In a way it's easier to argue about what's impersonal than what's personal: for example we could argue about who has the better football team; or for example people say rude things on the internet because they think they're anonymous or because they don't know who they're talking to.
Also in a way we don't know things which aren't here and now (and because we don't know them we argue about them, like the sectarians can argue about the elephant).
Look at how the how the concept of "papañca" is kind of central in the essay, Non-violence
-- A Study Guide.

I'm quite fond of the suttas. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article about non-violence (referenced above), for example, is nothing but quotations from the suttas. Many of the other articles too, on Access to Insight, quote extensively from and/or are based on the suttas.
So maybe that is another hint: one way to ensure that the articles you write aren't too corrosive could be to base them closely on suttas -- try to defer to, try to quote, the Buddha-vacana where possible. You said, "it is very easy to look wise while saying really wise quotes" as if that's a bad thing, but I think that's kind of the point: not to look wise, but to try to make wisdom, wise quotes available.

Lastly you may be writing some 'mixed messages' here, for example:

i do not have any idea if i can do it without being a bit corrosive in certain topics
what i meant was not that i'm a very furious person

These might be contradictory: can you be "a bit corrosive" and yet "not furious"?

when asked we must answer too

Are you able to explain 'liberation' even if you feel 'compelled' to answer?
Returning to the subject of what's near and "personal", perhaps you're supposed to notice how you're feeling: if you're feeling angry, compelled, anxious, thirsty, (or a bit corrosive in certain topics) then that mightn't be an especially conducive state to be teaching.
Or maybe it's those "certain topics" which are better avoided.
Or maybe they're topics in investigate: do you know other teachings that are "a bit corrosive", do you understand why they have that effect, can you do or be the opposite (e.g. "non-hatred" instead of "hatred")? Or use impermanence: what is, after corrosiveness has come and gone?

Thank you. I was beginning to read this earlier today (the reference to Ajahn Chah), and I watched a video, and I thought, "what a lot of good (Buddhist) writing there is (already, in the world)". Instead of or as preparation for "doing articles" you could also collect references to other people's articles; and comment on them, add commentary: reference them, add 'tags' or keywords (like this site uses) to help find content/topics, classify (categorize) them, and comment on them - say why they're good, why you like them, why you recommend them.

Thanks again, This is a good idea. I have a little hardware problem with my pc, so i'm currently functioning at the smallest level possible. If you know about computers, i am running this on a 256 RAM now! Yeah i know it sounds crazy but got to help people somehow. I will expand with these ideas once i have the PC going again. By the way check out by blog and give be some ideas as well if you can.


text:
Tibetan Mahayana
Does anyone know the source of this teaching:

Free From Assertions Regarding Philosophical Views,
  Free from Mental Fabrication in Meditation,
  Free from Accepting or Rejecting Regarding Conduct,
  Free from Hopes and Fears Concerning the Result.

Sounds like one of the higher yanas like Dzogchen or Mahamudra, why? :)

The last two lines look like dharmanakaya

You may find such expressions all over the exclamations of Arahats and the Buddha, like in Magandiya Sutta and mostly in the Theragata, Therigata. In regard of "Mental Fabrication in Meditation", such is found in the description of the Jhanas.
It's not about a Yana, as suggested in the discussion of the OP, but the result of Mahayana (taking the transcendent Eightfold Path "without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path", the path of the Noble ones, as Maha).
The last sentence is the most dangerous for beings, misunderstand it (or thing that such can be imitated), but it has its cause, since no more kamma is done being an Arahat, and of cause no reason for harming actions arises.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of trade and keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


text:
Teachings regarding Veneration/Respect (as one of the traditional 10 meritorious deeds)
Feel invited or maybe even inspired to share any teachings regarding "Apacāyana" (Respect or Veneration). It is one of the less taught, but very basic and fundamental, meritorious deeds. Teachings within Suttas, and Dhamma talks even from 'stranger' resources, if Dhamma, are welcome (in English and/or German).
They are actually difficult to find in the modern world, since they go a lot against the grain of how Dhamma was often introduced and promoted.
Such are of course just of beneficial use if they had originated and forwarded in line of meritorious deeds.
Atma would like to share this merits (Pattānuppadāna), not to speak of rejoicing with your merits.
It will not be easy to fully answer this question, so it might stay without an accepted answer for a longer time.
Asian dhamma talks are normally full of this matter, now here we can hardly find anything: of course from cause.
In addition: Even more complicated, such teachings should be Dhamma also given in line of Dhamma. So commercial stuff and taken things (althought it will be naturally less on this topic) is not useful since it has lost the line of respect.

Sadhu! Valued ChrisW, for your effort, not only to correct the spelling and grammar errors. Just that you know, and not a "countermove": It would be not proper to request, but it is no problem to give a opportunity. That is why such marks like "please" and "?" will be missed naturally.
Valued ChrisW, you are doing a very risky "job" here. It would (not sure if possible) be good if people could look into the original post, since others could be easily transgress simple precepts.
How ever, again, much mudita in regard of your effort which was for sure 100% well thought.

Atma assumes being invited to request the community in regard of "Apacāyana" (Respect or Veneration). It is one of the very less taught, but very basic and fundamental, meritorious deeds... as above.

Thank you for explaining that. Yes, people can easily see the original version by clicking on the link which says "edited ... ago". And yes please do assume (if it's proper) that you're welcome to ask questions or to post requests for information.

This is a site for questions and answers. I don't always understand every sentence that's posted, and so I look for the sentence which has a question mark in it (to try to ensure I understand at least the core of the question).

Sadhu! for the generous effort of further explaining (the technical possibilities) and for your kind invitation.mudita

Would a reference to Gārava be relevant to this topic, or is that different from Apacāyana?

Yes, that's another word for it, specific in a very dhammic way. That is for sure helpful for this quest here. Apacāyana, how ever, also maintains worldly aspects of reverence, such as respecting age, those more skilled, specially mother and father... Here is one Sutta that mentions the seven like quoted in the dictionary: Appamada Sutta: Heedfulness. On the path, out of this, Gārava would be enough, as a meritorious deed Gārava would be to less to describe the sphere and especially the roots where to start in d.life.

Ven. Sir. most likely Apacāyana is a word used in the commentaries more particularly appearing Abhidhamma commentaries like Attha,sālinī, Abhidhamm’attha,saṅgaha, Abhidhamm’attha,vibhāvinī, Moha,vicchedanī. (Search for Apacāyana within the Pali Canon returns nothing while other sources are mentioned in the background and introduction in Puñña,kiriya,vatthu Sutta compiled by Piya Tan)
The salient point with regard to practicing Apacāyana is that you dissolve the ego, pride and self-righteousness, within there is the perception of "I". In addition there is sense of gratitude1 or respect for higher virtue or attainment in the person you are venerating2.
As for source I would like to point out the following:

Apacayana means paying respects to those who excel you in age, morality, integrity, wisdom, virtue, etc. Paying respects to elderly persons such as your father, mother, uncle, aunt; offering your seat and making way for those worthy of respect; bowing your head and showing humility, clasping your palms in homage to Bhikkhus, doffing your hat, saluting according to custom, etc. are all signs of respect. However, if you show respect unwillingly to a powerful person out of fear or with some selfish aim, this cannot be called apacayana, because it is pretentious in nature. It only amounts to maya (trickery).
Note: Food for thought - bowing or curtseying is generally accepted as signs of reverence. In Myanmar some people put down whatever load they are carrying and prostate on the roads when they meet Bhikkhus. Some kneel down in the sidewalk or on the platform of a railway station to pay respects to monks and elderly persons. These actions if done with true sincerity, are not to be blamed. But in these days when people have to rush about in busy places, just a bow or a few humble words will suffice the need of apayacana. Kneeling down and prostrating in worshiping on meeting a Bhikkhu on the roads in a Bhikkhu on the roads or in busy crowded places in the presence of alien people are not really necessary.

Source: Abhidhamma In Daily Life / Chapter 6 - Ten Domains Of Meritorious Actions  / Domain 4 - Apacayana

Respect as a way of making merit should be known in such acts as getting up from
  one’s seat, welcoming one’s mother, father, elder brother, elder sister or an elderly person,
  taking his/her luggage, saluting him, showing him the way, and so on. Or generally,
  respecting others’ feelings, privileges, property, and life; regarding them with deference,
  esteem and honour; avoiding degrading, insulting or interrupting them; refraining
  from offending, corrupting or tempting them. Sadly, today the younger generation
  lacks respect or reverence.
According to Venerable Nāgasena, in Milindapañha, there are twelve persons who do
  not pay respect or show reverence to others: a lustful person because of his lust; an angry person because of his anger; a confused person because of his confusion; an arrogant
  person because of his pride; one devoid of special qualities owing to his lack of
  distinction; an obstinate owing to his lack of docility; a low minded owing to his low
  mindedness; an evil man owing to his selfishness; an afflicted owing to his affliction; a
  greedy owing to his being overcome by greed; and a businessman owing to his working
  for profit.
It is clear that, in contrast to the above persons, the reverent and respectful man develops
  his mind (and thereby accumulates merit), for by his attitude he cuts down the defilement
  of pride and replaces it by wise conduct of humility. Respecting elders and the
  Saïgha are clear examples of this aspect. Even the respect shown by a novice monk to a
  bhikkhu falls under this category.
Here again, the good intention that arises in one who shows respect or reverence is the
  way of making merit in respecting others.

Source: TEN WAYS OF MAKING MERIT by MAHINDA WIJESINGHE

Respectfulness (apacāyana) is the means by which one shows respect (apacayati), acts properly
  by way of honouring. Traditionally, respect is shown in such ways as when we meet a practising monk,
  salute him with joined palms, we take his bowl and robe, and offer him a seat and some water as appropriate.
  A common mark of respect would be to give way to elders when meeting them. “Respect” here
  should not be taken in the ritual way, which has very little moral value, as the intention behind such an
  action is not always pure. “Respect” properly means “accepting others as they are,” that is, using our present-moment
  awareness not to measure or judge others, but to relate to them (especially those near and
  dear) as if meeting them for the first time. In other words, when we show a sincere interest in people, we
  are more likely to encourage them to show their better sides. There is also “self-respect,” that is, abstaining
  from evil or unwholesome deeds through the feeling of moral shame (ottappa), that such negative
  results would bring disgrace upon us and those close to us.

Source: Puñña,kiriya,vatthu Sutta commentary and analysis by Piya Tan
Since gāravā is a loose equivalent as per the comments the following are the Suttas which has this word: search for gāravā within the Pali Canon.

1 Especially to those who helped in learning and coming in contact with the Dhamma, especially you teacher, the lineage of Sangha who preserved the teaching, the Buddha as if it was not for the Buddha we will have not come across the Dhamma at all and our Parami is not strong enough to realise it, and the Dhamma itself as even the Buddha kept it as his teacher.
2 Garava Sutta

Sadhu!
Valued Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena, Atma, knows the most excellent work of Abhidhamma In Daily Life which he received as Dhamma-Dana years ago from Budaedu. You may find a pfd of it here.
The work of of Upasaka Mahinda, which Atma came luckily personal in contact some weeks ago, who had personally given it for further share, was actually an additional motivation, to seek for more teachings in regard of basics, ...

...which people in traditional countries usually really do not lack, but modern world hardly does.
His work gratitude could still not be shared, because the print house seem to have protected the pfd. (Btw. if you know Upasaka Mahinda personally, he was to "shy" to have a picture of him published)
However, gratitude and respect for example are directly involved in each other and all of them are aspects of basic right view. On an modern website of Dhamma...

... one would not easily find even "Namo..." at first place or an dedication, introduction and veneration of the deliverer, sadly even if made by monastics. So there is a really big hole in western languages, as far as Atma has seen. Honestly, in regard of most interpretations of Mr. Piya Tan, Atma does not find much joy because many of them are really not in the frame of the path, but simply directed in community creation & affection. For example:  >" “Respect” properly means “accepting others as they are,” that is, using our present-moment awareness not to measure or judge others, ..."

If such talks, going straight to adhidhamma, like "The Lessons of Gratitude" are known, such are most helpful, Atma guesses, since they are more easy to follow. Yet good Abidhamma works and and lessons with good references to the suttas are also missing. One sees in both works, that the issue "Respect" is only touched a little. Today Atma started to translate MN 140, where one could see that even unknowingly such can be a transgression.

Sadhu! for the additions, however, Upasaka Piya Tans interpretations of the deeper meaning of "respect" does not fit with the teachings or the Buddha "In Buddhism, respect has a broader meaning of “uncondi
tion - ally accepting oneself and others as they are." (like again in the commentars to the Gārava Sutta and are merely a popular New age approach) A kind of sample where the forbiddance of any kind of respect, if one looks at respect in the Vinaya is very accurate. ...

Much of the commentary is from literature review in an academic perspective from Academic Researchers researching buddhism in English and discussion of the literature.  Many of the western researchers take a new age approach hence this is also reflected in the writing this is what is generally available as literature. Also this undertaking is more of an academic research effort. I also do not know if this is true directed in community creation & affection as I know it he doesn't have much of a following or community as such though he lectures at different institutes and universities.

Its also a usual appearance of such new age interpretations, that parents are mostly not mentioned by those people. How ever, it could be also that there is a misunderstanding, that not paying respect means straightly aversion, but actually its understanding. If it is a proper time to clearly express a disprove is another thing, yet not and never a matter of aversion but merely compassion, if understood rightly....

Another thing is, that he introduces it as a means of worldly gaining, which is actually akusala. Again, "modern" websites which introduce Buddhas teachings and lacing of "Namo ..." and "Expressions of Gratitude" are seldom resources of Dhamma in line on Dhamma. Yet, for the wise also a source. I trust that Upasaka does not take this additions as even personal critic, but simply a try to make the reason for the question and the difficulty of this quest more visible by samples. Sorry, Atma did not saw that you replied. Yes, most is just "academic" work, which has grow to business.

I think most of his commentary takes the form of a literature survey in academic research. There is helpful identifying what other researchers have done in this area related to the particular Sutta. E.g. Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies publishers many books and journals but it is difficult to identify what these publication have about say a perticular Sutta. The commentary many of the research done about the particular Sutta by other. Some researchers who publish papers hence get quoted or discussed may not be devoted Buddhist themselves.

It seems like that valued Upasaka indirectly brings up good samples of teaching people actually disrespect: Oxford University is on the way to make the Dhamma to a legal article of trade! With some discussions with scholars about fundamental things.
But actually it goes even deeper, since the ways of modern educations are already broad adopted within the Sanghas ways of educating new monks. Learning simply by books or internet, without interaction is the death of respect and gratitude. Less are left even willing to teach and to busy.

Many major universities now have departments doing research in Buddhism. Piya Tan's commentary help identify these sources. This is the main reason I use this and also formatting and more simpler and clear English in translations. Of course they more inclined towards New Age Buddhism which I would agree. Also publication come in volumes with a chapter being a Sutta. The 1st Chapter start with "Namo ... " e.g. An Introduction to the Satipatthana Suttas

Ven. Sir, I do understand the point you are making and partly agree. But non of the other translators identify related Suttas. What other scholars have got to say about a particular topic. How different scholars have translated or interpreted certain areas in a Sutta differently. In this perspective these are the best translation available due to this. Also implicitly and well structured formatting is easy to read. That is why I use them. If there is a better structured translations with commentary linking available literature and other Suttas I will definitely use it.

But there is nothing much out there which this has this amount of information and cross referencing available.

Sadhu! Valued Upasakas way of taking care and respect of every subject involved, while staying straight on wise line and truthfulness, are very praiseworthy and treacherous (in its, of course positive manner) for all.

"But there is nothing much..." means that is actually really a good invitation. Atma has tried to start some collections in a "wiki-teaching" like kind, but only in German and a rare as sketch so far. It's a actually a real "Modern Buddhist"-Enemy, this topic and like "serving" or "sharing merits" a red flag while going into spheres of Vipassana. That is not healthy.

Sadhu! Ven. Sir, looking forward to your work. Perhaps publish then in English as well in PDF form. This will be very valuable for everyone. With Metta.

Well that's actually in decency of the Veyyāvaca of those taking on the invitations like here. It seams that especially samples in action form people with deep cultural background and routine like your person are very much needed. When such comes from potential people who would "receive" such, there is always the possible critic that he might just have the interest to lift up himself. Atma has collected a sketch in de so far, but a matter that has really high impact on the whole practice & not only in this religion a urgent lack.

Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena encouraged in the discussion under his answer to possibly share some teachings on veneration. Atma tried to expand the originally sketch which starts with namo, and did a surely poor translation into English. It should not be regarded as finished work, a lot of important further aspects are not included yet but still in the sphere of mind. Its also good if you would share possible missing parts and maybe even try to improve it. The topic is a difficult one, since it is such a natural thing for those having grown up in an environment of right view or live in such, while it is hardly ever seen for people used to grow up and live in spheres where such as right view is negated. So the part who knows its benefit would not easy see that there is a lot of lack and start to explain it while the blind part to it would not estimate to miss a important point. Its actually the peak point where Dhamma and no Dhamma collided or better split far apart. Knowing this it is of cause just for those with little dust in the eyes beneficial while for those with lot of gains even a further obstacle in line with there defilement. One of the main doors to break on through the other side (if one considers the lyric rightly):
Respect and Veneration
Table of contents

Introduction and dedication
Dedication
Object of reverence

Persons
Physical objects
Places
Places of pilgrimage
Graves and Relics

Actions

Actions of reverence
Reverence with the body
Salutation and flighty Encounter
Bow/Prostration
Prostrations as a means of practice
Deeds while receiving Dhamma
Reverence by Speech
Salutation title
Reverence and Appreciation of Deeds

Mind state and Benefit of the Practice
The Power of Reverence
Reverence and Worshipping in regard of Gods
Unskilful kind of Reverence
Duties of giving Respect for Monks and Nuns
Benefit and Backwards*

Benefits form the practice of Veneration*
Backwards of the omitting of Veneration*

Special Practice of Reverence in various Traditions

Puja

See also
Sources
Notes and Links

[ * new added]

On who is an elder and thus worthy of veneration:

We have heard, Master Gotama: “The ascetic Gotama does not pay homage to brahmins who are old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last stage; nor does he stand up for them or offer them a seat.” This is indeed true, for Master Gotama does not pay homage to brahmins who are old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last stage; nor does he stand up for them or offer them a seat. This is not proper, Master Gotama.’
“It then occurred to me: These venerable ones do not know what an elder is or what the qualities that make one an elder are. Even though someone is old—eighty, ninety, or a hundred years from birth—if he speaks at an improper time, speaks falsely, speaks what is unbeneficial, speaks contrary to the Dhamma and the discipline, if at an improper time he speaks words that are worthless, unreasonable, rambling, and unbeneficial, then he is reckoned as a foolish childish elder.
“But even though someone is young, a youth with black hair, endowed with the blessing of youth, in the prime of life, if he speaks at a proper time, speaks what is truthful, speaks what is beneficial, speaks on the Dhamma and the discipline, and if at a proper time he speaks words that are worth recording, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial, then he is reckoned as a wise elder.

Uruvela sutta 2 (AN 4.22)

260 A monk is not Elder because his head is gray. He is but ripe in age, and he is called one grown old in vain.
392 Just as a brahmin priest reveres his sacrificial fire, even so should one devoutly revere the person from whom one has learned the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.

Dhammapada: 19 Dhammatthavagga, 26 Brahmanavagga

Sadhu! Just do not forget the copy right. Thats a matter of respect and right view: © Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha (Wisdom Publications, 2012)
This excerpt from The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha by Bhikkhu Bodhi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on the work The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha at Wisdom Publications.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at Wisdom Publications.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US

What do you think? Was that spoken worthless, unreasonable, rambling, and unbeneficial, like a foolish childish elder?

When Atma assumes right, Mr. Alexander or even Dmytro? Atma is confused, but some things make reason. Stay on the good side!! Robin Hood is not regarded as a worthy person in Dhammic views  even there are monks who follow in such ways. How ever, mudita that you still do in dhamma. (for others, who might be confused: Upasaka Dmytro was a generous layperson who had given many possibilities on sangham. And there is much obligation that such a person should not fall into wrong views.)

@Samana Johann, fair enugh, thank you, point taken

Sadhu! Such is a person, who is able to grow. (You can not share such things here according the TOS ) Only sell-able "Dhamma"  Just for the case you did not saw the second wink. Doing things unknowingly do/will hurt even more. Alexander or Dmytro (?) That means you should also change that on SC, because you can not take non-comercial and put it under the license of commercial (https://suttacentral.net/ru/mn1), as Atma had seen today. That is taking what is not given. Be careful!

Anything posted on this site is "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required" which is not "NonCommercial-NoDerivs". I believe we may post relevant fragments from other works (with incompatible licenses) if our posts meet the various "Fair Use" provisions. When you inlude a quote in your post it isn't usual to reference to the license, but you should instead reference the source from which you copied the quote.

Something similar came up in another topic: this answer references the The Maha Mangala Sutta, one of whose topics is Gārava which (you wrote) is similar to Apacāyana.

Gaaravo: reverence. This includes the proper veneration of the Buddha,
  Dhamma and Sangha, and respect for parents and teachers, wise people,
  good persons and elders — in fact, a general high regard for everyone.
  Even the Buddha after his Enlightenment surveyed the world to try to
  find a teacher to revere. When he realized that no teacher surpassed
  his own attainments, then he proclaimed in verse that he would live
  revering the Dhamma through which Enlightenment had been discovered.
And the arahant-disciples too had reverence for the Buddha as their
  guide, for the Dhamma, for other senior bhikkhus and for the way of
  training.
The further one has gone along the path of Dhamma the more reverence
  one has for it — and for others who also practice correctly. It is not
  that reverence grows less as one practices! This is a way of
  estimating one's own position, for if a lot of pride and conceit can
  be seen then one has not got very far!
How does one show respect or reverence? The Buddha says that one gives
  such a person a good seat, stands up to receive them, makes way for
  them and, for religious teachers, one places one's hands together and
  bows at their feet. This is a blessing resulting in good future births
  and harmony in the present life.

A search for 'Gāravo' on Access to Insight may find that this word is used in several other suttas also.
You might also look at other related words (for example, possibly Nivāta as a synonym, or Māna as an antonym).
Another practice to consider might be 'prostrations' which is mentioned frequently on this site.
Prostrations are apparently a Theravada practice, though it might be more prevalent in other schools of Buddhism. See for example this answer which tries to explain the "Tradition and purpose of prostration practice".

Sadhu for the effort Upasaka Chris, You and others are everytime invited to share such maybe here in a related topic. Please don't understand Atmas leave as any fault of anybody here. You do a really good work here not to speak about the topics topic, where this community is far more developed as any other Atma has met on web. Sadhu!

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Did Manjushri, Vajrassatva, Avalokiteshvara live?
Did Manjushri, Vajrassatva or Avalokiteshvara live?
Are Manjushri, Vajrassatva or Avalokiteshvara manifestations or special names of Buddhas or Bodhisattva?

Vajrasattva did not live in the sense you mean, because he is not a person, but he is an existent. I will explain further:
The form body (Rupakaya), is divided in two:

The emanation body (Nirmanakaya), and
The enjoyment body (Sambhogakāya)

From a Tibetan viewpoint, Shakyamuni was an emanation body of the Buddha. He merely showed the aspect of being born, aging, achieving enlightenment, passing into parinirvana, and so forth [but was actually free from birth, aging, sickness and death and so forth]. While the enjoyment body is too subtle for ordinary beings to see, the emanation body is seen by ordinary beings. Wheel-turning buddhas are thus said to be emanation bodies.
Vajrasattva, on the other hand, would be the enjoyment body in the aspect of a Bodhisattva. Such a body can be seen by arya beings. We claim that when an arya bodhisattva chooses to be reborn in a pure land in order to receive teachings there from other bodhisattvas, he receives teachings from actual bodhisattvas as well as from the enjoyement body in the aspect of bodhisattvas (such as Vajrasattva, Manjushri, and so forth). Vajrasattva is one of these aspects, manifestations. He is a subtle manifestation of the form body of buddha.
Avalokiteshvara was one of 'the eight principal Mahayana disciples of Buddha Shakyamuni', that is the sambhogakaya in the aspect of a disciple. The same is true of Manjushri. The main difference between Manjushri and Vajrasattva, in relation to their entity, is that Manjushri is said to be a [manifestation of the] wisdom truth body (i.e. the omniscient mind) and not that of the enjoyment body.

Simply, in Mahayana Buddhism, they exist. All three of them are or were Bodhisattvas and are or will become fully Enlightened Buddhas upon the completion of their vows. The qualities of a tenth ground Bodhisattva are pretty close to the qualities of a fully enlightened Buddha.
Now for the complications:
They are not historical personages in the same way that, say Gautama Shakyamuni was. They are either myths, i.e. instructive fictions, or if one accepts the possibility of realms and other universes that can be known through meditative experience, then they are the Buddhas of other universes. A common "rule" in discussion of the realms is that there can only be one Buddha per universe at one time, with colossal gaps of time between them. So either these Buddhas are in other worlds (in one of the ten directions) or they existed a very, very long time ago. A universe can have many Bodhisattvas and Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can visit other universes through the use of other bodies (nirmanakaya).
Existence, to me, is not so important. If they exist, they are anatman, i.e. they don't have an unchanging core, they are empty/sunyata. I don't need them to exist with a birth certificate and the like.
Depending on who you are reading, you get different accounts of who is a Bodhisattva (not fully Enlightened) and who is a fully Enlightened Buddha. This confusion is compound when you take into account how the Bodhisattva path is explained-- a Bodhisattva reaches the edge of Enlightenment, but holds back because there are still more unenlightened beings in the universe. By this reasoning, you personally will be a fully enlightened Buddha before the Bodhisattvas are Buddhas.
Also, in the explanation of what Enlightenment is, the distinction between unenlightened and enlightened might not be what we think it is. In my readings the impression I get is that if we were nearly enlightened, it would all be clear. But as unenlightened beings, the distinction between the Bodhisattva and Buddhas are more distinct than what we naively think, in fact it may be that samsara and nirvana are in some sense the same and that the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas were always the same.


text:
What are the Major Meditation Traditions / Masters in Laos / Cambodia / Vietnam?
What are the Major Meditation Traditions / Masters in Laos / Cambodia /  Vietnam? Does Cambodia prominent meditation lineages which originated in Laos / Cambodia /  Vietnam? What are the lineages originating elsewhere coming to Laos / Cambodia /  Vietnam? Do they have variation from practiced elsewhere?

Valued Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
Atma can only tell you about Cambodia. Meditation is a very death matter. There are 3 main streams, currently:

One and most popular and growing: Goenka. A second center is currently in building in Central Cambodia.
The secound most dominate lineage is that of But Sovung, originated from Acharn Sujin, a Thai Upasika (also teacher of Upasika Nina Van Gorkum), which avoids in somehow everything that could cause Jhana and is merely a dry Adhidhamma tradition (Dhamma in Cambodia), but most successful in manners of gaining.
The "formal" branch of "Vipassana Dhura Buddhist Meditation Center" with the most public and governmental support, focusing more on Jhana.

Under 1.000 monks, you would find 10 who have learned meditation a little and 1 who regular practice it. The same with laypeople. Such as daily practice is merely unknown and people are much to busy so that they would scarify time. So if, there are mainly such as retreats or courses here and there, events. In every region one finds on this or that hill such as a meditation guru, mostly focusing on samadhi. The forest Tradition is extincted. Atma came across some disciples of older lineages, but those Monks (mostly 50+) mostly have stopped to teach or are busy to build Meditation Building first.
There is one monastery in Siam Reap, which is sad to focus on meditation. Atma had met some monks from there but did not personally came there till today.
All in all it holds true, if there is no Sila, there is no foundation for samadhi. Maybe Atma is able to share more contacts and hints.


text:
Mindfulness when sick?
I am trying to be mindful whenever I am not too absorbed in whatever i am doing and then I got sick. Everything stopped from fast to slow motion. I had time to watch myself being mindful, but then it occurred to me what I should be mindful off? Since I am physically sick now, should I repeat my current state of mind- 'I am sick', 'I am sick', 'I am sick' and this is so depressing or should I change my frame of mind to something positive - for future well being like ' I am getting better', 'I am getting better', 'I am getting better '.
Which is right way of being mindful? Being in Present or Hope for better future!!!

Don't do either of those. When using the Mahasi Sayadaw method of noting, you should only note things that you are directly experiencing in the present. You don't directly experience sickness itself, but rather various symptoms such as tiredness, nausea, diziness, etc... Just note those individually as they come up. Or just note the movement of the abdomen or the posture, etc...

are you getting sick because you practice mindfulness?   or you are sick and dont know where best to be mindful of?   If the later one, then you might want to read this Gilana Sutta.

Just a note. If you focus on the "quality" of something, like sickness or happiness, then it gets reinforced. Consequently, obviously you're depressed.
Sickness or getting better is a quality of your physical being. This is harder than it sounds. Accept it as it is but don't bother with it much more than just taking your pills or resting. Just accept the current state without judging it's quality.
When you're sitting, sit. When you're standing, stand. This is "simply observing".
So, don't bother with it and as you well know, this will pass. Be well.

Its a perfect situation if being sick. Actually you like to know dukkha to be able to escape form it. Pain is the very friend of a meditator.
Observe body, mind, feeling very often and spend a lot of time with it. Do not waste time to fight pain but stay with the breath, Mr./Mrs. 8CK8.
What the pain, where it comes from, if it really stays, where is ceases. The mood, the body... Spend your time with it and take the gift to have no other duty like this.

Just as you would not focus on a thought like "Mindfulness is hard" when doing mindfulness meditation, then focusing on some other thought like "I am sick" while doing it would be counterproductive. I suffer from chronic pain, and while it is quite distracting, if I spent all my time focusing on it, I wouldn't get anything done. Part of mindfulness practice is acknowledging your passing thoughts and then letting them go.
Also remember that as Buddhists we practice the middle way. If you are really really sick, then you must take time for yourself to get better. Don't torture yourself by trying to do formal meditation.

"Don't torture yourself by trying to do formal meditation.", that is not the recommendation of the Buddha when sick and being mindful is something made in every posture. To care about the necessaries to maintain the body, is of course needed but to put Satipatthana on the highest place has more benefit as to simply cure another time or even not and having missed it.

The Dukka in the sickness is the unpleasant feeling and sensations. Concrete on the arising and passing nature of these sensations. If you cannot see the arising and passing then their impermanence or changing nature.


text:
How does this piece of Vasitha's yoga fit with Buddhist thought?
One of my favorite lines from Vasitha's yoga
"I am not,  nor is there other,  nor is there nonexistence."
In what ways does this parallel with Buddhist thought?
In what ways does it differ?

"I am not, nor is there other"
Ultimately, "I" in Buddhism is understood to be atman. When referring to the brahmanical understanding of atman, this refers to a permanent/eternal/unchanging essence under one's complete control, thus, something that is not essentially dukkha.
The Buddha taught anatta (not-self) going through all phenomena experienced in order to observe "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself" and thus relinquishing the illusion that atman (this underlying "true self") is within the range of experience, something to be grasped.
"or is there nonexistence."
I'm not familiar with the referred literature, but as far as "nonexistence" above has equivalent meaning to "nonexistence" in the suttas, here is what the Buddha says in the Kaccaayanagotto Sutta:

"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence [Eternalism] or to non-existence [Annihilationism]. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.
"The world in general, Kaccaayana, grasps after systems and is imprisoned by dogmas. But he does not go along with that system-grasping, that mental obstinacy and dogmatic bias, does not grasp at it, does not affirm: 'This is my self.' He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.
"'Everything exists,' this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle: Conditioned by ignorance are the formations... [as SN 12.10]... So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering. But from the complete fading away and cessation of ignorance there comes the cessation of the formations, from the cessation of the formations comes the cessation of consciousness... So there comes about the complete cessation of this entire mass of suffering."

Your quoted second paragraph is very direct, I have not seen that before, thank you. I think the key to the issue raised by the Question is that the self creates this point of view intrinsically. It cannot be cast off by the self, any more than a fish can cast off the ocean. So, the self view must be gotten underneath. This is too radical to be thought or written, but it can be done. But self cannot understand what (something else) is attempting to do... Trying to learn it is like trying to make oneself run straight into a wall without flinching.

Yes, in regard of Upasaka Thiago Silva answer.
Seems like the approach of what the Buddha called "the Uposatha of the Niganthas (Jains)"
See: Muluposatha Sutta: The Roots of the Uposatha


text:
Are mindfulness and flow related
Loose definitions for mindfulness and flow (text from Wikipedia):
Mindfulness involves being aware moment-to-moment, of one’s subjective conscious experience from a first-person perspective.
Flow is described as a deep focus on nothing but the activity – not even oneself or one's emotions.
Both are good, but they appear to be opposite mental states. Is entering a flow state incompatible with developing mindfulness? If so, then would flow be considered "bad"? If not, then how can these distinct concepts be presented so that they are compatible?

I just found out that the Chinese character for "mindfulness" is composed of ideograms for "present" and "heart". This is interesting because mushin - a Japanese concept similar to flow - literally means "absence of heart" (though without the negative connotations we westerners would associate with this notion).

Shin tends to mean heart/mind.  In the context of mushin, it definitely leans more toward the word "mind" in the conventional sense - i.e. no content to mind, blankness, emptiness, etc.  I think the Japanese word you are looking for is zanshin.

@neko I'm thinking about mushin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushin_(mental_state)) but in the sense of "mind" rather than "heart"

Equating mindfulness and flow is somewhat problematic.  I would actually go so far as to say that flow has more in common with samadhi than sati.
I'm guessing you are using the term flow as described by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.  From what I remember of his book, one of the important characteristic of flow inducing activities is that they have an engaging quality to them.  One becomes absorbed in whatever they are doing.  That should set off some bells and whistles immediately as there are some clear similarities (but not an equivalence) between being engaged in an activity and states of meditative absorption.  For one, both activities are, by nature, intrinsically rewarding (well, when you get better at meditation, they are!) and offer direct feedback.  We know when we've had a good sit or not, we know when our mind drifts from the the breath, etc.  On a more technical level, attention is applied and sustained (vicara/vitakka) in both flow and samadhi.  We either need a meditative object to apply our attention to (samadhi) or an activity to which we can apply our efforts (flow).  We also need to do both in a way that isn't distracted (sustained attention).  In flow, however, I just don't think one finds a sustained attention that is nearly as unbroken as it is in jhana or neighboring states of concentration.
When compared to mindfulness practice, flow is lacking some very important qualities.  For one, I just flat out don't think the word mindfulness even can be applied to flow.  The Pali word sati has a number of meanings, but generally implies bringing something into the mind's eye, bringing something into attention, etc.  I just don't see that taking place in flow.  The activity is supplying the mental content.  Secondly, mindfulness practice involves sampajanna - clear comprehension - of the activities one is engaged in.  This is the knowing that a breath is long or short, that an arm is raised, that a feeling is felt, etc.  Once again, I just don't see that happening in flow.  One is caught up in the activity instead of clearing comprehending the component actions that make up that activity.  Perhaps most importantly, flow utterly lacks the potential for insight.  Flow never affords one the opportunity to turn the attention to, say, the seven factors or enlightenment or the four noble truths.  The activities take us into a kind of attention that is other or outer-directed.  The potential for the development of wisdom - the main purpose of mindfulness practice - never factors in.

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

Maybe you mean akaliko (ongoing, no break, timeless) with flow. Of course there is usually a flow of being not aware, but such is not the practice of the path, Mr. JnBrymn. Flow is merely used as a new age approach and there is certain no use for such. Maybe this essay The Role of Appropriate Attention is useful