text:
Mindfulness of feelings and emotions
I'm having a certain trouble in meditation being aware of both my feelings and emotions. The feelings, as in vedana, aren't so inaccessible to me but my emotions are particularly hard to discern. I'm wondering whether the practice of mindfulness of vedana will help me discern my emotions more, or whether emotions are a different thing alltogether.

Vedana is pleasant/unpleasant/neutral feelings at the sense doors. Being aware of that is called Vedananupassana.
Emotions (including for example the five hindrances) are covered under Dhammanupassana.
Here is a simple guide book, How to Meditate, you can follow.

It is customary to memorize
  these four categories before proceeding with the
  meditation practice:

Body – the movements and postures of the body;
Feelings – bodily and mental sensations of pain,
  happiness, calm, etc.;
Mind – thoughts that arise in the mind – of the past
  or future, good or bad;
Dhammas – groups of mental and physical
  phenomena that are of specific interest to the
  meditator, including the mental states that cloud
  one's awareness, the six senses by which one
  experiences reality, and many others.

Ex: When sitting for meditation, you might feel pain in your legs. That pain is still Vedana(feeling). You can note it as pain... pain... pain... It becomes emotion, if you start to dislike the pain. If you are wishing the pain to go away, you are already emotional. Simply note it as disliking... disliking...
Similarly, you might feel very calm when meditating. Simply note it as calm... calm... calm... If you start to like that calmness, it is emotion. Note it as liking... liking... liking... This liking becomes clinging and when the calmness goes away, sadness/disappointment arises as a result of clinging. That is again Vedana which you can note as sad... sad... sad...

First of all seek the advice of your teacher as mixing other techniques which might not work well with the techniques you are practicing and your teacher will not be able to guide you regarding complication of what you have mixed into your techniques.

There are multiple clarifications of feeling. Three fold classification:

Pleasant
Unpleasant
Neutral

Sometimes pleasant or up plesent is broken down into further 2. i.e.,

Pleasant bodily feeling
Pleasant mental feeling
Unpleasant bodily feeling
Unpleasant mental feeling
Neutral feeling

See: Vedanā - Attributes on Wikipedia
Emotion pertain you your mental pleasant or unpleasant feeling. Also mental and physical unpleasant feeling influence each other. So if you are mindful of sensations of the body and you do get an emotional disturbance you feel unpleasantness in the body. If you are under physical pain then vise versa is true as well. This is not limited to pain alone but true to pleasant and neutral feelings also. So you if you are mindful of the body you still can feel the mental feelings through the body.
Emotions give rise to thoughts and mental state. If you look at the 121 metal states all states contain Vedana. Also if you look at the metal content which are 52 each of them has Vedana intermingled, i.e., vedana is sabba citta sadharana. (Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma) Also the only way to sense any this is through contact with the sense faculties. (Pratītyasamutpāda) Hence only way to know something that happened in the mind or mental content is through the respective vedana arising from the respective contact of the mindd objects and their content. Verada is the unifying factor for all the 4 Satipatthana.

In every chapter the repetition of certain words indicates the importance of this sampajañña. Ātāpī sampajāno satimā applies to the observation of kāya, vedanā, citta and dhammā: sampajañña has to be present. Similarly samudaya-, vaya-, and samudaya-vaya-dhammānupassī, which apply everywhere in the Sutta, have to be with sampajañña and sensations. For example, in Myanmar there are many pagodas on plateaus, with four staircases, one each from the east, west, north and south. Similarly you might start with kāya, vedanā, citta, or dhammā, but as you enter the gallery they all intermingle in vedanā, and reaching the shrine room it is the same nibbāna. Whichever staircase you start climbing, you come to vedanā and sampajañña: and if you are with sampajañña you are progressing step by step towards the final goal.

(Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka)
Also there should be no conceptualisation, imagination, verbalisation, visualisation when doing Vipassana as these are Verbal Fabrication which you are supposed to reduce and calm down. (Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Kāma,bhū Sutta 2, Mahā Vedalla Sutta)
Also Vipassana and Vedana as Understood by a Novice by U Tin Lwin would give a more detailed perspective in some of the concerns you have raised.


text:
Feeling guilty of something I did
First of all, I am not sure whether I am posting in the right forum. My apologies if this is not the right place.
I recently went to a restaurant and when I ordered dessert, I found a mosquito inside the bowl of the ice-cream. I asked waiter and he apologized right away and replaced it. In the suggestion book even though my family said not to write, I ignored them and wrote my complaint in anger that "I found a mosquito in my dessert." And the manager was reading that book. The waiter apologized again while I was leaving and he meant every word he said. I could feel it. Now, I am feeling guilty that I should not have written my complaint. I am worried that the manager might fire the poor guy or deduct some money from his salary.
I want to know whether I did the right thing or I shouldn't have written about it in the book? I am very disturbed thinking about the incident.

In the specific situation you've described, you have experienced some powerful emotions - there was anger, like you've said, but maybe also other emotions.
It might help you to go back to that moment when you decided to write your complain in the guest book and try to identify all the emotions you've experienced, starting with the most obvious to the ones more discrete. Think about how often you act on these emotions when they appear.
During meditation, we learn to look at our mind. We learn to identify emotional states as they occur -we see that they come, have a certain power, last for a while, then pass away. The reason we do that is because otherwise we just follow the habits (act on those emotions) we have long developed. People who meditate acknowledge the emotions they experience, but note it without acting on those emotions, especially if they are unwholesome. They understand the emotions as something that are present, will last a while, than will pass away.  Would you like to learn to control theme? Maybe you would develop an interest in meditation and will learn how to do it.
About the emotions of regret you experience now, by continuously thinking about that situation, you keep the mind focused on a negative emotion, and this is not a good training for the mind. The good part is that you can see the effect your action has on you ( you did something and now you feel bad about it). Try to stay in the present moment. When a thought about that situation shows up in your mind, just acknowledge it as a thought (you are no longer in that situation, in the present it is just a thought about that situation). When you experience an emotion in the present, recognize the emotion and let go ("this is sadness" or "regret"). Maybe it will help to think that you've learned something from this situation and you will try to not repeat that mistake again. Also, be kind to yourself - we all make mistakes, what's important is to learn from them.
I hope you will find something helpful in this answer.

Hi Anca, what a thoughtful response! I enjoyed reading it!

Very thoughtful response. I will learn from my mistake. Thanks.

I am glad the answer helped you. Be well!

@user23 - If you are sincerely concerned about the waiter, why not approach the restaurant manager and clarify that the intent was not to cause grievance and that it was not the fault of the waiter. It's an opportunity to practise thanking them as well helping them.

Getting angry is certainly wrong. If this is the first time it has happened to you in that restaurant, a verbal complaint would've been enough. Waiter apologizing and replacing the ice-cream is a clear indication that he took it seriously. Written complaints are usually used for intentional errors or when they don't take you seriously after complaining.
To deal with your sadness, do Vedananupassana: Note the sadness as sad... sad... sad...
To deal with regret, do Cittanupassana & Dhammanupassana: thinking... thinking...  regretting... regretting...

Yes. I will not do the same mistake again. Thanks :)

The feeling you are getting is just a feeling. This is aggravated by continuous thinking as to I should have done this or not done that. (E.g. not writing the complaint, just only making a verbal complaint, etc.) This additional thinking is rubbing salt in your existing wound of remorse. Best way is to cut it out by focusing on the breath or another chosen object. (Nīvarana,pahana Vagga)
Also another way would be is just to concentrate on the bad feeling keeping in mind that this also will pass away, i.e., look at the arising and passing or the impermanent nature of the feeling. (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2)

Hopefully, this feeling will pass away. Thanks :)

I think you might be right: "I ignored them and wrote my complaint in anger" does sound like it might be some unfortunate behaviour.
One of the benefits of 'virtuous' behaviour is said to be 'a lack of remorse'. So if you're felling remorse now, then maybe that behaviour wasn't virtuous.
There are some hints here about how to define 'right speech'; for example,

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?
"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

Another sutta says that what you say ought to be true, factual, beneficial ... and that, although it might be agreeable or disagreeable, in either case, you need to "have a sense of the proper time for saying them ... because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."
I think if you're angry it's easy to justify angry speech: "what happened is wrong, it's right to tell them, I need to tell them that so that it doesn't happen again."
Anger however is one of the things which can cloud/distort your judgement (of right and wrong).
So if or while you're feeling angry might be one of the better times to not say too much, instead think about it again later if at all. Maybe anger used to be useful, in the animal world for example: if there's some struggle for life and death, anger might make you strong and quick (maybe it helps you to over-react physically). But seeing a mosquito in the ice cream doesn't sound like that kind of emergency.

Thank you for the external links you mentioned in your post.

i am sorry you are feeling like this , let me help you..
the first thing you need to understand is why you are feeling guilty, and the answer to that is , thoughts, when you are entretanined in your favorite hobbies do you feel guilty about what happened? certainly not , since you are not thinking about that, so first akknowledge that the situation it self is not making you suffer but just thoughts , what king of thoughts? well , you think what happened was bad for him, and that it was your fault..
lets examine this thoughts, are they true?
do you need its bad for him in the long run? maybe thanks to this he will be more carful and get a promotion or something, its definitly possible , so you cant assure its bad for him, and the part of blame, well you acted based on your thoughts, but do you control your thoughts? what is the next thought that will popup ? will it be something about the pass, the future? we dont know, if we controlled our thoguhts we would always pick positives ones, but that is not the case, so in the moment, you felt that , that was the right thing, so stop blaming your self, you had no control over the thoughts that popped up in your head...

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Shamata - attention on upper lip, diaphragm or belly?
A very interesting discussion here on SE on breathing focus made me a bit confused. Allan Wallace says in the beginning focus on belly, then when you get better at it, diaphragm, then nostril/upper lip. He is basing his instructions (in The Attention Revolution) Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation.
In the q/a i linked above some disagreement occurs there and some of the people there says diapragm is better. They are folks whom I've gotten very many good answers from before, and whse answers I therefore have come to trust quite much. But in almost al other books, videos, techers instruction the tendency is to say that once you get the hang of shamata, you should focus on upper lip/nose/nostril.
If anyone has good references and arguments for focusing on diaphragm I'd like to hear them, and try it out.

Well it depends on the teacher who is guiding you. If you do have a teacher go by what he instructs.
One of interpretations focul point (as in the original teaching as well as the most effective location) is the centre of the upper lip: What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?, Is watching the heart beat (instead of watching the breath) a known form of meditation?,
Also a very comprehensive book which gives instruction to the original breath meditation method see by answer to: Breath getting shorter and shorter and also Is watching the heart beat (instead of watching the breath) a known form of meditation?
When you focus on the diagram you are supposed to look at the Wind Element, i.e., the expansion and contraction. For a beginner this is generally easy but there are arguments that as you go deeper into meditation you progress stall and slows down for some. Based on this rationale have tend to switch to other methods which seemed to have worked better for them. (E.g. Banthe Vimalasiri, Anagarika Munindra, Piya Tan, etc.) This might not be the case for everyone but you will not know for sure whether this will work for you or not unless you try it and see for yourself.

If anyone has good references and arguments for focusing on diaphragm I'd like to hear them, and try it out.

Also when you have developed some level of concentration and also looking to switch to 4 elements meditation while doing normal day to day work this might be sometimes a good place to rest your attention. (E.g. in office, while driving, etc.) For more details on which parts of the body which each element dominates see:  Mahā Rāhulovāda Sutta
For a basic introduction to the Mahaisi Method see: Essentials of Insight Meditation Practice by Ven. Sujiva. This was a book I used for reference when I tried out this method many years ago. Also there is a book: How To Meditate by Ven. Yuttadhammo.
Meditation techniques are like drug trial. There are some methods with generally work well for everyone but with a few exceptions. There are some methods which works well for a few does not give as great results to every one in general. Keeping this in mind try to figure out what works well for you. My belief and experience is that what works better to the masses is when you practice close to the original Suttas. A view shared by: Banthe Vimalasiri, S.N.Goenka, Ven. Nanavira, Richard Shankman, Leigh Brasington.
Also keep in mind you have to pratice for a while using one techniques to get results. You should not change too often. Only after a year to two with no progress.
Best of luck in your search and pratice!

Thanks for encouragement and references! I found How To Meditate by Ven. Yuttadhammo also in Russian, which is perfect because my girlfriend doesn't read English, but now we can go through it together

Great. Try it out and see if it work for you and / or your girlfriend. Also keep in mind something that might work well for you may not work well for your girlfriend and what might work for her may not work well for you. You have to independently find out what works well for you.

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


text:
Satipatthana sutta in english AUDIO
Is there a version of Satipatthana Sutta in English AUDIO . I have got the pali version but I do not understand the full meaning when I listen to it.The idea is to listen every day when I go to work and come home after work.

There is the reading of Sally Clough with a calm soothing voice and intonation.
http://www.suttareadings.net/audio/mn.010.sclo.mp3
You can also find other Suttas read there.

There are these audio Dhamma talks on the Satipatthana Sutta by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.
There are 10 talks. You can see an overview of the 10 talks here.

There is a very 8 day workshop done by S.N. Goenka on the Satipatthana Sutta which takes you through the original Pali sutta followed by further elaboration
The disclosures:

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7A
Day 7B

The same is available at: http://www.vridhamma.org/Discourses-on-Satipatthana-Sutta as a trascribed file and also sutta and it's traslation used for this discoure can fe found at: http://www.tipitaka.org/stp-pali-eng-parallel


text:
Information on string ceremony
I once attended a puja at a Sri Lankan temple where a string was passed around during chanting. Afterwards the monks tied string around our wrists and poured water over our heads. What is the string called? Any explanation on the significance. I notice some people kept the string on for months, others said to cut it off at the end of the day.

While the recital continues there will be found a pot of water placed
on a table before the monks. On this table there is also a sacred
thread (pirit nula). For an all night pirit ceremony the casket
containing a relic of the Buddha, and the Pirit Potha or The Book of
Protection written on ola leaves, are also brought into the pavilion.
The relic represents the Buddha, the "Pirit Potha" represents the
Dhamma or the teachings of the Buddha, and the reciting Bhikkhu-Sangha
represent the Ariya-Sangha, the arahant disciples of the Buddha.
The thread is drawn round the interior of the pavilion, and its end
twisted round the casket, the neck of the pot of water, and tied to
the cord of the ola-leaf book. While the special discourses are being
recited the monks hold the thread. The purpose is to maintain an
unbroken communication from the water to the relic, to the Pirit Potha
and to the officiating monks, (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, the Ti-ratana,
the three jewels.) A ball of thread connected to "The Three Jewels"
and the water, is unloosened and passed on to the listeners (seated on
the ground on mats), who hold the thread while the recital goes on.
When the recital in Pali of the entire book is over at dawn, the
thread sanctified by the recital is divided into pieces and
distributed among the devotees to be tied round their wrists or necks.
At the same time the sanctified water is sprinkled on all, who even
drink a little of it and sprinkle it on their heads. These are to be
regarded as symbols of the protective power of the paritta that was
recited. It is a service of inducing blessings. It has its
psychological effects.
Dr. Bernard Grad of McGill University in Montreal painstakingly proved
that if a psychic healer held water in a flask and this water was
later poured on barley seeds, the plants significantly outgrew
untreated seeds. But — and this is the intriguing part — if depressed
psychiatric patients held the flasks of water, the growth of seeds was
retarded. Read more...

The practice of giving Paritta threads was even done by Pacceka Buddhas in the past.
It's basically used as a symbol of protection. There's no real time limit to how long you have to wear it. If it's clean, you can keep it as long as you want. It can be helpful in many ways. If you feel afraid, you can look at the thread and remember the Paritta chanting event. Remember taking refuge. And feel confident that you are able to handle any situation since you have the protection of the Triple-gem. Wearing the thread can make you disinclined to break precept. ex: "Am I really going to kill while wearing this which represents the Triple-gem?", "Am I really going to misbehave while wearing this sacred thread?" etc.
Wearing a thread or a band for such reasons is much more wholesome than wearing bands/bracelets to make a fashion statement.

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


text:
Compassion for all sentient beings
In the Tibetan tradition, and as far as I understand, the Mahayana in general, there’s a lot of emphasis on compassion for all sentient beings. Compassion for all sentient beings sounds great. But I sometimes wonder about this all-encompassing compassion in practice.
An example: I was attending a two day meditation and reflection session this weekend. We did meditation on compassion for all sentient beings. The teacher did not get tired of underlining how importance of no exceptions. It all sounds very nice. At the end of the first day we were discussing meditation on the skhanda’s and I asked if we could repeat this the next morning. Teacher said yes, but forgot it. I asked if he could send me a mil with some info I needed. He said yes but forgot. This made me wonder. You know, compassion for all – aren’t your students included in “all”? Is it a risk that you may slip in to a state where you meditate very “big” and think about you compassion for all the universe(s), but forget “thy neighbor”?
Does the Buddha address this directly anywhere? This tendency to be compassionate when you’re on the cushion but when the chips are down in real life it isn’t that much mindful compassion left?

Maybe the teacher had a lot on his plate and simply forgot. Does that mean that he didn't have compassion? I don't see the connection. Please clarify.

I think that compassion should entail care. That you care for those you have compassion for. And if you care for your student you listen to what they say. If you are a teacher and on a weekend with your group I think being a teacher that weekend for the group is what should be on your plate

Aversion arises when one does not get what one wants. It is important that one is aware of the aversion, how it is caused and conditioned by factors.

Remember that teacher, like you and me, are still sentient beings on various stages of the path who are trying to work toward enlightenment. As such, "compassion for all" is still something one aspires towards, not something already been attained. He might be a few steps ahead of you, but he's not the Buddha. So I'd cut him some slack, extract any useful info. from the session,  and refocus on how to cultivate the Path with my own effort and time.

Teacher said yes, but forgot it. I asked if he could send me a mil with some info I needed. He said yes but forgot.

The teacher saying "yes" could be a manifestation of compassion. But the teacher forgetting what he said he would do sounds like a manifestation of heedlessness (the opposite of mindfulness) -- these are two different things.
Also both saying "yes" and forgetting could be heedlessness. It's hard to guess one's mind state even when one is answering a simple thing with "yes".
In any case, "compassion" can be a tricky term to understand. It's generally understood as "the desire to see other beings free from suffering". Sometimes is useful to emphasize it does not mean to actively do what other people ask one to do -- compassion may manifest even as harsh actions.

You know, compassion for all – aren’t your students included in “all”?

I see two things here. First, doing or teaching compassion meditation does not make one flawlessly compassionate onwards. Second, that meditation can have a short term goal (as a path to samatha) and long term goal (as a means of transforming one's mind and strengthening the habits of compassion). Out of the cushion is hard to be always compassionate (or always benevolent, or always mindful, or always equanimous, etc), hence the practice.
Having said that, yes, students are included in "all" -- stuff like that happens.

Simply forgetting to respond to your request does not necessarily mean your teacher has no compassion for you. The teacher's compassion may embrace you in ways you are unaware of (that is, you don't realize that benefits to you come from the teacher); it may be much larger than an email with information. Compassion has to do with wanting to relieve your suffering, not with fulfilling your desires. If desires are what cause your suffering (such as your hurt at not receiving a response), then others should not necessarily fulfill your desires, or they should do so only with the intention of leading to your ultimate happiness (nirvana).


text:
What is a "sentient being" in Tibetan Buddhism?
The answer to this question seems to depend on what school one talks about. So my question is about Mahayana Buddhism, more specifically Tibetan Madhyamaka Buddhist schools.
I kind of wonder where the line is drawn between beings that are sentient and beings that are not. How about f.ex. corals, algae, amoeba, crill and living creatures like that.
As far as I can understand (which is probably not very far) this has got to do with whether the being has consciousness/mind or not. Is that so?  Maybe the question should be "what does it mean to say that a being is  conscious or has a mind?
Is there a generally accepted definition of what a sentient being is? Anywhere in the suttas the Buddha is talking about this?

The sutras emphasize that humans can choose whereas animals simply respond and cannot reflect on their actions or motivations. I recall in an old TV show I saw as a child, someone said, "A man is different because a man has a choice." Perhaps they were including the distinction between adult and child in there. So, do you mean having any sort of awareness, or having the ability to reflect on self?

I don't mean self reflexiveness. I mean simply what it means to say thet a being is "sentient".  As for the idea that "A man is different because a man has a choice." .. I'm not really sure if that's what separates us from animals. I think it has to to with the structure of our will. Very simply said, humans can have desires about their desires whereas (other) animals don't seem to have that capacity

But I think that you are asking about sentience, which for you seems to include parts of the animal realm, yes? Anything that can move can respond, feel pain, etc. Is that what you are interested in distinguishing? The idea of consciousness and mind is hard to attribute for simple animals that we do not usually interact with, like fish. What is the reason for understanding this difference? What will you do with it?

I'm curious, that's all. "Compassion for all sentient beings" - and so I wonder what does sentience mean. Another q/a pointed out to me the realm as opposed to individual/biology/species categories. That was very helpful. Your first comment about humans "reflect[ing] on their actions or motivations" is very interesting, and I agree that capacity is very human. Many of my fellow philosophers disagree, though, they say we too "simply respond", we just think we don't. I remain skeptic

Purbuchok. in Explanation of the Presentation of Objects and Object-Posessors as well as Awarenesses and Knowers:

With regard to persons, the definition of something’s being
  a person is: a being imputed in dependence upon any of its five
  aggregates.
Self, I, person, and being are synonymous. An illustration is a being
  who possesses a basis of one of the three realms.

That which is both a person and is not an arya buddha is a sentient being. An arya budha is a person, but not a sentient being.
From Geshe Gyaltsen's commentary to Maitreya's Sublime Continuum:

Person pervades all sentient beings and sentient beings pervade all
  ordinary beings, or ordinary persons. There are therefore three
  possibilities. Therefore the broader category is person, the person
  being someone with a mind, whereby all sentient beings and arya
  buddhas are included. Arya buddha is the buddha as a person.

According to the so-called Wheel of Life (Skt. bhavacakka; Tib. srid pa'i 'khor lo) there are six realms, that is six types of rebirth, six types of sentient beings. It is thus generally accepted that the are the six : hell beings, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, demi-gods and gods. All other existent (minerals, plants, fungus, my carpet, my cup of tea) are not sentient beings. Then, suffice it to establish that bacteria are fungus in order to establish they are not sentient beings, but it goes already beyond the scope of Tibetan treatises.
The wheel is talked of in the tales called Divine narratives (Skt. Divyāvadāna).

So it seems that the OP would want a distinction of where 'animal' begins? Fish, probably yes, jellyfish, no? Barnacle, even less so? Some people define animal as "anything with a face".


text:
According to Buddhism, what separates humans from animals?
Philosophers throughout history have been trying to pin down what it exactly means to be human -  what it is that separates humans from (other) animals.
Some have voted for our ability to make rational choices for the future - in a word the ability to intend; and then acting accordingly or contrary to our own better judgements. Some put emphasis on our capacity for language and communication by the use of signs/abstract representations. Another variety is about freedom of will as opposed to freedom of action. Humans, they say, has both.
Others still said it has really nothing to do with our rationality, but rather that it has to do with the internal structure of our will. That is to say, humans can want (or not want) to want something. We can have desires about our desires. I can say "I want to eat cake, but I don't want to be fat and I don't want to be seen as a person who succumbs to temptations. Therefore I shall abstain." A cat can want to chase and kill a mouse, but the idea is that the cat doesn't have the ability to say "I'm hungry and want to catch a mouse and eat it, but I don't want to be that kind of cat. Therefore I shall abstain."
How is this in Buddhism? What makes us human, what separates us from animals? Is it our capacity to understand/see that samsara is suffering? Is it our ability to see emptiness and dependent arising? Our capacity to be freed from suffering? Is it our rationality? Is this the same in all traditions?

One possible distinction is the phrase: "Humans can reason about other minds." That would be evidenced by our ability to reason about our own minds, since there is not really a distinction - modelling is modelling. We can posit the idea of changing how we think, and related concepts like enlightenment, and there is no evidence whatsoever that animals do this. I don't know where this is described in Buddhism. I suppose the distinction is just a common-sense idea that need not be supported by scripture. "It just does, OK?"

Interesting, but do you think that an answer has to be based on scriptures to be an answer? That is, shouldn't you have posted this as an answer and what is your reasons for not doing so? Does all answers need to be supported by scripture? Else it's speculation?

I asked a Question yesterday and it was closed as off-topic because :: "This question does not appear to be about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice, within the scope defined in the help center." So, I am reticent to post an Answer when I am not a Buddhist and don't even know a proper scriptural reference. If people think my comments are useless, they can delete them. I consider myself a "guest" here, as my primary interest is Nonduality. There is no other site with a closer fit for that, and my attempt to start a new site went nowhere. Oh, well. Have fun!

I agree, I think the moderators here are OK, but a bit strict with what goes as relevant and not relevant. But I find your comments very good and gives many different perspectives - perspectives is the main reason for me being here. So was it you question about composers you refer to? Get any further on that? I think your friend's suggestion, Bach, was a pretty good candidate.

One thing, what might "separate" us from the other animals, is something, about which the Buddha has given many discourses: our conception of some eternal, idealistic self ( "atman" ) connected with the "me" and a lack of compassion. One of the Buddha's intentions was to help us ( "...there might be some with less dust on the eyes..." ) to overcome ignorance ( aviyya ) and to develop compassion (karuna, metta ) with all living beings and understanding of common fears and fate ( because of annicca ), of the connectedness in this ...

This blog entry suggested that "answers must be based on either something that happened to you personally, or something you can back up with a reference". Based on the answer to this meta-topic we allow unreferenced answers ... but answers which aren't based on 'Buddhism'  (which might be e.g. based on non-Buddhist western philosophy) might be closed (e.g. for being off-topic).

According to Buddhism there 31 planes of existance out of one which is the animal kingdom.
Your next birth is decided by the last thought moment where you remeber a recent or grave act of Karma which you have performed. So what decides or separates us from animals the Karma which decided our birth.

It's interesting to see how my - and western philosophical/conceptual minds generally - always think about these questions in terms of individual existence and categories based on biology and/or rationality. It goes to show how stuck one is in concepts. Thanks for the link and answer

" A cat can want to chase and kill a mouse, but the idea is that the
  cat doesn't have the ability to say "I'm hungry and want to catch a
  mouse and eat it, but I don't want to be that kind of cat. Therefore I
  shall abstain."

See this big cats behavior

Pretty cool! I think animals have empathy and feelings, but the question is if they - the lion here f.ex. - can act contrary to their own desires. How hungry was that lion? Was the lion out to kill the baby cow in the first place or was that what the baby cow thought? That seems to be difficult to find out. Moreover I did not mean to say that second order volition as defining humans is my view, but my question is whether there is something similar in Buddhist thought

@Mr.Concept I think humans have freedom/capacity to understand how there (his/her) personality creates.


text:
Where is the complete William Hamilton's "Saints and Psychopaths"?
I have been trying to find a complete copy of William Hamilton's "Saints and Psychopaths" and although it seems to be distributed on the web in various places in electronic format, it also seems that every single electronic copy appears to be missing pages from the preface, specifically pages xiv and xv.  If you know where I can get these missing pages I would be extremely grateful to hear from you.  Unfortunately pretty much all of the hard copies available are prohibitively priced and I do not if there is a publishers for this book at present, in the book it appears to be "Dharma Audio Network Associates San Jacinto California 1995" and according to amazon the publisher is "Dana".
I have attempted to source a complete copy from documents.mx, www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de, www.scribd.com, books.google.com & .co.uk, docsfiles.com, www.mediafire.com and various less reputable sites, but unfortunately to no avail.
Any assistance in tracking these pages, if not the full publication would be greatly appreciated, I also believe that a complete online copy of this title would be of considerable benefit to the world-wide buddhist community.

Are you seriously looking for two missing pages in the preface - and can't find $10 on a used paper copy, or you're just using this excuse to advertise a nice book? ;) I like people who are honest.

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/compare/9780964490406

Possible good if asking for a given copy and not only violate precepts but even laws by such. So be careful, not demanding and holding wrong views. Yet of course, merits and demerits ones own choices.

Although I do not know what you consider to be prohibitively priced, as of today, 6/7/2016, abebooks.com has a used copy for $34.95 plus $4.00 shipping. If the book is as scarce in hard copy as it appears to be, this seems to be a good price.

The complete Saints & Psychopaths is available for free as HTML and epub here, https://github.com/eudoxos/saints. This includes the pages in the preface missing from the PDF copy.

The first search result that showed up gave me this PDF... and it has the full preface.

It looks like that's missing pages xiv and xv.

Huh that's true... It seems like the author specifically took out those two pages of his personal background in the sangha.. It is the major one in circulation, too..


text:
Am I "fooling" myself?
As I practice more and more on seeing life as Dukkha, something interesting happens. I feel a greater sense of gratitude and contentment.
I am not talking about seeing things as they are directly and non-conceptually, piercing through and seeing emptiness. I am a beginner, stuck in concepts. But the more I interpret my existence in view of impermanence/anicca, suffering/dukkha, and non-self/anattā, the more grateful and content I become.
Am I "fooling" myself? Is it just another aspect of Dukkha, like when you are in love and don't see that it's going to end/change?

As I said here, each of the Three Marks (Transience, Dukkha, Corelessness) produces a surprising effect when it is fully accepted:

Fully accepting Transience brings a surprising sense of timeless peace and even a sense of stability as you get fully established in the momentary "eternal now".
Fully accepting Dukkha brings a surprising sense of contentment and even a kind of bliss.
Fully accepting Corelessness brings a sense of spontaneity and puts us in touch with endless creative energy.

Here is the simple answer to what you feel...
We are in constant pain and suffering.
As to lord Buddha
Eyes,Ears,Tongue,Nose,Body & Mind are Burning from three things (Lust,Anger,Confusion -[Raga,Dwesha,Moha]). But the one who practice and realize escape the burning forever,he is free.

So here's what is happening to you...
Now that you have started to see the world in the correct way you might feel these things like anyone who traveled the path before you,

Happiness or joy without a reason
Feeling happy even from the little things
Not feeling like you used to,as if you are someone else
Appreciating little things in life
Feeling more love or kindness towards ones who are close to you & for almost anyone
More willing to forgive & forget
Looking back at past and making plans to correct the wrongs and to
apologize

These are really few among the usual characteristics of an individual who is practicing the path. Feeling happy and relaxed, starting to enjoy the life without hassle is really normal and there is nothing to be afraid. What you feel is the slow process of realization, The realization of what truly things are.

The second part of your answer is really good. Thank you for posting it.

You are welcome, it is an honor to have a compliment by a moderator  :-)

Firstly let me give a generic background. Before diving into answering your question.
Dukkha appears in many contexts and granularity when discussing Buddhism. In the level you seem to be discussing this at the level of perception. The most relevant Suttas are the ones dealing with as a perception. There couple of such Suttas but a well translated one is: (Vitthāra) Satta Sañña Sutta, Meghiya Sutta.
Also Dukkha being the 1st Noble Truth this comes to relevance.
You should look at impermanence, the perception of suffering in the impermanent,  the perception of a lack of self in the suffering.

As I practice more and more on seeing life as Dukkha, something interesting happens. I feel a greater sense of gratitude and contentment.

The 1st Noble truth is called Noble because once you start observing Dukkha objectively this leads to you becoming Noble person free from any form of suffering. This is perhaps what you are experiencing.

First one must accept the fact of suffering. Everywhere suffering exists; this is a universal truth. But it becomes a noble truth when one starts observing it without reacting, because anyone who does so is bound to become a noble, saintly person.
When one starts observing the First Noble Truth, the truth of suffering, then very quickly the cause of suffering becomes clear, and one starts observing it also; this is the Second Noble Truth. If the cause is eradicated, then suffering is eradicated; this is the Third Noble Truth—the eradication of suffering. To achieve its eradication one must take steps; this is the Fourth Noble Truth—the way to end suffering by eradicating its cause.

Source: The Discourse Summaries (day 5) by S. N. Goenka
If I am to presume that you are still a beginner in meditation you are dealing with Dukkha at some conceptual level than seeing it directly at an experiential level. What needs to be done here is when some visitute or lifes pops up and also some unwanted thing happens or some wanted thing does not happen look at it as "this situation will not last forever, this will also pass, this is impermanent". And if it is something pleasant look at it as "this is pleasant but all good things will come to an end, am I ready to give ups then this ends". Thereby you are understanding impermanence nature of experience even when positive.
See additional information in the above source.

I am not talking about seeing things as they are directly and non-conceptually, piercing through and seeing emptiness. I am a beginner, stuck in concepts. But the more I interpret my existence in view of impermanence/anicca, suffering/dukkha, and non-self/anattā, the more grateful and content I become.

To piercing through to see you need to pratice regularly until your are sensitive in the whole body, i.e., you can feel sensation throughout your body. (If you are doing Breath meditation then the whole cycle of the breath with it touching and flowing and the sensations on the concentration spot.) Once you get that then you will start seeing the arising and passing of phenomena in some parts of the body. Some further pratice the whole body. The secret of getting here is practice regularly and also taking intensive residential courses.
Once you realise impermanence then others follow 1st at the perceptional level. I.e. "If this thing that is present will come to an end then it is unsatisfactory. If I cannot control or influence what is unsatisfactory to disappear or prolong what is satisfactory I have not control and there is nothing worth considering as self."

However, merely to feel the sensations within is not enough to remove our delusions. Instead, it is essential to understand the ti-lakkhaṇā (three characteristics) of all phenomena. We must directly experience anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering), and anatta (selflessness) within ourselves. Of these three, the Buddha always stressed the importance of anicca because the realization of the other two will easily follow when we experience deeply the characteristic of impermanence. In the Meghiya Sutta of the Udāna he said:

Aniccasaññino hi, Meghiya, anattasaññā saṇṭhāti, anattasaññī asmimānasamugghātaṃ pāpuṇāti diṭṭheva dhamme nibbānaṃ.7
In one, Meghiya, who perceives impermanence, the perception of selflessness is established. One who perceives what is selfless wins the uprooting of the pride of egotism in this very life, and thus realizes nibbāna.

Therefore, in the practice of satipaṭṭhāna, the experience of anicca, arising and passing away, plays a crucial role. This experience of anicca as it manifests in the mind and body is also called vipassanā. The practice of Vipassana is the same as the practice of satipaṭṭhāna.

Source: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna

Am I "fooling" myself? Is it just another aspect of Dukkha, like when you are in love and don't see that it's going to end/change?

Everyone is fooled. We are also ways fooled by stimuli which is in short ignorance (or miss identifying or perceiving what is felt). We choose not to see that it will end. We attach a false sense of permanence. These are distortions of reality. (Vipallasa Sutta)

It's normal to have doubts, especially about your own feelings. And it's especially normal to feel doubts when you're feeling unexpected (and good!) things such as you are.
You might think to yourself that it "seems too good to be true". But focus deeply on the feelings: really consider them, and allow yourself to try to see their source. With the right insight, you can truly understand these feelings and determine whether they are true.

Am I "fooling" myself? Is it just another aspect of Dukkha, like when you are in love and don't see that it's going to end/change?

Doesn't everything change? Doesn't everything end? You only ever have this moment, and if you're experiencing gratitude and contentment in this moment, then you are free to enjoy it.


text:
Eyes in Meditation Practice
Could someone please clarify for me what to do with the eyes? I have heard that we should keep our eyelids half open, but could someone describe it in detail (or refer me to someone else who does)?
Thank you.

Maybe too many questions: 1) Eyes? 2) History book? 3) Meditations of different traditions? 4) Choosing a branch / a meditation for oneself? 5) Book about kleshas? 6) What books have you found helpful? 7) What texts/recommendations for a beginner?

It would probably be better to ask these as separate questions. Some of them might be duplicate however; and 4) might be difficult to ask or answer (see Which type of Buddhism is for me?), so, perhaps ask that one on meta first (as in, "How can I ask this question?"); and 6) might be off-topic too, being a "polling question" though we've had similar questions ... it would probably be on-topic if you specified a subject or type of book, not just "what was your best book ever?"

Please sPecify which meditation practice

In my experience, what to do with the eyes varies between traditions and even instructors. Generally, I've been taught to keep the eyes partly - but not fully - open and the gaze downward for zazen. In vipassana, I've been told the eyes should be closed.

The guidance I got from one teacher, of Tibetan Nyingma school, is to let the eyes relax. In detail, this includes:

keep them open but not stare-open - don't strain to keep them half-closed either,
relax the muscles around the eyes, so called soft-eyes,
do not focus the eyes on anything in particular, allow them go a little out of focus but don't force it,
if your eyes wander from object to object a bit, that's totally fine - as long as the objects are not too engaging. You don't have to literally sit in front of the wall but you want your scene to be rather generic.

As usual; concise and to the point. Cheers

Welcome to Buddhism SE, amby

Here is the thing about Buddhist meditation....
For some meditational methiods there are some guidelines and for some it is how you like it.

As an example

Breathing meditation - Has a set of rules/guidelines that you must follow (Like sitting down being essential for that particular meditation)
Vipassana meditation - Has no structure and you can use it in any form or method after you learn the core of it.

So here is the solution...
As you are saying you are now practicing a meditational method which needs your eyes closed. Lord Buddha in his advises to monks has never specified a form of eyes closing or opening so what you are asking is not complicated, choose between closed eyes and half open eyes methods. Once you pick what you like do that. There is no right or wrong in that.
Please note that this choice is all about different traditions and holds no significance over the outcome of your efforts.For your advancement you must choose what suits you. Personally i prefer closed eyes because it helps me to concentrate better as i'm completely cut off from the world.

You could try Vipassana Meditation. This Meditation has no complications like what you are facing now. Here are some links, Listen and practice...
Impermanence Meditation 1(Six Faculties)
Impermanence Meditation 2(Four Elements)
Asubha – Anapanasathi Meditation
A bag with an opening at both ends (Meditation of foulness)
Slaughtered cow (Meditation on elements)
Verily my own body, too (Meditation on nine cemetery contemplations)

You can also try Mindfulness meditation
Just a body with movement (Meditation of posturest full awarness)

Here's Loving Kindness meditation with homage
Loving Kindness meditation

I mentioned these because these kind of issues should not become a barrier to a fellow practitioner.Hope this helps.
If you mention the kind/version of meditation you practice i would like to help you further.

This is a massage to any other member of our community, Please do not remove the links. I have mentioned them to help the new user who asked this question.

Eyes half open - when you keeps your eyes open some light comes in therefore you do not become sleepy.
Eyes close - when you keep your eyes closed there is less distraction.
Following is an interesting quotation from Buddhadasa  Bhikkhu on this subject:

Now, the eyes. Should we leave them open or should we close them? Many people believe that they must close their eyes that they cannot meditate with open eyes. If you are serious about what you are doing and have a sufficiently strong mind it is not difficult to practice with the eyes left open. Begin with the eyes open. Open them with the determination to gaze toward the tip of the nose. This is not at all impossible. It just takes a little effort to do so. Gaze at the tip of the nose so that the eyes will not get involved in other things. When we close our eyes we tend to be sleepy, so be careful about closing the eyes. Also, when the eyes are closed they become warm and dry. Mediating with the eyes open will help us to stay awake and will keep the eyes cool and comfortable. Further, this will help the mind to be concentrated; it will aid the development of samadhi. As samadhi (concentration) develops about half way, the eyes will close naturally by themselves. The eyelids will relax and drop shut on their own. There is nothing to worry about. The complete technique is to begin with the eyes open. Gaze at the nose tip until samadhi develops, then the eyes will close on their own. That takes care of the eyes. (46)
Practicing with the eyes open and gazing at the tip of the nose is automatically a noticeable level of concentration. If we establish all of the mind upon gazing at the tip of the nose, we will not see anything else. If we can do this, it will be a certain type of samadhi. We will profit from having this much concentration right from the start. Merely look at the nose without seeing anything else. If all of the mind, all of its interest, is set on looking at the nose, then nothing else will be seen. This samadhi is not insignificant. Therefore you ought to try to start with open eyes. (47)
Please observe that this is something anyone can do. We are intent upon gazing at the nose, at feeling the nose, and at the same time we feel the body breathing. Both can be done. It may seem that both are being done at exactly the same moment, but they are not. There is not anything unnatural or supernatural about it. Because of the mind’s great speed it is possible for the eyes to be gazing at the tip of the nose while being aware of breathing in and breathing out. You can see this for yourself. (48)

Source: ANAPANASATI - MINDFULNESS WITH BREATHING Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners

I think it's eyes closed - soft and spontaneous.

Hi Welcome to Buddhism SE. Can you please elaborate on your answer. Which tradition are you speaking from? If you can quote some sources that would be great. Thanks.


text:
What does Buddhism say about creativity and spiritual development?
Does Buddhism say anything about a relationship between greatness in art, music or other creative areas, and spiritual development? For example, consider the well-known great composers: is there anything to say about how they are able to produce astoundingly complex and beautiful works, like symphonies? (Answers from any tradition are fine.)
Addition: I mean being actively creative, not just listening to music. Is being active and creative valued in Buddhism, or is the point to extinguish everything? What is the purpose of life besides trying to scream and run away? (OK, getting a bit frustrated here.) If life arose for any reason, would it not be to enjoy being in all its forms, and all activities? Or is that a Vexing Question?

It appears that Buddhism is generally down on music? (7th Precept - I just read a related Question).

I think Buddhism is generally down on sense pleasure. Music, art, or whatever else engages the senses and distracts from concentrating on what Buddhism considers to be important. But having said that, you're free to do whatever you wish with your life! Enjoy music and dancing if you wish. There's no harm to yourself or others. You may not be following the classically "ideal" path, but in the end it's all a matter of your own choice. You follow the path you wish, the way you wish.

In Asia, the various forms of Buddhism have inspired uncountable number of art objects created over the centuries: statues, monuments, temples, icons etc. Some art forms, particularly Japanese ones, are considered no less than expressions of the Enlightened Mind.
Many Zen Masters were known for their calligraphy, drawing, and/or poetic skills. The now famous music of shakuhachi flute was popularized by the Fuke sect of Buddhistm.
Late Chogyuam Trungpa Rinpoche was known for his endless creativity. Check out his True Perception: The Path of Dharma Art, Timely Rain: Selected Poetry of Chogyam Trungpa, The Art of Calligraphy, and other writings.
Teacher I.L. declared awakening of the enlightened creativity, as a tool for the universal benefit to oneself and others, to be the point of Enlightenment. From other teachers I heard that creativity is one of the hallmarks of Enlightenment, as the mind without defilements uncovers potential for unlimited uninhibited creation.
So in short, most of the time Buddhism welcomes art and creativity, especially the kind that either expresses Enlightened Mind or popularizes Dharma.

I suppose it says that people don't typically become 'enlightened', in the Buddhist sense of the term, by listening to music.
I think that the Pali canon discouraged making happiness dependent on sensual conditions (e.g. "I would be happy if only I were listening to a symphony", or "... a better symphony than this one", or etc.).
I saw a movie once (probably Amadeus) where the composer says, "You lucky people: God loves you, and I'm about to prove that to you." Such "enthusiasm" might be admirable but it seems to me a fabrication (inventing a 'God' and so on to explain sense-input).
On the other hand there are some Arts which are traditionally or culturally associated with some forms of Buddhism: for example Bokuseki. I don't know about that, I guess from my reading that's supposed to demonstrate a lack of defilements/hindrances in the author's mind, and to be a visible (informative) record/remainder feedback/learning tool of something (i.e. of the author) which really happened.
My take on it is the Pali canon was like,

You're supposed to be monks, not spend your time and indulge your desires by sneaking off to listen to music festivals
Arahants and non-returners are above/beyond a craving/thirst for music (i.e. sensual desire)
Lay people who want to be like monks and arahants, who want to sip from the experience which monks should aspire to full-time, ought to put aside their craving for music at least on holy days

I read a non-Puritanical attitude into this answer though, e.g. you wouldn't despise a lay person for liking music,

If someone really has no problems, that's great, they are Enlightened! The historical Buddha (According to Stephen Batchelor's retelling) said as much on his death bed, when he asked if anyone had any questions left, no one did, so he said, well you all must be enlightened then. People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).

What should naturally creative people do with themselves?

I'm sorry, I don't know doctrine about "creativity", whether natural or otherwise.
The impression I get (from the Pali suttas, summarized in a book titled The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, in the World) is that what lay people "should" do is behave as good and responsible members of society -- i.e. practice "ethics" or virtue.
The book includes advice (quoting various suttas) on how to handle wealth, marry, be a parent, and so on.
One of the suttas mentions "six directions" i.e. each person's responsibility towards their parents, teachers, spouse and family, friends and colleagues, workers and servants, and "ascetics and Brahmans".
When you make money it recommends re-investing some, saving some, and using only a portion for your needs. It recommends wealth without squeezing others (like a bee collects honey without harming the flowers) -- and so on, the whole book contains instructions like these for lay people.
The canon does warn against an excess of partying, immorality, for example,

And what six ways of squandering wealth are to be avoided? Young man, heedlessness caused by intoxication, roaming the streets at inappropriate times, habitual partying, compulsive gambling, bad companionship, and laziness are the six ways of squandering wealth.

Buddhism also recommends Dāna (generosity or charity: especially giving to monks, spiritual people).

So it appears that you are saying the scriptures say nothing in particular about creative expression, and nothing about how creative expression is affected by spiritual development. My experience has been that when I see creative work, I get a sense of the creator's state of being - happy, sad, disciplined... How do you feel when you look at a Rothko painting? I always felt depressed and repelled. As it happens, he took his own life due to depression. Some works are amazing, and I wonder if that is purely the 10,000 hour rule, or if some of it is the person's nature and development generally?

For example, consider the well-known great composers: is there anything to say about how they are able to produce astoundingly complex and beautiful works, like symphonies? (Answers from any tradition are fine.)

Not that I know of from the sutras. From them, I understand it's generally considered a skill like any other -- which can be highly developed by some. But I understand these are skills that are not particularly encouraged, seen as particularly special, or find a significant place in the buddhist path [when put alongside with the doctrinal concepts and practices].

Does Buddhism say anything about a relationship between greatness in art, music or other creative areas, and spiritual development?

There are links between Buddhism and art. Starting from the sutras, we find verses attributed to monks (possibly arahants). From then on, Buddhism was a theme for many artists through history. But here we are talking about the culture of Buddhism in the context of art, not about it's doctrine it's relationship to art.

Addition: I mean being actively creative, not just listening to music. Is being active and creative valued in Buddhism [?]

It seems to me the above refers more broadly to the faculty of intelligence (which includes creativity) combined with skills, and not necessarily artistic expression or art appreciation. Naturally, these faculties are generally beneficial for any kind of endeavor, including the study, the practice, the teaching and propagation of Buddhism.

... or is the point to extinguish everything?

To extinguish every illusion that impair one's life and creates suffering. Not to extinguish everything.

If life arose for any reason, would it not be to enjoy being in all its forms, and all activities?

Anyone can come up with any formulation to explain to themselves why life arose for them. The truth is, it's a chosen answer, not certainty, not truth. To "enjoy being in all its forms and all activities", then is just one's choice for living their life -- the question of how life should be lived remains unanswered as long as there's the possibility of finding out one was mistaken.
To Buddhism, this is not an incorrect way of life, nor correct. If the Buddha was asked if this was a correct life choice, I understand from the sutras he would just say something like: "are you willing to keep suffering, to be subject to suffering? If not, here's what I invite you to try." -- which is just another way of saying what he has been recorded saying to similar questions: that he simply teaches there's suffering, there's the origin of suffering, there's the cessation of suffering, and there's the path to it's cessation.

There is a famous Philosophical question: "Why are there essents [things that exist] instead of nothing?" The answer I know relates to something one of my teachers told me: "The Void can't know itself." So, the Void gave rise to Experience, which is what is happening now. The Void knows itself through all that is. To me, this is a satisfactory answer, and I do not consider it possible to be mistaken. So in that case, I can say that life exists to enjoy being in all its forms. This means I can enjoy being creative, and that is a perfect and necessary part of all that is, or it would not be.

My point is that high philosophical questions and contemplations such as the ones you presented remain unanswered in the hard sense: they aren't solved from then on. I can't go to my friends and family with the good news and tell them "know that old question about what we should do to our lives? It has been answered, no need to have doubts anymore. Here it is: " and not sound unreasonable. So, it remains an open philosophical question, regardless of people finding peace in any specific provisional answer they like. And, from what I know, Buddhism is silent about this particular question.

OK. I was hoping that somewhere I would find that sort of answer, which I could tell everyone, saving them much time and trouble. I guess it does not exist.

The Buddha of the Pali canon mentions a sensuous deva realm or heavenly realm called the nimmanarati deva, 'deva's delighting in creation'. One may conclude from this that creativity could be a pursuit of a heavenly mind, or a mind fit for the material deva realms. Happy these destinations may be, we are all aware that the Buddha's goal for us was much higher than this. It may prove helpful to remember that there are another 20 realms beyond the material deva realms, each one more blissful and  less material than the previous, and all of which possibly may have left physical creativity behind.
As human beings, the pursuit of creativity seems to lead ones mind to a place of reflection of feeling. Developing this facet of ourselves may have the benefit of leading us further up and into the realms of feeling or the 'sensuous realms' of the sensuous devas. The Buddha instructed those who's spiritual faculties were not yet well developed to aim for these deva realms, through good moral conduct in life, as when they found themselves there they would have better circumstances to practice and go further. However for those who's spiritual faculties were quite developed, he instructed them directly to the end game, which naturally would not entail the faculty of physical creativity.
The Buddha states that one who has developed even the first jhana will upon death secure a place in the Brahma realms, beyond the sensuous realms. Interestingly, the first jhana has feeling as it's principle component, when the first jhana is fully established, one can be said to have surmounted the human capacity for feeling. It feels very nice and afterwards, there is not much want for physical creativity as one's need to understand feeling has been satiated. Furthermore there is little want to listen to or write music as the feeling this brings falls short of what is experienced in the first jhana.
The reason I use the term physical creativity is at this point I am unsure what creative potential one might have in the fine material or immaterial realms, where it seems to simply think something would make it so.


text:
Is ignorance a form of superstition?
There are many varieties of delusion, and probably many ways to categorize them. I’ve heard one way of categorization that was interesting. This was from Alex Berzin. (Alex Berzin often talks from the perspective of Prasangika Madhyamaka, but here he was talking in very general terms.)
He said there are two main forms of illusion/delusion/ignorance (Berzin uses the word 'unawareness').

Doctrinally based illusion/delusion/ignorance. This one is based on something one has learned. F.ex. one might believe that God is the creator of the universe and that one has an irreducible ever lasting soul that is either going to heaven or hell. Or – more common, at least in the Western secularized societies – one might believe in science and assume that science is objectively right and think that if something cannot be measured scientifically it simply do not exist (an example here might be some behaviorists claim that consciousness is a superfluous concept and emotions are behavior).
The other form is "automatically" arising illusion/delusion/ignorance. This is not based on something you have heard or learned or indoctrination, but rather based on our karma. An example might be the feeling and belief that I have a core self, something that is holding all experience together, the “stuff that makes me me.” The belief that external reality is independent and self-existent, not imputed by mind, is another example.

I’ve been thinking about this and it seems to me that all kinds of illusion/delusion/ignorance could be categorized as forms of superstition.
Is Buddhism really all about recognizing that we have always been superstitious?
Does the Buddha talk specifically about illusion/delusion/ignorance as superstition in the suttas?

This seems like an argument of semantics. You can call it whatever you'd like, the word is completely besides the point and won't put you any closer to actual understanding. Only seeing reality experientially  will eradicate greed anger and delusion.

Also, the examples you listed are more or less types of wrong view, of which the Buddha described many.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

@Ryan Are you suggesting a way to improve this question, or saying that you don't understand the question, or explaining why this question should be closed? Or, if you're beginning to answer this question, it would be better to post that as an answer than as a comment.

I suppose I was deliberating if it should be closed. It seems to me the question is nothing more than " does ignorance/delusion mean the same thing as superstition".

@Ryan Presumably "ignorance/delusion" means Avidyā/avijjā, so perhaps that question could be answered, either "yes" by finding someone who translates that as "superstition", or "no" by finding a different word which is translated as superstition.

exactly my point! anything can mean anything if we define it to mean anything, so what use is this question? Ok, sure, superstition works if you hold it to mean the same thing as delusion. What does this have to do with Buddhism? This question is better suited for a forum on language.

@Ryan I see it as being like scientific question, i.e. science is like, 1) Observation 2) Define a theory 3) Evaluate the theory. So the OP has observed that Buddhism defines Ignorance, and has invented a theory that ignorance is maybe what he'd call superstition. So now he wants to evaluate that theory, prove or disprove or improve it, make further observations (i.e. read further references) on that subject. It seems to me important, to whatever extent understanding the doctrine about ignorance is important.

Both the discussion/comments and the answers to the question are very helpful. Also, language/semantics/word is not completely besides the point, especially not in light of imputation by mind. Language constitutes reality. Science is a language for describing reality, that language is based on superstition, I think many Buddhist thinkers would agree. As always, asking on this site gives a lot of perspective and clarification

The meaning that the mind ascribes to reality is the very delusion we're speaking of, the ignorance that obscures clear vision of reality. As far as Buddhism is concerned, language does not constitute reality. Reality is made up of momentary experience, one experience after another

@chris this still has nothing to do with Buddhism. I could invent a new word, say "hey guys, this new word has the same meaning as ignorance"; therefore Buddhism is really all about recognizing that we've always been "arbitrary word". OK? I wouldn't be wrong, but I'm also not saying anything meaningful at all, nor does that have anything to do with Buddhism.

@chris sorry for speaking in such absolutes, doing so only shuts down dialogue. I should say this is merely my perspective

@Ryan I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying though: because isn't this site full of questions which ask for the definitions/meanings of words, i.e. aren't those questions normal and on-topic? For example wouldn't "does dukkha mean 'suffering'?" be on-topic, and isn't that very similar to "does avidya mean 'superstition'?"? Or a reference-request question, for example "are there suttas which talk about pain?", isn't that similar to asking for suttas which talk about superstition? I didn't understand all that the OP posted but I thought the questions might be answerable.

This isn't a reference request for a definition of a Pali word, though. The OP is asking if it's ok to use the word superstition instead of delusion/ignorance. This is confirmed by his followup question asking if the Buddha himself referred to delusion as superstition. So it's not a question of Pali to English translation, it's a matter of replacing one word with another, regardless of the language being used. Which has nothing to do with Buddhism. Dicitonary.com can give the most succinct answer.

I'm starting in Wikipedia, where "clinging to rites and rituals" is defined as one of the "fetters". This answer assumes that "clinging to rites and rituals" is (the same as) the "superstition" you were asking about, and so this answer will give references to describe what "clinging to rites and rituals" means.
From Wikipedia, Fetter (Buddhism), the third fetter is,

attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)

Attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)
Śīla refers to "moral conduct", vata (or bata) to "religious duty, observance, rite, practice, custom," and parāmāsa to "being attached to" or "a contagion" and has the connotation of "mishandling" the Dhamma. Altogether, sīlabbata-parāmāso has been translated as "the contagion of mere rule and ritual, the infatuation of good works, the delusion that they suffice" or, more simply, "fall[ing] back on attachment to precepts and rules."

Wikipedia then gives the following paragraph which may or may not be helpful -- on the one hand it's relevant to the conventional meaning on superstition, but on the other hand Thanissaro Bhikkhu's description of it below says it has a broader meaning (e.g. that merely clinging to even Buddhist precepts isn't right):

While the fetter of doubt can be seen as pertaining to the teachings of competing samana during the times of the Buddha, this fetter regarding rites and rituals likely refers to some practices of contemporary brahmanic authorities.

A footnote mentions "the similar concept of sīlabbatupādāna (= sīlabbata-upādāna), 'grasping after works and rites.'"
From Wikipedia's Sotāpanna article,

Clinging to rites and rituals - Eradication of the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals (animal sacrifices, ablutions, chanting, etc.) or adhering to rigid moralism or relying on a god for non-causal delivery (issara nimmāna). Rites and rituals now function more to obscure, than to support the right view of the sotāpanna's now opened dharma eye. The sotāpanna realizes that deliverance can be won only through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. It is the elimination of the notion that there are miracles, or shortcuts.

Following Wikipedia's footnoted references to the suttas, one is Lohicco Sutta which says that Brahmans have their rituals (garbs of skin, chanting, ritual washing), but that these actions aren't right.

First in virtue were the men of old,
  Brahmans who preserved the ancient ways,
  In whom well guarded were the doors of the sense.
  They were never overcome by wrath.
  Meditating on the Law[1] their joy,
  Brahmans who preserved the ancient ways.
  These backsliders who but chant by rote,
  Drunk with pride of birth they stagger on.
  Full of violent rage, aggression prone,
  They lose respect from weak and strong alike:
  Their unguarded senses bring them loss,
  Like a treasure hoard found in a dream.
Fasting, sleeping on the ground, and such,
  Dawn ablutions, chanting Vedic texts,
  Garb of skins, matted hair and filth,
  Magic spells and rites and penances,
  Trickery, deception, blows as well,
  Ritual washing, rinsing of the mouth,
  These are caste-marks of the Brahman-folk,
  Done and practiced for some trifling gain.
  But a heart that's firm and concentrated,
  Purified, of all defilements freed,
  Kind and gentle to all living things-
  That's the path that gains the highest goal.

Another description of this fetter is in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Into the Stream
A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening,

The fetter of grasping at habits and practices is often described in the Pali Canon with reference to the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals or patterns of behavior. This view in turn is related to the notion that one's being is defined by one's actions: If one acts in accordance with clearly defined habits and practices, one is ipso facto pure. Although the Canon recognizes the importance of habits and practices in the attaining the stream, the experience of the Deathless shows the person who has attained the stream that one cannot define oneself in terms of those habits and practices. Thus one continues to follow virtuous practices, but without defining oneself in terms of them.

"Now where do skillful habits cease without trace? Their cessation, too, has been stated: There is the case where a monk is virtuous, but not fashioned of (or: defined by his) virtue. He discerns, as it actually is, the awareness-release & discernment-release where his skillful habits cease without trace."
— MN 78

And,

[The enlightened person] doesn't speak of purity
    in terms of     view,
            learning,
            knowledge,
            habit or practice.
Nor is it found by a person
    through lack of view,
            of learning,
            of knowledge,
            of habit or practice.
Letting these go, without grasping,
        one is  independent,
            at peace.
— Sn 4.9

The first of these two referenced suttas, Samana-Mundika Sutta (MN 78) says that doing no wrong isn't enough -- that merely doing no wrong is "on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back" -- that person needs skillful resolves and habits, and (as quoted above) discernment of cessation.
The last reference Magandiya Sutta (Sn 4.9) is more on the subject of not clinging, of not being fashioned by views, not being led by actions, not being tied by perception (of better and worse).

In the simplest form illusion/delusion/ignorance is the misidentification off what is felt. You experience something and you think this is permanent. Another experience as self etc.
Illusion/delusion/ignorance reinforced due to thought proliferation (papanca 1) which automatically give arise to ideas, view, etc. which automatically created more illusion/delusion/ignorance. (Main sutta discussing papanca is Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta)
Superstition is in the form of attachment to views which is a result of thought proliferation.
For an in depth treatment refer to: Mindfulness in Early Buddhism, by Tse-fu Kuan specially chapter 1, 2, 3 + conclusion.
1 Alternative essay PAPAÑCA by Leigh Brasington

Some relevant quotes directly from the Sutta as pointers as further information:
Mental proliferation as an unconscious process
The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition, there is feeling.
What one feels, one perceives.
What one perceives, one thinks about.
What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.
From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception
assails a person regarding past, future and present forms cognizable through the eye ...
From Piya Tan's commentary:

The roots of the latent tendencies have three long and deep unwholesome roots, namely, greed,
  hate and delusion. These roots cause one to habitually react to pleasant feelings with lust, painful feelings
  with aversion and neutral feelings with ignorance. In other words, the three unwholesome respectively
  underlie each of these three latent tendencies, causing craving, views and conceit to arise.
Mental proliferation (papanca)—comprising of perceiving (saññā) and notion-forming (saṅ-
  khā) or conceiving (mannanā)—is an explosion of mental constructs created by the power of the latent
  tendencies (anusaya) of craving (tahā), views (dihi) and conceit (māna). These constructs, in turn,
  lead to stronger and more tenacious defilements that motivate unwholesome thoughts, speech and actions,
  all of which in turn reinforce our negative attitudes and habits in a vicious cycle.

...

It comes up in contexts that list or describe mental problems,
  used as a synonym or a term related to kalpanā [projective conceptual construction], vikalpa [false conceptual
  construction], and parikalpa [ubiquitous imaginary construction].

... Sati prevents saññA from going
  astray to conceptual proliferation ( papañca) and thereby develops a wholesome
  process of cognition conducive to the gnosis (vijjA) that brings about
  liberation. The transformation of saññA by sati also prevents feelings from
  developing into emotional agitation, which causes the underlying tendencies
  (anusaya) to lie latent in a person and bind him to the round of rebirths.
  Sati conducts the wholesome functioning of saññA so that one can properly
  identify reality, abandon wrong views and maintain emotional equanimity,
  upekkhA. ...

Source: Mindfulness in Early Buddhism page 139


text:
Are reasons causes?
When we ask someone "why do you do that?", we are asking for her/his reasons.
It someone asks me "why do you play tennis?" and I say "I like to stay fit and I like to have fun. Tennis is good exercise and good fun, therefore I play tennis", I am giving my reasons. (It doesn't matter if having fun actually is a form of suffering. My reasons are still my reasons.)
In light of Buddhist philosophy, would it be right to say that my reasons are the causes of my behavior?
Is there any general agreement across tenet systems? Or is it one answer for Vaibhashika, one for Sautrantika, one for Chittamatra and one for Madhyamika?

It may be helpful to specify which Tradition, as some specific traditions( or individuals ;) ) don't take rebirth literally, whereas some do, and would say that your behavior now has been conditioned over many lifetimes

OK, Ryan, I'll try to be more specific. Cheers

My suggestion is to carry around with you the phrase "connected causes" and it will make sense eventually. The awareness will cut through everything that gets in the way. why why why - it is a question you ask yourself.

Reasons like in your example seem more like rationalizations than causes. We have a certain behavior that is based on forces that operate hidden from the intellect and then the intellect invents a story for the behavior to make sense.
The cause is craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming (something - a role), craving for non-becoming (when I don't want to be something anymore).

Yes! It has been said that consciousness is like the part of the iceberg that is above water, and such a huge amount is going on below the surface that we are not aware of. As we progress, the Imaginary Iceberg rises slowly higher, and an enlightened person is fully aware, with nothing hidden from their sight. How about that analogy? I don't think that we need to nail down causes and reasons or try to change them. Simply become more aware, and they will untangle themselves. We are already perfect in essence, so the 'dirt' just falls off. Hai?

@nocomprende Great analogy, as we become more & more aware we see more & more of the iceberg. I agree that we don't need to nail down causes and reasons, we can accept them and let them go. Let them cease as it is natural.

Reasons are rationalizations in a non normative sense. If by rationalization mean excuses that's not what I mean. Of course there are forces hidden from the intellect, that's not the point. I am asking about mental causation

"In light of Buddhist philosophy, would it be right to say that my reasons are the causes of my behavior?" I tried to argue that reasons are created by the intellect to explain behavior.

When we ask someone "why do you do that?", we are asking for her/his reasons.

This basically looks like to fulfil ones own curiosity. Our intellect is the sphere of our mind and our mind delights in experiencing and knowing. Our past desire or craving to know what creates our current mind faculty.

It someone asks me "why do you play tennis?" and I say "I like to stay fit and I like to have fun. Tennis is good exercise and good fun, therefore I play tennis", I am giving my reasons. (It doesn't matter if having fun actually is a form of suffering. My reasons are still my reasons.)

When you say your reason you are seem to have attachment with your reasoning. Also taking pleasure in playing a game or another hobby or anything else which you call fun.

In light of Buddhist philosophy, would it be right to say that my reasons are the causes of my behavior?

Your behavior is conditioned by pratice not necessarily practice. Also mental constructs which we cling to.

Is there any general agreement across tenet systems? Or is it one answer for Vaibhashika, one for Sautrantika, one for Chittamatra and one for Madhyamika?

I do not understand this part hence will leave it for someone else to fill in for this.
See: Mind, the three words by Piya Tan, 2 paragraphs from the end of page 1 onwards. What is discussed here to attachment to politics, religion etc. but this can be interpreted to attachment to my reasoning, my idea, my view, etc.


text:
Cultivate wisdom or work on compassion?
People are different and have different skills and personalities. My partner is for example very good at visualization, she is very patient and also a fabulous cook! But she’s also a bit lazy (her words!). I am impatient, lousy at visualization and not that good at cooking. But I’m very eager.
Enough of that ---
In general I'm very interested in the wisdom side of Buddhism. This is really joyful for me. Many other people I know is really a lot more into the compassion side. For me, working on wisdom is in itself compassion generating because seeing suffering makes me more compassionate (both towards myself and others). But I also hear people who are already more compassionate types than me say that it's so important to evolve their compassion more. They f.ex. say they do this by watching movies with a lot of tears dropping and sad stories in them (I sometimes feel watching movies with sad stories to produce compassion is evidence that they could work more on their wisdom side -- or their awareness).
Anyway, is the best practice for me to keep on working on the wisdom side and let compassion grow in it's own tempo or is it more recommendable to provoke compassion?

I don't remember which teacher or even which tradition I've heard this from, but I definitely remember some Buddhist teacher specifically advising to focus on "that sheep that fell far behind".
This wasn't about skills per se, he didn't mean we should keep picking up skills like skydiving, motocross, crocheting etc - and other such ones that we are "bad at". Rather in context of cultivating the Buddhist path, he advised us to focus on the most glaring neuroses we have that make us less universally capable in various life situations. Like, if someone is a very adequate person but, say, has awful social phobias (among a dozen other less troublesome weaknesses) - one should focus one practice on the worst or the strongest issue.
I guess the idea is that by focusing on biggest issue one at a time we can discover the deepest attachments/hangups and get the most benefit from uprooting them. Also, prioritizing it like this addresses the issue with bypassing or procrastinating work on one's serious obstacles to Enlightenment, while making seeming progress in less problematic areas of one's life.

To put it in other words, "that sheep that fell far behind" sounds like the advice is to focus on whatever is the greatest hindrance. FWIW I might have guessed the opposite, i.e. given topics like this one (not to mention yanas) which suggest there are multiple paths, I might have guessed you follow whichever path or wholesome practice you are most able to.

This answer goes straight to what I intended to ask, and thanks. But in a comment I was told to make the question not opinion based. So I did and that has maybe changed the look of the answer. Seems to be a lot of different opinions about what is and is not opinion based. And maybe that should be the moderators task to consider or appraise? When to and when not to take such comments into account? Any opinions?

@ChrisW I remember reading that Ajahn Fuang was asked by a lay person on which defilement to work first? He answered that on whichever one is present.

People are different and have different skills. My partner is for example very good at visualization, she is very patient and also a fabulous cook! But she’s also a bit lazy (her words!). I am impatient, lousy at visualization and not that good at cooking. But I’m very eager.

She has developed her skill though familiarising herself with the art and then practicing regularly. (bhavitha bahulikatha - to further find sutta references with this phase see bhāvito bahulīkato).
Other personal characteristics also she has developed through past exercise in one sense. Also being lazy is associated with sloth and torpor.

What do you people think, is the best practice to cultivate what we’re already good at? Or is it better to work on what we’re not really that good at?

There 4 right efforts.

preventing unwholesome states arising
abandoning arisen wholesome states
arising of wholesome states
maintaining the arisen wholesome states

(Cattaro) Padhana Sutta - The Discourse on the (Four) Exertions
In the Abhi Dhamma we discuss 121 mind states which are either promoted or unpromoted. If if is good volition and we are lazy we should prompt or motivate ourselves to follow through and if it is un prompt then we should not obstruct it. Conversely true of bad volitions.
So what on maintaining what you are good at and also develop in things you are not good at when the actions or motivations behind it is good. Do the opposite when it is not the case.

As you have mentioned your personal experience let me share the confusion i once had that left me in the same question you are asking.This is my journey and what i found as the answer. Hope this helps...

There was a time i didn't believed in any religion. I was suffering from a disease and i spent a whole year in a hospital bed. Soon i found myself confused and angry even after regaining my heath and coming back to my home.
This is when i saw the real suffering of the world and understood that what i was in was nothing compared to most of the people. Unfortunately to this day i cant take a look at a beggar and just walk away in the same mindset i walked in with. I hated myself for being alive as i have lost my will to live and i have genuinely done all that i had in my bucket list, the most annoying thing for me was that a bastard like me had a roof over my head and everything i ever wanted while the baby i saw the other day had nothing at all who was living with her mom and little brother on a pavement.
Then i realized that it is not my choice to choose between life and death, i had to accept my fate and just go on with it. I started learning every religion i can get my hands on. And i spent about 5-6 years doing just that. By the time i was a student and had no personal life beside my search for a guidance. To be honest that search is the only thing that kept me from going insane.
After all of those years of searching finally i became a Buddhist because that was the only thing that made any Sense. I had only one measuring tape for all the beliefs that i learned and that was "something that made logical and scientific sense". Buddhism fit right into it and i became a Buddhist from that day on.
Being born to a Buddhist family was enough reason for everyone i knew to question me, They wanted to know why i can't accept what i was born into and just shut up. I had nothing to say as an answer but the feeling that was driving me to some end i did not knew.But i did not have any push from my community or family to go on because sadly back then everyone were "Nominal Buddhists". Looking back i now realize that this driving emotion made me who i am today and kept me from going stray. I now see that if i was born into another religion i would have still ended up as a Buddhist because of my search.

What i see as the solution to your question depending on my experience is people must do what they want to with their lives. Some are born with more compassion,some with more wisdom,some with more shruddha. Each must find their own path, There is no telling what it is. I guess it must be found within.
Personally i think you are more of a wisdom kind of a person so chase that, help others but do not bother walking together on a mutual path. After all of all the couples only "Nakula matha & Nakula pitha" made it through to the end together...


text:
Beings who are not aware of their own existence?
In some realms there are some beings who are not aware of their own existence (Some place in Brahma realm). How do their aggregates work when they themselves aren't aware of their existence?
If you can please provide a sutta, Sutra, link, or a reference.

In some realms there are some beings who are not aware of their own existence (Some place in Brahma realm). How do their aggregates work when they themselves aren't aware of their existence?

Unconscious beings (asannasatta) has consciousness suppressed temporarily until their life span ends. Due to this they cannot be aware of anything including themselves.
Also interestingly the Abhidhamma says this is the only plane where animals do not cling to life or have the love of life or attachment to the plane of birth.
In the Arupa Loka consciousness is present hence the mind works which means there can be self awareness.

If you can please provide a sutta, Sutra, link, or a reference.

Sutta references to unconscious beings.

thank you very much for the link. I am going to use it in my blogs too.