text:
Should a Buddhist advocate the learning of a martial art?
I'm listening to a lecture series about child development and in the first lecture it advocates teaching children martial arts as an aid to enhancing their self-control. I would quite like my daughter to learn a martial art (if she wants to). However I feel a bit conflicted about it as surely the lessons themselves are learning how to assault people or at the very least engage in potentially violent behaviour.
Is it justifiable for a Buddhist to learn or advocate the learning of a martial art? I appreciate that there is a cultural connection between martial arts and Buddhism in some cultures? How are the ethics of it dealt with? Generally how can I take my daughter off to a Buddhist family retreat one week then whisk her off to learn how to attack people the next? That seems inherently conflicted? Is it?

I'm seeing lots of personal opinions but not much response actually based on the teachings of the Buddha. It is well within our duty, even, to defend ourselves; far better that we stop someone else from hurting ourselves, that is, far better for their state of mind. But to progress from being willing to defend ourselves, to actively seeking out training for something that may or may not happen, I think, may not lie within the bounds of the Buddha's teaching.

One could argue that one could practice martial arts meditatively; but it seems hard to deny that the desire to do so, over simply doing walking and sitting meditation, necessitates a degree of desire.

@Ryan IMO that is what the question and the answers are concerned with. Is learn a martial art compatible with, or in conflict with, Buddhist values? Why learn it? Is it self-defence? Is it offensive? Does it condition violence, or non-violence? Answers are based on people's personal opinions, which are based on their personal experiences (which is on-topic). And is there perhaps any difference between ordained and lay Buddhist values? Lessons for a child versus for an adult? This site allowed two questions, one for physical exercise as a monk, another about physical exercise for a lay person.

@ChrisW There is no distinction between monks and lay people. There are lazy monks who accomplish little, and persistent lay people who accomplish much in the practice. Neither case has any bearing on the teaching of the Buddha, or the values derived from it. If someone says, "I am a lay person, therefore I am afforded to keep these values, despite what the Buddha taught", this does not change the truth of the Dhamma, only their relation to it.

The following page http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Self-defense has some references to texts, if you need them to hit someone on the head.

@Ryan In one sense you are probably right. In another sense there are some distinctions: for example, lay people might be parents, responsible for educating children. This book, The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, In the World is quite interesting I thought, and it said that although the suttas (and renunciation) were mostly for and by monks, the Buddha saw a society of two groups (lay and monk), different rules, mutually supporting.

Wholesome intent is important

The Buddha learned archery as a kshatriya, but he didn't lose his compassion - see this story of when his cousin shot down a bird.
Martial arts can connect one deeply with the body, but so can Yoga and Tai Chi.

Buddhism and violence have a long history, not always nice

Meditation was used to numb kamikaze pilots to commit suicide in WW2 Japan (source)
Buddhist kingdoms Burma and Thailand were often at war, with monks on either side sometimes disrobing to fight and even lead armies. (source)
Shaolin monks trained in martial arts to fight off bandits, but continued to train in those skills long after the threat of bandits was gone. This has destroyed their religion and holiness. (source)

Wholesome and wise company is important.

Not everyone is going to be perfectly enlightened about martial arts, and violent people or those on a power trip are generally attracted to violence. Choosing the right teacher and school is important.
Much less risk of this with Yoga, or with nature sports like mountaineering where solitude prompts the same body awakening.

Right recognition of your level of awakening is important

Jesus walked on water, and the Buddha breathed fire and water from his nostrils, but most of us can't do that.
Just because the Buddha remained untainted by training in martial arts is no guarantee that we will also remain so.
And, just because as a Bodhisattva he was ready to give up his life than raise a finger doesn't mean we can all be so.
We must rightly recognize our failings and abilities. Buddhism is not foolishness. Guilt tripping about our inability to be very non-violent is foolishness.

Creating fortunate circumstances for practicing the holy life is important

There's violence all around us, not just on the mat. Competitive sports where opponents yell at each other, or careers where colleagues fear each other are also violence.
Just as the Buddha didn't want his monks to eat more than was enough to hold the body together, or wear more clothes than was needed to cover the body, violence in all spheres of life must be restricted to the bare minimum.
For example, pursuing a selfishly competitive and stressful career in pursuit of vanity is violence and greed.
If there is no vegetarian food, then animals maybe killed, but only to the bare minimum. Gluttony of even the vegetarian sort is violence and greed.
Learning violent skills when one doesn't live in violent times is needless.

Buddhism and life are not different - when there is violence in human life, how can there not be some violence in the life of a Buddhist?
Not recommended, but Dharma can be realized even through extreme violence

King Ashoka had to feel and see the blood and gore of the Kalinga war first hand to change his views on violence - he was already a Buddhist or exposed to Buddhist views on violence, but the non-violent message didn't penetrate his being until he got a maximum dose of violence. (source)

"Martial arts can connect one deeply with the body, but so can Yoga and Tai Chi." While the form of Tai Chi you often see - featuring slow movements - is an exercise for health, Tai Chi is a martial art.

@GreenMatt yes, I've practiced the latter but I was referring to the former.

disagree on 2.3 above. Those Shaolin monks lived in very difficult time. i.e. During Qing Dynasty, those powerful Zen Monk was forced to teach the military to kill which offended the Buddhism 1st perception. When they forced to do so and unavoidable, then they will counter attack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bak_Mei  I think only Buddha knows how to handle this :D

@Wayne97 I think the Theravada Vinaya allows something like, "A monk, desiring freedom, may strike a blow" -- the first precept is, against killing -- maybe just hitting someone without killing them if they're trying to seize you isn't so bad, even for a monk. But I guess Buddho's answer said they "continued to train in those skills long after the threat of bandits was gone" -- I guess they've become famous for martial arts, give public demonstrations like acrobats, attract people who want to become martial artists, and where's the Buddhism?

was forced to teach the military to kill @Wayne97 the teacher who I met was a student at Wudang, and was forced to leave there in the Cultural Revolution. After that he taught martial arts to the Red Army. And then he worked as a bodyguard, e.g helping with crowd control (like helping to form a cordon to keep a crowd back from the person they're protecting). Eventually he emigrated to North America, where he was teaching and I met him, joined one of his classes. His other interest, apart from Daoism, was Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Those red army are very rough.. sorry i gotta use this word cause i know some of their head and i know what they did. I scolded them in a way too, i was very bad temper before learn Buddhism. too bad Martial Arts was taught to those folks

@ChrisW forgive them, i think they know their mistake and trying hard to correct it.. or perhaps my "angry feedback" to them last 10 years. mua haha. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-big-bet-soft-power

My own (limited) experience was learning Chen style Tai Chi (and a sword form) from a sifu, who also taught a "kung fu" to small children (a couple of years older than yours perhaps), and other forms (including diverse "weapon" forms) to teenagers.
I found it thoroughly harmless; and beneficial, good physical training. People told me it helped my posture, a lot. My class-mates were wholesome friends.
It might even have helped to keep me out of an actual fight with a drunk one night (because it gave me experience of staying calm without panic when someone threatened me inside my "space").
IMO it's not meant to be "violent" behaviour: it's meant to be "controlled" behaviour (maybe, even, relaxed behaviour).
Our sifu gave us a few "self-defence" tips (though it wasn't touted as a self-defence class), and the primary lessons were: don't fight; avoid a situation (e.g. accepting an unscheduled competition or lesson with a random person on the street or another school) that could ever escalate. I remember his demonstrating his number one self-defence move: run away (i.e. "turn around and run away", don't try to run backwards). A last resort, only if you couldn't run away, stop your attacker and then run away.
No, it's not about that.
It's a sport; it's self-control; and it's cooperative i.e. performed with willing partners or not at all.
I suppose another possibility might be ... dance? But that idea does worry me a bit: because how careful are dance teachers to avoid injuries? And I'd guess that a martial art could be more useful.
I can't advise on choosing a class, a form, or a teacher, but you might find advice on martialarts.SE or on parenting.SE
And anyway surely kids always engage in "potentially violent" behaviour? A martial arts class must always distinguish between "potential" and "violent".
Something I saw someone 'like' on Facebook recently was If She’s Not Having Fun You Have To Stop:

An important lesson for all children: "A boy and a girl run around on the grass at the park. The boy tackles the girl. The girl laughs. She gets up and runs away. She loves to run. He chases, she turns and they grab each other, tumble and land in a pile, giggling. After a few minutes, he tackles her again and she lands a bit hard. She is bigger and physical, but he more than holds his own in roughhousing. She pauses for a second. Then she laughs again; she’s still having fun.
Dad gets his attention, and says, “If she’s not having fun, you have to stop.”

I suppose we were in that class for the health, fun and socializing, fresh air, self-improvement, learning about self (skandhas): and not violence.
I guess she won't be taught how to attack people (neither now at her age, nor later when she's older).
When we learned to swim we were warned it's dangerous to approach a drowning person: in their panic they might try to climb on top of you to get out of the water, drowning you. It's ignorance and out-of-control panic, not knowing how to swim, that makes them and their situation dangerous.
I'm not saying that a Buddhist should advocate it but I sure don't see it as contrary, any more than athletics or calligraphy or swimming lessons are "inherently conflicted". I suppose beware that it's possible there are some 'cults' (unskilled or unqualified or even immoral teachers, or fellow-students), but I guess that's more a reason to be wise about it than a reason to be deterred from searching at all.

Perhaps I should add a disclaimer, than the beginner's forms of Chen style Tai Chi are maybe such that people might not consider it a "martial art" at all.

Peng Lu Ji An (like warm-up exercises)
Yi Lu (first form)
Wudang Taichi Sword

Still, the "kung fu" forms that he taught instead of Tai Chi to the small children were scarcely more: the one lesson of theirs I saw was only non-contact forms.
I've no idea how they teach karate to five-year-olds. Here is one introduction to different forms.
I imagine (and I hope I'm not wrong in saying) that it's always training rather than fighting: never intention to fight.

Very interesting answer Chris. My old teacher in Ju-jitsu said the same to us. He said that if we ever encountered a situation where we would get into a fight the first thing we should do was to RUN away. If that was not an option then use self defence and always the smallest amount of force possible. Btw i have been looking into your advice about Tai chi. There is a school 100 meters from me where they teach Tai chi so i might try that out. I have been doing a bit of it in my living room - just tried to learn an basic 8-step. Tai chi is really calming.

Interestingly the lecture did also name dance (and yoga and horse riding) as activities which would have similar benefits. But the emphasis was more martial arts. Also I like the idea of the daughter engaging with something that is not stereotypically girl orientated (i know dance isn't - but for a 4 year old it is)

@Lanka Most Tai Chi classes that are taught are not taught as a martial art nor by a martial arts instructor.

@Chris. The school here teaches "Wudang Tai Chi Chuan". There are both tai chi self defence and tai chi weapons training and other styles too. Also it looks like all of the instructors have been participating in international competititions.

Oh, you meant a martial arts school then. When you said "a school near here" I thought you meant a school-for-children -- because (in my country) adult "Tai Chi" classes are often hosted after-hours, in school gymnasiums etc.

Its the same here. Its a school for children but after-hours in evening there is tai chi and capoeira hosted there.

The police didn't mind us practising a sword form in the public park (you must check local laws though: "your mileage may vary"), but I never imagined that a school board would allow us to do that on their property.

@Chris. Thanks for the heads up i will look into it if it becomes actuality.

Having been a martial artist for twenty years now (shotokan and tai chi), and a practitioner of Zen for about half as long, here are my two cents on the matter.  Or fifty cents.  This could get long.  ;-)
There is nothing martial about the martial arts until it's used martially.  A knife can cut vegetables or it can cut a person.  Bodhidharma (according to legend), taught tai chi to the Shaolin monks to help strengthen their meditation.  It was only when they had to defend their temple that it became a system of combat.  What's ultimately important is managing intent and action.  Most children don't have any sort of training like this.  Emotional reactions flow into physical action with very little discernment.  They react viscerally to how they feel.  They have no context for how their actions might play out, who they might harm, or what the consequences may be for "acting out" physically.  Any decent childrens martial arts instructor is going to emphasize all of these points in their teaching.  (And if he/she doesn't, run the hell away!)  For children, I think this is the main benefit of training.  Ballet, sports, etc. don't teach you how to manage anger, diffuse conflict, and negotiate difficult situations quite as well.
For adults, frankly, I think focusing on the combative elements of any martial system misses the point entirely.  By the time you've graduated high school, one would hope that you've picked up some decent anger management skills and aren't going to use what you learn to beat up on your coworkers!  (I say this in jest, but sadly people do get into martial arts for the wrong reasons.  But again, it's a problem of intent, not the martial arts themselves.)  At this stage in an adult's life, where the Buddhist and martial paths cross is how they handle the obstacles that come up in one's practice.  Simply put - there's nothing like sitting on the cushion to show you where your hang ups are.  The only thing that comes close is learning some sort of skill.  The martial arts provides innumerable opportunities where your ego is going to get squashed, you are going to have trouble with a form, or some new white belt is going to ring you up during free sparring.  How you react to any of these situations is going to teach you volumes about yourself and how your small mind reacts to pettiness.  It's also an opportunity for tremendous honesty about your abilities (read: martial arts teaches you humility better than just about anything else).  Martial arts will also teach you that only perseverance leads to improvement.  You will come to really understand the meaning of the Buddha's last words - "Strive with earnestness"!  Improved concentration, mindfulness, etc. are really just an infinitesimal part of how the martial arts can benefit a Buddhist practice.  The other stuff is far more important.
One final word if you do decided to go ahead with martial arts for your daughter - Vet the hell out of the instructor.  I cannot stress this point enough.  In many cases, the school or the art do not matter.  What is important is the attitude of the person teaching.  The martial arts world is extremely ego driven (hint #1 why martial arts and Buddhism don't often go hand-in-hand).  In many cases, teaching for them is a power trip.  Many get off on their role as the disseminator of esoteric knowledge.  This manifests as withholding information from some students, the formation of cliques, favoritism, and TONS of politics.  You don't want that.  In the cases of other teachers, their ego manifests as "trophy hunting".  Under instructors like these, your daughter is going to find herself at tons of tournaments and you are going to pay an arm and a leg entering her in the blasted things.  She might wind up catching trophy fever too - basing her happiness on what bling she takes home.  That's also not very Buddhist.  The last kind you need to watch out for are the woo woo types.  These are the kinds of people who put on airs of having special powers - qi, ninja-like awareness, whatever.  Yes, these things do happen, but just as the Buddha warned against becoming attached to siddhis, students sometimes become obsessed with this stuff to the detriment of the rest of their martial studies.  In summation, make sure you are handing your kid off to a nice person. She's going to be spending a lot of time with them and will likely be tremendously influenced by what they teach her.

I'm quoting from my other answer to support this.
Basically, self-defense is OK. You're teaching your daughter how to defend herself, not how to attack others. Please see quotes below.
Should a Buddhist advocate the teaching of martial arts? I would say yes, due to reasons below. I can see nothing wrong with the ethics of self-defense and defense of all that is good.
For cultural connection between Buddhism and martial arts, please see this answer on Shaolin.
Protection of arahats (DN 16):

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."
  - DN 16

I'm not sure whether Buddha, The Gospel (Paul Carus, 1894) is based on canonical texts:

The Blessed One continued: "The Tathagata teaches that all warfare in
  which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, but he does not
  teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause after having
  exhausted all means to preserve the peace are blameworthy. He must
  be blamed who is the cause of war. The Tathagata teaches a complete
  surrender of self, but he does not teach a surrender of anything to
  those powers that are evil, be they men or gods or the elements of
  nature. Struggle must be, for all life is a struggle of some kind.
  But he that struggles should look to it lest he struggle in the
  interest of self against truth and righteousness.
  - Buddha, The Gospel 52

(I am no Buddhist, so take my words with a grain of salt.)
For many who practice Kung-fu, Shaolin Kung-fu considered the focal point of their art.  The name Shaolin is so synonymous with Kung-fu that some of my American friends have trouble even explaining what art they practice.  Americans often cannot even tell the terms apart.
Shaolin Kung-fu finds its center in the Shaolin temple in Henan, China.  This is a Buddhist temple where monks hold to a strict schedule intermixing Buddhist lessons with martial arts practice.  That temple has done so for one and a half millennia!
Now I cannot claim this is the direct word from Buddha, but it does seem reasonable to assume that, if there were an inherent and unavoidable conflict between martial arts and Buddhism, this would be quite the precarious balancing act.  This suggests that those monks may have found a way to incorporate martial arts into themselves in a way which is acceptable to Buddhism.  As a non-Buddhist, I have not needed to delve too deeply into why that balance is aligned with the Buddha's teachings, but it seems reasonable that that the Shaolin monks would have provided quite a substantial sum of evidence as such.  If you have a Shaolin Kung-fu group in your hometown, they may be able to provide you with substantial assistance in the form of a dialogue, answering any questions you may have.
As a martial arts practitioner myself, I agree with Lanka in that the intent matters far more than the training.  I can use my training handling a sword to assist me in diffusing a complicated situation at work involving two individuals engaging in conflict lashing out with logical arguments as though they wielded double-edged blades at each-other.  Contrariwise, I can use my entirely peaceful training of how to drive a car to run someone down and kill them, perhaps for as little as a perceived insult.  It is my intent that truly separates the two, not the action itself nor the content of the training.

IAMAB (I am not a buddhist), but I am a martial artist.  In particular, I practice Gracie Jiujitsu.
Before practicing jiujitsu, I did karate at a school focused on "self-defense".  We did not practice techniques at anything like full force, and the focus was on maiming ones attacker so that you could get away.  Things like eye gouges and the like.  This practice was not mentally or spiritually healthy for me.
BJJ, on the other hand, uses a more limited set of techniques which can be actually practiced against a fully resisting opponent without injuring them.  This allows the art to be practiced as a sport, and the atmosphere is one of play.  It is really as joyful and natural as toddlers wrestling, but with an added layer of structure, nuance, and skill.
This has the effect of training you to react to a physical confrontation in an intelligent and aware way rather than an emotional one.
Imagine being attacked by a larger opponent.
If you have no training, no experience approximating such an encounter, then your response (no matter how good natured you are) will likely be one of fear and violence.  Injure and escape from the opponent in any way possible.
If you do have training, however, you are more well prepared.  You can think about the situation rationally, and choose a response appropriate to the threat. By physically taking control of the situation, you minimize the risk to both the opponent and yourself.  Instead of practicing fear and aggression, you can practice compassion.
From what I know of buddhism, training oneself to be capable of a more compassionate response to personal violence fits well with the philosophy.  BJJ will (depending on the school!) certainly help one develop such a capacity in a supportive, friendly, and fun environment.

There're "hard" martial arts (like Karate, Taekwondo, MuayThai, etc.) and there're "soft" martial arts (like Judo, Aikido, Jiujitsu, etc.). The hard ones use punch and kick and could cause some serious harm to an opponent. The soft ones don't use punch and kick and mostly used for self-defense. The hard arts typically involves both defense and then using one's own force to counter attack. The soft arts basically just use the opponent's force and turn it against him. And since they don't use punch and kick, there's no potentially life-threatening injury to the body and its internal organs like those caused by a strike or a kick. Matter of fact, Aikido has no offensive move, it's a 100% defensive art. Your daughter might not appreciate the benefit of martial arts right now, but she definitely will when there're times she has to walk alone on the streets or a parking garage at night..

I think the daughter is 4 years old. The lecture series referenced in the OP seems to mention tae kwon do (which is a form I don't know, neither do I know how they're meant to adapt it to suit a young child).

@ChrisW you're right the daughter is 4 (nearly 5). The lecture series mentioned grade 3 which i think is nearer 8 but there is a karate class local to me that takes 5 year olds

People can be seriously harmed in the "soft" martial arts as well: A couple weeks ago my family attended part of a judo tournament as a few friends of my child were participating.  When we arrived the competition was stopped for several minutes because a child had been injured in a throw/fall.  He had to be carted out on a backboard and taken to the hospital.

If i may share my own practice. I am training kickboxing and before that MMA and ju-jitsu. Doing this type of sport is a unique way of learning to know the body and mind and also to meditate while doing the training, e.g. when doing stretches to increase flexibility or when training kicks, punches and other techniques.
We must again look at the intention behind engaging in this type of training or any training at all. Are the intentions wholesome or unwholesome? To be able to defend oneself is not unwholesome. For you to wish for your daughter to be able to protect herself and be safe is not unwholesome. That is wholesome. That way she will have a safer life.
If one were to train martial arts with the intention of using it to harm other people that would be unwholesome and not beneficial in any way.
Training martial arts as a way to connect with the present, control the body as far as that goes, increase health and build a strong mind with lots of resolution that is what one can do with the martial arts training.
Its the same with weapons. Its not the weapon that is unwholesome or bad. Its the person handling it. If a person with ill-will and hatred in the mind would handle a rifle he might use it to hurt another being.
If a person with loving-kindness and compassion handles a rifle he might take the iron from the rifle and melt it into something else. He might take the wooden shaft and use it as timber to burn. He might take the bullets out and use the gun powder to light a camp fire.
So in that sense its the same with martial arts. What are ones intentions. Martial arts is like the weapon it can be used for both good and bad things.
When one gets really good at martial arts one can then very accurately "measure" how much force one should use in e.g. defending oneself whereas someone who is untrained in martial arts do not have that knowledge. He might hurt a being even more because he cannot control his anger or how much force he uses. A skilled martial artists is peaceful, serene, in control. He knows exactly how much force to use. Just the fact that he knows his body and his techniques so well makes him not want to hurt people. Reaching a high level in martial arts creates humility and calm in a being.
Lastly i want to emphazize that i do not mean to say that martial arts should or could be a substitute for training in meditation. The training of martial arts can benefit one in a number of ways as described above. This answer only deals with the martial arts aspect and not the meditational aspect.

When I was trained to handle a rifle, the first thing drilled into me was how to always make sure for myself that it's thoroughly empty (unloaded). There are a lot of safety procedures associated with handling and using and storing rifles. I guess that when a person has a weapon, what might be dangerous is an absence of training.

I would disagree. I would argue that the desire to be able to defend oneself, or that your loved one be able to, is clinging to this impermanent state and/or aversion to some imagined circumstance that may or may not occur.

@Chris. Yes i agree with you about the "no experience" aspect. Its an important part. I have no experience in that at all so i cannot really say i know about it. What i emphazize is the intentions behind an action. The same with weapons. The weapon might be dangerous but so is a kitchen knife is in the hands of a being with unwholesome intentions.

@Ryan. Fair enough, i know that we all have different opinions on such matters. I just gave some information based on my own experience and view. What i mean is that even though one has a great deal of training in martial arts one might choose not to use it at all even in a situation where someone is trying to hurt one or even kill one. I do not think that it necessarily means that one is clinging when training martial arts. There are many different reasons for training it.

@Lanka I understand. I'm just commenting, and coming from a strictly Buddhist standpoint, on the motivation to practice martial arts at all, over simply doing walking and sitting meditation. It seems there has to be a degree of clinging there. I would think it would be a fair comparison to liken martial arts to yoga? And with that said, the Buddha did not condone yoga as a practice for liberation, let alone martial arts as far as I know.

@Ryan. I think there has been a misunderstanding here. Maybe i did not explain myself well enough. I do not in any way think that martial arts should be a substitute for meditation. Im only discussing martial arts as a complementary way to ones life in that it provides better physical health so one could e.g. sit longer, it gives a enormous amount of mental clarity, it creates humility in a person and its just gives a deep understanding of how the body works and how one can train it while being mindful. At least thats what my experience is. I do not know if its the same for others.

@Ryan. I have updated my answer and added a clarification in the bottom about the martial arts aspect and not the meditational aspect.

You answered it yourself:

I'm listening to a lecture series about child development and in the first lecture it advocates teaching children martial arts as an aid to enhancing their self-control.

Enhancing your self-control is good karma. Enhancing your self control with the aid of martial arts, is good karma too. Just make sure it stays as "an aid to enhancing self-control".
Martial arts, under a proper master's supervision, can be very good for the attainment of cleanliness and calmness of the mind.

I think he's worried that she will "learn how to attack people" instead of "enhancing self-control".

I am not a Buddhist, so I can't answer from that perspective, but I am a guy with a lot of experience training martial arts. And I can tell you that the more experience and skill I gained, the less I got into fights in real life. I also think that my training and calm makes people less inclined to attack me, people can sense these things. Take from that what you will.

The OP is worried that his 4- or 5-year old daughter will "learn how to attack people"?

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

I have been a Wing Chun and Muay Thai practitioner for 7 years and also a Buddhist. Muay Thai was way too aggressive and violence so I switched to Wing Chun and it's relevant to my Buddhism Study. Well, I am still learning as it is a really complex kind of art. Some sharing and suggestion as below
1. Shaolin martial arts fall under Buddhism Zen - Founder or at least a great influencer is Bodhidharma where it was invented to fight against the Bandits a thousand year ago. There are many types of Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma
2. The Compassion and philosophy of Shaolin martial arts - Before starting to learn Shaolin arts, the concept, objective and philosophy must be very clear in order to have a proper path of learning. The movement is rather very deadly as one single strike could ultimately kill a person cause it was invented to fight off Bandits in ancient times. i.e. attacking on the eye and groin area. Wing Chun is the modified version and used by Ng Mui to escape from Qing Dynasty troops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng_Mui
Philosophy of it is rather complex and I spent about 4 years understanding the basics by my own, mostly online research which are  以柔克刚 (use softness to conquer strength) , 借力打力 (Take advantage of strength)  so a good sifu is essential on this, perhaps best with highly Buddhism Zen wisdom.
https://www.purpleculture.net/dictionary-details?word=%E4%BB%A5%E6%9F%94%E5%85%8B%E5%88%9A
The Ip Man (the most famous Wing Chun) practitioner 10 code of conduct also matches Buddhism basic 10 perceptions and matches all 6 Buddhism Paramitas.
https://www.pinterest.ie/pin/310959549255609434/
So, focus more on the Buddhism basics like 4 nobles of truth, 10 perceptions and 6 paramitas instead of fighting could keep you peace of mind while practicing it. Patience and Diligence are the core key and new skillset could be awakened like #3 below. Wing Chun has 6 levels and level 3 and above like Wooden Dummy found to be deadly so it will not be taught to those by SIfu if a student found unqualified or simply just violence behavior. i.e. Have you seen Bruce Lee playing a Wooden Dummy as he is a student of Ip Man.
3. Turn martial arts philosophy into daily life usages or SWOT Analysis- softness to conquer strength and Take advantage of strength. I made this for my mum during the covid 19 lockup and managed to reuse solar power (Threat), dirt water (Threat) and natural resources to purify(advantage) it to clean water and generate white noise (advantage). Evolution and improvement on this device is still in progress, perhaps one day I could make something that purifies the polluted air too using solar power and manage to reduce a bit of temperature of the surrounding area.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xvZ8B3cicduZgmnjM5LbymEgpbLnIrRH/view?usp=sharing
What is White Noise -
https://allenpools-spas.com/blog/sound-flowing-water-soothes/?fbclid=IwAR1WioPTcwN0NABHVBN0_zTxzs_6Su_o4_8JMRJ31DucRMGQd_1IZmjSy30
SWOT Analysis -
https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_05.htm
Further Research and Development in progress to purify the air and reduce outdoor temperature of 5 degree Celsius for 5 feet area surrounding area. Hope one day I can commercialize it, make some profits and help out a bit on climate changes if every single home has one of it. Aren't it a compassion learning?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rsBlUUT6JuSWSveLsi608pieiFePbUnS/view?usp=sharing

Dhamma is not guaranteed to be followed forever by all.Ignorance can corrupt its followers and, indeed ,it has been losing its value slowly since Buddha died. Dhamma needs to be protected. Therefore it is ok to prepare for a war in various ways to protect Dhamma for the welfare of people till new Buddha arrives. Martial arts is one of the ways to protect Dhamma.
Violence should be the last resort and its purpose should be to protect Dhamma.
When new Buddha arrives he will enlighten us in new ways which will be undisputedly accepted. When there will be no dispute there will be no need for war and all kinds of cravings will end.


text:
If I can't tell if I'm lying to myself because I am yet to gain insight or clarity, am I truly lying?
There are moments of clarity that I have experienced in which I finally but truly gain a sense of knowledge and comprehension about ...something.... In those moments it is like I have changed at a cellular level and that which I understood before no longer made sense. Assumptions upon which I had based decisions, attitudes etc. have been adjusted somehow and the fabric of my life is different. In my new state of clarity it is like I had been deceiving myself about [whatever] and the cloud of confusion imposed by being embedded in that particular delusion has lifted.
So my question is ... Does this mean that before I gained some sense of insight I was deceiving or lying to myself and others? Sometimes it feels like it, so profound is the clarifying moment.

Acting out of ignorance is not in itself wholesome, but still not as unwholesome as knowingly being deceptive

yes but does that mean that once I'm not blinded by ignorance all that was before is null and void? Did those experiences not contribute to my new found state of clarity?

Acting out of ignorance contributes to your detriment, realizing that you're acting out of ignorance and acting on that to no longer act out of ignorance contributes to your welfare.

I am just speaking from my own experience with the Dharma, but I think that you cannot possibly be lying/deceiving yourself and others before your insights.
Here is why: 1st: This would mean that every living being that is not enlightened is lying and deceiving themselves and others. This is due to the fact that enlightenment is a journey, not just a sudden occurrence. You are sure to have more insights in the future, but does that mean you will also be lying to yourself and others before those insights? Of Course Not!
2nd: A lack of insight indicates ignorance, not lying and deceiving.
Here is why: One without insight, meaning the 'sight that see's into phenomena', merely has ignorance, meaning the 'ignoring of current phenomena' (to ignore means to be unaware of the senses, touch, sight, hearing, tasting, smelling, thinking and feeling) This does not mean however that you are lying or deceiving if your are ignorant (or have lack of insight) but rather that you have chosen to ignore the senses.
3rd: Lying and deceiving is separated from ignorance because of intentions
Here is why: To use an example, my friend decided to buy herself a phone and not tell her boyfriend because she might get in trouble. If asked by her boyfriend whether she did that and she said 'no', then she would be lying. Although she has insight into what she has done (based on the memory she has of doing it) she has 'chosen' not to answer correctly because she is unwilling to face the negative consequences. This would therefore make this act a lie, not a lack of insight or 'ignorance'.
Hope this helps :)

It certainly did help thank you. There was a layer or two of the phenomena that have been discussed above that I was simply not getting... what you wrote has made me pause and that in itself augers well (for me from past experience) for the evolution of a deeper understanding by me for a moment or two. Thanks for sharing!

anytime :)
glad I could help

I think Christ or one of his disciples said

we are all sinners in the eyes of God.

While what I will suggest here isn't the TRUTH, it's a possible place to stand.  The ego tends to think it has improved when gaining insight into one's own self-deception.  And this is valid - if there were no short term accomplishments in a spiritual path, it would be a difficult path indeed.
However, it's this very sort of of short term gain that can inhibit spiritual growth.  We are prone to gain a greater sense of self-importance when proud or attached to our insights.  Yesterday's insight is today's ego trip.
My point is that given we are all - when measured against the background of who we really are - quite small; I think it would be safe to assume that yes - you were lying with no caveats.
That said, you are not now condemned eternally for your self deception, but it may be that you now feel obligated to make something right - to clean up actions you have taken in the past.
Taking it too an extreme example - I killed your dog yesterday, because I thought dogs were wicked.  Today, I realized that I suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and as such, I now know that dogs are not wicked.
It doesn't follow that I didn't kill your dog.  I still did, and even though my reasons for doing so were based upon faulty assumptions - there are a whole slew of consequences that flow from my action.
But perhaps most importantly is the label you have attached to what happened.  We as humans unfailingly deceive nearly every time we open our mouth.  When I say to my wife, "You make me so mad", that is a lie.  She didn't make me mad - I had a reaction to something and chose to blame her.  Variations on this abound.
So - a question - what do you care if your statement was a lie or not?  Telling the truth won't make you a good person; nor lying a bad.  What matters is not how you choose to view what you said - what matters is what you might now need to do because of what you said.  If there were consequences that you can in some way be responsible for and if need be, clean up, then it would be wise to do so.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should a Buddhist feel offended by misuses of Buddha's name or image?
I have just found out that there is a person producing and selling a beer in my town called "Buddha Beer" with Hotei's picture on it.
Initially I found it offensive and disrespectful (marketing Buddha's name, associating it with alcohol and putting the image in the trash just like every bottle when it's empty). Well, I'm sure the person meant no disrespect, I know the producer, but I still didn't like it.
Allow me to give more context: We live in a country with almost no Buddhism in it. People have no idea regarding what Buddhism is all about and commonly confuse the Buddha with Hotei.
Even though the person meant no disrespect I found it disrespectful and so this question came to my mind: If I felt offended by it, is this a problem that I have with attachment? So, where is the real problem, in the beer or in myself? Or maybe in both?
I thought about talking to the person and explaining why this is a bad idea but I'm sure it will be completely useless (let's face it, no one will change a brand because of that as the commercial impact is irrelevant here and people dont believe in Kamma) and I will also look like "that boring guy" that complains because of religion. I guess I will do nothing unless someone asks for my opinion.
That said, how a Buddhist should behave in such a situation. Shoud we feel offended? Should we discuss it with someone not Buddhist?

Is it this Buddha Beer? Which originated in Asia, and is sold in lots of countries?

No, it is another one.

I enjoyed Matthew's answer here -- that the statues are placed above the liquor is an interesting way to see the photo.

"If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him" seems to cover this predicament...

What would be your plan of action, if you saw someone running a brothel with your mother's name and picture on it? Feeling angry or not depends on if you have eradicated anger. You can do Metta meditation to deal with your anger. But that doesn't mean it is wrong to take action against such establishments, even if they mean no disrespect. There's nothing wrong in peacefully protesting, trying to make them come to their senses or using any legal options available. You don't actually have to get angry while doing it. You are doing them a favor since they are committing bad Karma due to their ignorance. Buddhists don't always have to accept people's ignorant acts meekly in the name of Metta.
Once there was this cobra practicing loving-kindness in the forest saying: May all beings be well, may all beings be happy, may all beings be peaceful. And an old woman who was collecting firewood saw this cobra and mistook it for a rope. So she used it to tie up the firewood that she was carrying. As the cobra was doing loving-kindness practice, it allowed this woman to do anything. So after the woman carried the bundle of firewood home, the cobra escaped, but with a lot of wounds and physical pain. So he went to meet his teacher who was the hermit(Bodhisatta) staying in that forest. The cobra said: See what happened to me! I was practicing loving-kindness, and now see the wounds and all the pain that I'm experiencing in my body! The teacher very calmly said: You have not been practicing loving-kindness. You have been practicing idiotic compassion, because you should have shown that you were a cobra. You should at least have hissed! So with regards to people like the person you've described, you have to learn to hiss, and in doing so you'll also be doing a service for that person.
So if you have any crowd pull, go hiss without biting. :) Or use social media to protest and let them know about it. If business owners get the idea that whenever they do something like that, there will be negative consequences, they will be reluctant to do it in the future as it is bad for business.

What's the source on that cobra story? I'd like to read more.

Thus have i heard. But here's an online resource: http://www.ceylontoday.lk/36-44294-news-detail-the-hermit-and-the-cobra.html

There is also a Buddha-Bar and both the bar and the beer might strike a practicing Buddhist as rather strange due to our understanding of the teaching of the 5th precept. While different traditions interpret the 5th precept somewhat differently (from undertaking to drink no alcohol at all to undertaking not to drink enough to cause heedlessness), the fact that one of 5 precepts concerns alcohol makes it clear that the Buddha was not a proponent of alcohol. Selling alcohol is considered a wrong livelihood as well.
But that said, Buddhism doesn't generally have the strong emotional outrage sometimes seen in other religions when the founder's image is used in a unexpected way, or used at all. (There are exceptions to this as seen in this recent controversy in Myanmar).
I would suggest guarding your own mind state about becoming upset about a thing like this. I would suggest Karuṇā would be an appropriate mind state to cultivate regarding this as those selling and drinking alcohol are both digging their way deeper into samsara. When you think about how sad it is for people to have to drink alcohol in an attempt to relax or find happiness; it can be easy to feel compassion. The Buddhist teaching of Pratītyasamutpāda is a blessing that isn't so well known outside of Buddhism. We're very lucky.
If you find yourself next a person swilling down Buddha beer at a party or picnic, and you feel you can do so skillfully, you could point out that the Buddha actually taught against the use of alcohol so it's odd to see "Buddha Beer". But you'd have to do it in a very non confrontational way just adding to the general knowledge of something dear to you that's not so well known in your country.

According to the news, Sri Lanka too legislates about images/representations of the Buddha.

Theres nothing wrong with raising the subject to your friend if you do it politely, skillfully and respectfully. Right speech is not always just about staying silent but saying the right thing at the right time out of compassion and kindness when you see something could cause harm.
You say that you don't want to have the problem of attachment to the symbols of Buddhism, but you also state that raising the topic to your friend will make you "also look like "that boring guy" that complains because of religion", which shows that you already have attachment to who you don't want to be seen as. You also say "let's face it, no one will change a brand because of that as the commercial impact is irrelevant here", but you maybe overlooking a good business case for changing the branding, especially when there are potential bad publicity associated with potential cries of outrage and/or petitions from conservative Buddhists. Whether you feel offended or not, or whether a "good Buddhist" should be or not, there's always going to be people out there who will get outraged and you can alert him to this. Branding and goodwill is one of the biggest assets to a business and I am sure he would want to be know any risks associated with what he has invested in.
You don't need to get angry with the situation and you have already demonstrated you have exercised some wisdom by forgiving his ignorance. Even if you do get angry, thats ok, it's normal, just recognize there is anger there and observe it mindfully rather than feeding into it. Do some metta as others have suggested if that helps.
Since you know the producer personally, you can just tell him that as a friend (assuming you are friends) you wanted to alert him that associating the image of the Buddha with alcohol:

Is not compatible with the views of what the Buddha was about
Could potentially lead to immense damage to their branding

In the end, even if he might just ignore your advice and not do anything about it, at least he would appreciate that you have informed him about this because he would have had no idea if you didn't tell him and perhaps it will make them more mindful (and do more market research) in their actions in the future.

Any time we don't like the way reality is, exactly as it is, then that is pushing reality away. We are craving for something better. Any time we like something we pull it towards us increasing clinging  so that when it's gone we suffer. Are minds move so fast that it takes seeing things as they are moment by moment and that takes practice. We really, really, really need to practice. To many people are too intellectual and shun practice but love study because they haven't even practiced enough to understand why it's good to practice. Words like these aren't going to get people to practice. We have to be interested in not suffering. More of an interest in the heart instead of the intellect.:)

very well said .

One should not. If one does one should instead observe that feeling of being offended and make it into a foundation for gaining insights.
Its just a name belonging to the conventional reality. Its just an image belonging also to conventional reality.
Feeling offended by it means one is attached. Its not the goal to become attached, the goal is to due away with attachment and clinging through renunciation and the gaining of insights through insight meditation practice and of course the rest of the Noble eight-fold path.  The suffering is created by ourselves by having aversion towards something and by wishing for reality to be different than it already is.
Feeling of being offended is just a feeling.
An image of the Buddha is just seeing. Thats all. When interfering with these phenomena and taking ownership of them one is prone to extrapolate on them. One has thereby moved away from ultimate reality and into conventional reality.
When one observes phenomena with mindfulness, e.g. seeing, feeling, hearing etc. one is staying objective and experiencing the true nature of reality.
The Buddha didnt want us to interfere with phenomena. He wanted us to see reality for what it is. To become awake and stop dreaming. When dreaming one is living in conventional reality where persons, beings, entities exist. The Buddha wanted us to experience ultimate reality where there exists no I, Self, Me or other conventions.
Being offended by something means that there has to be an I, Self or Me that this feeling of being offended can be attached to. It means that there has to be an experiencing entity that experiences this feeling of being offended.
That is not the case. When seeing the true nature of reality, i.e. the 3 signs of existence one will come to realize that there is no such thing as an experiencing entity or a Self. One then sees that there really was no problem to begin with.

Unfortunately the answer would be yes, you do have an attachment to the Buddhism. You are therefore offended when you see that someone is selling Buddha beer, as this disregards one of the precepts of not consuming any alcohol or drugs. You have to remember however that if the beer was called 'awesome beer!' or 'great beer!' you would not be offended because these words don't mean anything to you. Fortunately however, there is a quick solution to this problem that will help you stay calm when the Buddha is 'disrespected'. The Buddha stressed himself that people should not take his word for anything and instead choose to practice meditation themselves and see where it leads them. The Buddha did not want to be worshiped but rather his teachings. If you and I mean 'YOU' think that alcohol is not such a good thing, then you should not need a Buddha to tell you so. Next time you see the word Buddha or a symbol of him, its helpful to remember that's all it is. Its not Buddha himself (too old to be alive now haha) and its not even his teachings.
It's just a word. :)
Hope this helps.

I guess you should feel compassion for people who know no more of Buddhism than the Buddha's name or image.
There's a version of the Sermon at Benares in which the Buddha reproves his former comrades for calling him "friend" instead of addressing him with proper respect: and the reason is because it's better for them if they have proper respect. I don't know whether that story is canonical (i.e. what its source is – I guess it's east asian), but it's found in this relatively early English version:

When they had thus received the Blessed One, he said: "Do not call the Tathagata by his name nor address him as 'friend,' for he is the Buddha, the Holy One. The Buddha looks with a kind heart equally on all living beings, and they therefore call him 'Father.' To disrespect a father is wrong; to despise him, is wicked.

Feeling offended comes from suffering. Whenever you are offended, it is because of craving or clinging within you.
Feeling offended comes from within you, not outside you.
When you completely stop craving and clinging, suffering ceases. Feelings of being offended do not arise any more.
To answer your question, a Buddhist should not feel offended by anything. He who is offended, should search deeper within to find the truth of his suffering.

I find the idea of offence a difficult one. Considering the cause of many conflicts, religious offence has often been a factor. But why should a follower of a religion be offended? As a Christian, I wince when people use the name of Jesus as an expletive. I am sad but I can't say that I am offended. Should I be? Surely the one whose name has been misused (Jesus) should be offended. He is the one who will take the necessary action. I think a god who can't look out for himself is not one who demands much respect anyway ;-)
I'm afraid I know very little about Buddhism so I'd be interested to hear what people have to say. Just wanted to share my thoughts on it.

+1 If Jesus were personally offended he might tell Peter, "put away your sword" and "bless those who curse you". The context here is that alcohol was one of the few things ("five precepts") explicitly identified as harmful by the Buddha, i.e. wrong to drink it ("fifth precept") and wrong (one of a mere handful of careers that are not "right livelihood") to sell it. So by analogy, it isn't just about speaking the name with disrespect: it could be seen as appropriating the name to endorse something wicked (perhaps, for example, preaching "hate thy neighbour in Jesus' name").

Hello Paul and welcome to Buddhism.SE! We've put together some information to help you get started here.

From The Dispute between Tea and Chang, from the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives:

Tea and Chang are in an unprecedented war.  The main cause of this situation, the root of their ulterior motives, is again caused by attachment to oneself.   This tree gave life to the boughs of other delusions: passionate attachment to misconception, as well as to various other branches and flowers.  From beginningless time until today, it has led to the fruition of cyclic existence, but of course it resulted in suffering.  Therefore, the root of grasping at oneself should be cut by the axe of knowledge and wisdom.  The branches of grasping at oneself and others should be sawed into pieces.  The leaves of the misperception of attachment and hatred are to be illuminated by the sun of wisdom.  If the fruition of the lower states of birth and experiences of self-grasping return to their natural state, then the '84,000 soldier army' of the three poisonous afflictions would be attacked and defeated completely.  Then the main army of the Great Blissful Buddha body would triumph: the entire process resembling the return of a rabbit to its hole."

The three poisonous afflictions referred to are desire, aversion, and ignorance.

Hello Joe and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

I just want to add that Jesus first miracle is turning water into wine.
So, as you said yourself, the guy may not think it's offensive at all. He mean well.
And it gives you opportunity to teach about Buddha's opinion on alcohol.
If the beer is of high quality, I do not see anything negative with it.

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


text:
What does Nonduality correspond to in Buddhism?
There is not [was not] a tag for nonduality. Would someone please make a correspondence between nonduality and Buddhism as to "stage" or "attainment", qualifications, or whatever is applicable?
EDIT: I was thinking of Nonduality as a stage, but it is apparently seen more as a position or way of describing things? Mariana Caplan, in the book "Eyes Wide Open - Cultivating Discernement on the Spiritual Path" has this paragraph at the top of page 163 (paperback):

Ngakpa Chogyam, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher from Wales, offers a
  perspective on nonduality that includes all of life as a direct
  expression of the nondual core of truth. He explains that nonduality,
  or emptiness, has two facets: one is empty, or nondual, and the other
  is form, or duality. Therefore, duality is not illusory but is one
  aspect of nonduality. Like the two sides of a coin, the formless reality has two dimensions -- one is form, the other is formless. When
  we perceive duality as separate from nonduality (or nonduality as
  separate from duality), we do not engage the world of manifestation
  from the perspective of oneness, and thereby we fall into an erroneous
  relationship with it. From this perspective it is not "life" or
  duality that is maya, or illusion: rather it is our relationship to
  the world that is illusory.

This accords with the Heart Sutra. So, I was actually asking about the Experience of this, rather than whether it is true or not. "Both is, and is not. Neither is, nor is not." (Buddha)
Second Addition: I find a correspondence between the formal / post-formal operations distinction and the observation that some people get stuck when thinking of abstractions like nonduality, and others do not. Some people are more literal and fundamental, and others are more mystical. I think this is the key to understanding differences, and post-formal thought is an ability that develops through use. Here is a link from a teacher's experience.

Audio recordings on Buddhist non-dualism by Ajahn Amaro and Joseph Bobrow: http://www.audiodharma.org/series/5/talk/1847/

If you're not getting the answer you're looking for, can you try a more focused or specifically-Mahayana question? Like "what's the difference between non-self, emptiness, and non-duality" or something like that? Or define what you mean by non-duality and ask whether Buddhist teachers have written for or against a similar concept? Or formal versus postformal might be a modern and non-Buddhist point of view, might you be able to ask about this on e.g. Philosophy.SE?

@ChrisW: I took a look, it seems like you have the Philosophy.SE camp covered. I really did not want Nonduality to be about philosophical argument when it is plainly a matter of experience. "There is no need to debate, go there and see yourself."

There's an article on that subject Dhamma and Non-duality by
Bhikkhu Bodhi.
The following is basically all direct quotes from that article, except very summarized (I'm extracting sentences and sentence fragments).

Non-dual system
For the Vedanta, non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world.
The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective.
Not a non-dual system
As for the Theravada tradition:

Virtue

Non-duality: the adept isn't bound by rules because "The sage has transcended all conventional distinctions of good and evil"
Theravada: "the liberated one lives restrained by the rules of the Vinaya, seeing danger in the slightest faults"

Meditation:

Non-duality: defilements are mere appearances devoid of intrinsic reality
Theravada: hindrances are "causes of blindness, causes of ignorance, destructive to wisdom, not conducive to Nibbana"

Wisdom:

Non-duality: concrete phenomena, in their distinctions and their plurality, are mere appearance, while true reality is the One: either a substantial Absolute (the Atman, Brahman, the Godhead, etc.), or a metaphysical zero (Sunyata, the Void Nature of Mind, etc.). For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew
Theravada: wisdom not in the direction of an all-embracing identification with the All, but toward disengagement and detachment, release from the All

So to answer your question, if I understand the article, it's saying that "non-duality" in Buddhism includes statements like "nirvana and samsara are the same" and "everything is equally empty" ... but non-duality is not a feature of Theravada Buddhism (it's a feature of Mahayana Buddhism, and of Tantrayana).

"For such systems, liberation comes with the arrival at the fundamental unity in which opposites merge and distinctions evaporate like dew." So Beautiful... Thank you.

OK, I read the linked reference, very good explanation. There are Mystics and (what is the opposite?) Literalists? Neither can ever understand or accept the other. Argument or persuasion is wasted breath. Both are true. Both are false. Both are incomplete. Both are paths.

The Parramatta Bodhicitta/ Samvritti Bodhicitta concepts to me at least appear the same as Atman/Brahman in Hinduism.

@Buddho Pirsig wrote that that the ancient Greeks' search for arete (virtue, excellence, quality) eventually reminded him of the daoists' Tao -- "[he] remembered Hegel had been regarded as a bridge between Western and Oriental philosophy. The Vedanta of the Hindus, the Way of the Taoists, even the Buddha had been described as an absolute monism similar to Hegel’s philosophy. [he] doubted at the
time, however, whether mystical Ones and metaphysical monisms were introconvertable since mystical Ones follow no rules and metaphysical monisms do."

@Buddho I think the position advocated in "The Short Essence of True Eloquence" which you recommended says to see emptiness as the import of relativity and not vice versa -- "because relativity we see emptiness" and not "because emptiness we see relativity".

And, is equating nirvana with samsara a comment about craving nirvana? Reifying nirvana? Living in the world after enlightenment?

I think having no disease or no suffering after enlightenment is an exaggeration. Conditioned existence will continue afterwards too. While an Arahat isn't going to run to Vegas to win at blackjack using his celestial vision, he will have to exist among people, among famines and times of plenty. There's a story about a female Arahat who's raped and she only has compassion for her attacker, and pleads with him to stop for his sake. When he steps out of the kuti, the earth swallows him, unable to bear his weight. Compassion and nirvana go together, it's not only good times after the big E.

@ChrisW Moved this discussion to http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/24864/discussion-between-chrisw-and-buddho

@ChrisW I have been thinking of that Pirsig quote also... I think that any structure that we create, such as teachings, must be able to be seen as a creation of our own, and able to be transcended, lest the earth swallow us up.

@nocomprende I don't know how well you know that book of Pirsig's. In it he says that "Zen is the 'spirit of the valley,' not the mountaintop" (for what it's worth, "spirit of the valley'" is one of the epiphets that's ascribed to Tao in the Tao Te Ching: I know that Pirsig had read the Tao Te Ching, but I don't know what he learned about orthodox Zen); and, "The only Zen you find on the tops of mountains is the Zen you bring up there" (said as a reason for wanting to do something other than continue up the mountain).

I think that there is a correspondence between the distinction of formal operational stage and postformal, with your comparison of Theraveda (more literal) and nonduality (more mystical). There is a place for both, but more literal people cannot understand more mystical ones. Theraveda seems intent on reaching the mountaintop, as far as I can tell.

Bhikhu Bodhi views on Mahayana are false and denigrate Mahayana. In fact, emptiness in Mahayana is empty itself. Therefore in Virtue it doesn't reject rules, but only shows their conditional (empty) nature. In Meditation, it doesn't refute that causes lead to effects, it only shows their conditional (empty) nature, which helps to abandon them, for example, instead of keeping attempts to battle them. So Mahayana doesn't refute the truths of Buddha, it only shows better ways to their realization. In Wisdom, true reality is NOT the One. "The One" is just an illusory idea. Be careful.

The experience of form is very sobering, that is when we encounter a person who is angry or destitute, we experience the wrath or the suffering of the person.
When we experience the world as empty we see that the angry or destitute person is empty in that its physical existence is dependent on conditions and the the way we see the situation is dependent on our own conditioned mind, created by our own conditioned mind.
Supposing we do not understand what the person is saying then our experience would be totally different.
And supposing that someone tell us that some of these destitute persons are actually some stingy millionaires and we believe those stories, then our perspectives become different.
These are just simple examples on how the world is illusory because it is perceived in a way that is conditioned by the mind.
Now if we pursue further we can say that since physical forms are empty and the visual forms are also empty because it is illusory. The world is empty!
If we just engaged with just the formless then we become complacent and stay at equanimity, if we see emptiness correctly; if we did not see emptiness correctly, it becomes coldness, or even cruelty.
Engaging with just the formless is an extreme. Just try saying to a tree, falling in your direction that it is empty and see what the result is!
Engaging with just the form is what most people do that, believing things to be solid, that there is a "person" purposely doing all those things to annoy us.
When we see the middle way, both the form and the formless as being the true aspects of reality (both conventional and absolute), then we can act compassionately, or with the perception of oneness.
How? Is another question!

For what it's worth, Tai Chi might teach not to resist the tree but instead to move (remove) your own centre away, out of the path of the heavy falling tree (or, rotate in order to deflect the tree and so make it bypass your centre). When you walk (shifting weight from one foot to another and so on) , the load-bearing foot is "solid" (substantial, immobile) and the other foot is "empty".

@ChrisW Just mind the branches, though 90% of the tree is empty!

I have been thinking of the differences of people on the path (and not consciously on it) similar to stages of thought development: concrete, formal operations, post-formal. It would certainly explain things like extreme fundamentalism, and the mystical sects. So many branches to get caught in... Even it not being there is ensnaring.

As far as I can tell, what you are describing here is emptiness and dependent arising, not nonduality. It is unclear to me what your explanation has to do with nonduality.


text:
Without an enduring quid between lifes, how to explain past life recalling?
How a being (be it a Buddha) can remember its past lives, if there is no "quid"/soul/self enduring for more time?

A self wouldn't help in this case; a self is an untenable entity - it is permanent yet able to change to know multiple objects, an illogical paradox.
The very idea that a memory can be stored isn't tenable, because memories don't exist, just as "information" doesn't exist. The "information" stored in the brain or on a floppy disk isn't information, it's just echos of experience. When one remembers, ostensibly it entails a convergence of many factors to contribute to the "memory"; given that precognition seems possible, even future events can contribute to "memories".
This doesn't answer your question; I suspect the question is unanswerable, just as "what causes gravity" is unanswerable. The universe isn't responsible for giving us answers to all our questions, but it does reveal the basic mechanics to us if we take the time to investigate.

I can see your points. Probably I was expecting the Abidhamma be a metaphysical work instead of a systematization of experiential facts.

In Buddhism kamma, the results of past deeds, is stored in the primodial consciousness.
Though different Buddhist schools have slightly different views of this consciousness.

Interesting link, thank you. So given that Theravada Commentators have resisted the temptation to create mechanism for the "transmission" of kamma, from a Theravadin perspective would not exist a real answer...

Yes, an unresolved question, but it does not detract from the practice of attaining enlightenment and the seeing of past lives. We have to figure out which is the more important, a nice theory or an actual visible result of a practice.

Some questions are better left unanswerd and speculation about them should not obsess the mind.

At one time the Sublime One was abiding at Kosambi in a siṃsapā forest.
And there the Sublime One had taken up a few siṃsapā leaves in his hand and addressed the monks:
  “What do you think monks; which are greater in number, these few siṃsapā leaves in my hand or those that are in the siṃsapā forest above?”
“The siṃsapā leaves in the hand of the Sublime One are of smaller amount than those that are in the siṃsapā forest above.”
“Even so monks, it is just this way with those things of perfected knowledge that I have not taught. And why monks, have I not taught these?”
“Monks, indeed because these are not of significance to what is beneficial;
  neither do they lead to the principles of the renounced life, nor to disillusionment, nor to dispassion, nor to cessation, nor to peacefulness, nor to perfected knowledge, nor to awakening, nor to Nibbāna.
  It is for this reason that I have not taught these.”

Discourse in the Sīṃsapa Forest SN 5.12. 4. 1

I'm aware of this sutra, however I was also presuming the Abidhamma, having an analytical perspective, had an answer to 'how' memories or echos could persist from a life to another.

You can't remember past lives. Memory comes from your 5 senses. With death, your 5 senses cease to exist. When your 5 senses cease to exist, memory ceases to exist.
You can only observe the truth within and outside you, and with your observation you can deduct or reconstruct your past lives.
It's like being a flower, not knowing who you are, observing, and then you realize: "oh I'm a flower, I came from a seed, it was carried by a bee, it came from another flower. This is who I was. Now I am here". As you can see, this is not memory, but pure observation.
In the same way as a flower, you can observe and realize: "oh I was a bird, I was suffering. Then I was a hunter in a forest, I was very angry. Then I was a farmer, I worked here and there, I was happy. Then I was... etc. This is who I was. Now I am here."

Good points, nevertheless someone indeed remembers previous lives: for example the Buddha itself, or Sunlun Sayadaw.

Yes. The Buddha could also walk thru walls and fly. I say, yes, it is possible, but I don't think this has any connection with the world that we live in. Same holds with remembering previous lives. Indeed, strange things can happen during meditation. Is it real or not? Yes and no. It's just speculation, it doesn't really matter what's the answer.


text:
How in buddhistic terms one can explain life evolution?
How can in Buddhistic terms explain life evolution, that is how can new beings evolve  from previous nama-rupa? How could a vipāka (resultant-consciousness) "move" from cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) to the patisandhi-citta (rebirth-consciousness) of a being not yet existing?

Buddhism doesn't generally address the "how" as much as observing that it is true. Science has trouble with "how" and "why"... we still don't know how gravity works, but we can observe that it does.

You may find this question about Buddhism and evolution interesting and relevant to your question

You will find the answer to your question here http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9475/in-relation-to-rebirth-after-death-how-is-karma-any-different-than-supernatural/9480#9480

I read both the linked answers, but I didn't find how they could match my question: they don't speak in abidhammic terms.

Here is a quote from the book "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. The quote is from the chapter: "The Process of Death and Rebirth", p. 220-223:

§36 The Mind at the Time of Death
Thereafter, attending to that object thus presented, the stream of consciousness in accordance with the kamma that is to be matured, whether pure or corrupted, and in conformity with the state into which one is to be reborn continually flows, inclining mostly towards that state. Or that rebirth productive kamma presents itself to a sense door in the way of renewing.
Guide to §36
In the way of renewing (abhinavakaraoavasena): that is, the kamma presenting itself does not appear as a memory image of something that was previously done, but it appears to the mind door as if it were being done at that very moment.
§37 Death and Rebirth-Linking
To one who is on the verge of death, either at the end of a cogni- tive process or at the dissolution of the life-continuum, the death con- sciousness, the consummation of the present life, arises and ceases in the way of death.
  Immediately after that (death consciousness) has ceased, a rebirth-linking consciousness arises and is established in the subsequent existence, apprehending the object thus obtained, either supported by the heart-base or baseless, as is appropriate; it is generated by a volitional formation that is enveloped by latent ignorance and rooted in latent craving. That rebirth-linking consciousness, so called because it links together the two consecutive existences, is conjoined with its mental adjuncts, and acts as the forerunner to the conascent states as their locus (or foundation).
Guide to §37
To one who is on the verge of death: The last cognitive process begins when the bhavanga is interrupted, vibrates for one moment, and is then arrested. Thereafter follows either a sense-door process taking as object some sense object presenting itself at one of the five sense doors or a bare mind-door process taking as object either some sense object or a mental object presenting itself at the mind door. Within this termi- nal process the javana phase, by reason of its weakness, runs for only five mind-moments rather than the usual seven.
This process lacks original productive kammic potency, but acts rather as the channel for the past kamma that has assumed the rebirth-generative function. Following the javana stage two registration cittas (tad±rammaoa) may or may not fol- low. In some cases the bhavanga may follow the last process cittas. Then, as the very last citta, the death consciousness arises performing the func- tion of passing away from the present life. With the ceasing of the death consciousness, the life faculty is cut off. Then the body remains a mass of inanimate material phenomena born of temperature, and continues as such until the corpse is reduced to dust.
Immediately after that has ceased: Following the dissolution mo- ment of the death consciousness, there arises in a new existence the re- birth-linking consciousness apprehending the object thus obtained in the final javana process of the previous life. This citta is supported by the heart-base in realms which include matter, but is baseless in the imma- terial realms. It is generated by a volitional formation, i.e. the kamma of the previous javana process, which in turn is grounded in the twin roots of the round of existence, latent ignorance and latent craving. The rebirth consciousness is conjoined with its mental adjuncts, i.e. the cetasikas, which it serves as a forerunner not in the sense that it pre- cedes them, but in that it acts as their locus (or foundation).

+1, perhaps the best possible answer for an admittedly too speculative question such this. Indeed the rebirth consciousness could generate new kind of beings depending on previous kammas.

You are welcome. Glad it was of help to you. And yes its a bit like having a candle light and then lightening another candle light what the flame from the first one.

How could a vipāka (resultant-consciousness) "move" from cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) to the patisandhi-citta (rebirth-consciousness) of a being not yet existing?

Consciousness permeates everything. Consciousness is eternal bliss. If consciousness does not know that it is eternal bliss, that consciousness (unknowingly) arises a desire.
When consciousness arises a desire, eternal bliss becomes tainted with desire. When eternal bliss becomes tainted with desire, consciousness comes into existence. When consciousness comes into existence, birth of a being arises. When birth of a being arises, senses of that being arise. When senses of that being arise, feeling and contact arise. When feeling and contact arise, memory arise. When memory arise, knowledge arise. When knowledge arise, new desires arise. When new desires arise, eternal bliss becomes more and more tainted with desires.
The more eternal bliss becomes tainted with desires, the more that consciousness craves for existence. The more a consciousness craves for existence, the more that consciousness is afraid of death.
The more a consciousness is afraid of death, the more it clings on life. The more that consciousness clings on life, the more that consciousness arises new desires. The more that consciousness arises new desires, the more that consciousness suffers.
Once the wheel starts spinning, it spins faster and faster after every spin.
When consciousness is born for the 1st time, the wheel is almost motionless. Suffering is almost non existent. Knowledge is almost non existent.
When consciousness is born for the 1000000th time, the wheel spins a little faster. Suffering is very low. Knowledge is very low. A cell is born.
When consciousness is born for the 100000000000th time, the wheel spins a little faster. Suffering is low. Knowledge is low. A plant is born.
... suffering is high. Knowledge is higher. A bee is born.
... suffering is very high. Knowledge is a little higher. A lion is born.
... suffering is high but is becoming lower. Knowledge is even higher. A chimpanzee is born.
... suffering is high but is lowering even more. Knowledge is even higher. A dolphin is born.
... suffering is neither high and neither low. Knowledge is high. A human is born.
... suffering is low. Knowledge is very high. A deva is born.
... suffering is 0. Knowledge is perfect. Nothing is born.


text:
During insight meditation, what does the meditator note in-between the rising and falling of the abdomen?
I practice insight meditation (Theravada tradition), noting the rising and falling of the abdomen. It was suggested that one should make a mental note once per second, neither too frequently, nor too slowly. However, there are moments between the instances of rising and falling, when the abdomen does nothing. What should the practitioner note in these moments?"Not moving"? "Resting"? I note "touching", as I become aware of the sensation of my T-shirt touching the skin on the abdomen. Is this right practice?

Hello Laszlo and welcome to Buddhism.SE! We've put together some information to help you get started here.

Rising  sitting falling

If you find yourself noticing the gap between the breath, then you are no longer focussed on the breath, which is fine, but you should then note "knowing, knowing" or "noticing, noticing". Some also suggest to insert "sitting" in between to avoid having to do this, as in "rising, sitting, falling, sitting". My teacher doesn't, but it's certainly a reasonable suggestion.

You should not have gaps in noting, but observe all the movements from the start to the end, without missing any step. So you should note "raising raising raising", "falling falling falling" etc and in the same time noting the movements and the sensations. You should not feel accomplished for mere noting the raising just one time, otherwise all would become at best a concentration practice and at worst a boring homework with a mind asking "now what?" after each note.

Isn't the whole point of such an exercise to remind us that we should be mindful, at all times?
Though I am a Vajrayana practitioner, I sat for years at the Cambridge insight meditation Center. Some teachers say that concentrating with such focus is no longer meditation.

Hello Rangdrol and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.


text:
What's the difference between a "primordial consciousness" and a soul?
It seems certain Buddhist groups have come to believe in something they call the "luminous mind" or the "primordial consciousness"; in essence, a mind that is lasting, stable, and assumedly pleasant.
From a Theravada point of view, this is terribly problematic; if this mind is able to know multiple consecutive objects, then it is indistinguishable from multiple cittas arising and ceasing, and thus not lasting at all. The idea that there is something lasting from moment to moment sounds very much like the concept of a soul. How does it differ? Or is the point that these Buddhists do believe in a soul?

Related: Is luminous mind unconditioned and not impermanent?

"Luminous mind" in pali is pabhassara citta.
There will always be a problem when we start translating: citta, sometimes as consciousness, sometimes as mind; and there is another word in pali, vinnana, which is sometimes translated as mind, discriminating mind etc.
In my understanding of pali translation, translation of the use of a pali word is dependent on context, precedence and a whole host of other things.
There are opinions that to translate the cannon, understanding its context, the translator would have to have some experience of Buddhist meditation to get its flavour. If we say that is so, then how do we know that the translator is not incorporating his experience, basic or advance into his translation? If it is necessary and desirable then an advanced practitioner's translation would be much preferred, than to one who has no experience at all (if it is even possible to translate without any Buddhist meditative experience). We are after all talking about practice and experience.
Putting the problem of translation aside I'm going to decipher, IMHO, my understanding and translation of citta, vinnana and phabassara citta.
First I would quickly translate vinnana as mind or discriminating mind, and put that aside or away as not concerned with citta, which is translated as consciousness and phabassara citta, which would be luminous consciousness.
As we all know from our Abhidhamma there is only ONE consciousness (citta) and because of the many different mental contents (cetasikas) that arise with it we get different flavours of citta ( 89 flavours) etc...

Now what is this ONE citta?
And what is this arising and ceasing of the different flavours of citta, if it is not this one citta?
What does it mean for the citta to cease: does it mean to disappear into nothingness or disappear into something?

If it is nothingness, where does what makes up the citta and mental contents (call it energies, tendencies or whatever) goes and how does it arise again from its cessation? If its further arising is due to tendencies, where are these tendencies stored when the citta disappear?
If it is something, it must only be citta as there is nothing else that is other than citta.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that the citta disappears into nothingness and then arises again from nothingness almost intact with its kammic tendencies untouched.
What other traditions have explained (including the Thai forest Theravadin tradition, through the experiences of accomplished meditation masters like Ajahn mun) is that, that one citta that we have been talking about is the phabassara citta, "luminious consciousness/mind(loosely)" or primordial mind, clear light mind, buddha nature, bodhicitta, etc..
That the arising and ceasing of consciousness is "apparent". These flavours of consciousness arises and ceases within the "primodial consciousness" which is as yet, unseen, and seemed like nothingness. That is where avijja lies, where all the kammic tendencies are stored, the primordial consciousness.
How do we know it is there when it seemed like nothingness?
In a yet unenlightened being it is just "awareness". When the mind is empty it has this basic quality of "awareness and knowing" in an advanced practitioner and "awareness and knowing" has no shape or form?
In the end when we truly see it, it can be described as "consciousness without surface".
I've not found any description of soul that matches what I've said, so I'll pass it.
EDITS:  (I've added further explanations in my comments with @Sankha below)

With a primordial consciousness, pabhassara citta ( which can be compared to an ocean with its waves), which is "stained" with kamma craving energies, creating the waves of these "apparent" arising and ceasing of the kusala/akusala/kiriya cittas, we continue to have the arising of the cuti (death) citta followed by the patisandhi (re-birth linking) cita.

At the end when craving is ended there is only the kiriya cittas waves in an Arahant's mind. When the last wave of the cuti citta ceased into the primordial consciousness, this primordial consciousness purified is the only permanent pure awareness, the nibanna without remainder, unestablished.
There is nothing that I've said that is not in accord with the Abhidhamma with only the addition that other traditions have added, that the ceasing is not into nothingness but into a primordial consciousness. What is the primordial consciousness in different traditions? Is it permanent?

Extended discussion (conversation) about this answer has been moved/archived to this chat.

This belief of a lasting mind is challenging Paticca Samuppada itself. If there's a primordial mind, it has to be present at the time of birth. So it has to be none other than the Patisandi Citta. If this Citta is permanent, one of the following two major teachings of lord Buddha has to be false.

Sankhara Paccaya Vinnaya - Dependent on volitional formations, consciousness arises
Sabbe Sankhara Anicca - All conditioned phenomena are impermanent

"Luminous, monks, is the mind.1 And it is defiled by incoming
  defilements." -Pabhassara Sutta

Here, the Buddha is saying that the mind as a process is luminous when there are no defilements. He never mentions anything about a lasting citta. It's the same Vinnana of the five aggregates which is conditioned.
If being luminous is enough to assume that it is permanent, the bodies of the Abhassara Brahmas should be permanent too. Because they are said to be radiant. :)

As far as I understand, Buddhists do not believe in a "soul". To confuse "luminous mind" with "soul," would be a mistake. Certain Tibetan schools use the term "clear mind,"  and they are all referencing the same idea.This does differ from school to school and from Hinduism to Buddhism, for example.
To say "something arises" or that "something disappears into emptiness" is confusing. Whatever it is that disappears does not disappear into emptiness — just as though we might find that there is nothing in a sealed metal barrel, simply because we cannot see it does it mean that it has not been there, that it has arisen, or that it at some time, disappeared. Science tells us, for example,that there are constituents in that barrel.
To quote Sakya Trizin:

"It's not enough just to renounce attachment to this life. To be truly
  liberated we must transcend the idea of a solid reality altogether."

Ca you explain the quote in the last paragraph, or how it relates to or answers the question? I don't see any connection there.

After reading the answer from @Samadhi, I think I have a better idea of what Luminous Mind, or Luminous Consciousness is.
One interesting story is of Chuang Tzu. He dreamt one day of being a butterfly flying through a garden. When he awoke, he wasn't sure whether he was dreaming that he is the butterfly or whether the butterfly is dreaming that it is him.
But what is common between the two experiences? Both had different identities, but the same base consciousness or awareness of itself. It is said that this is the same for all beings. So much so, that it is often conjectured in some other religions or philosophies, that this is permanent in the universe, or is a universal consciousness. This might also be the meaning of the Vedic statement "prajñānam brahma" or "Brahman is Consciousness". The luminous mind may be similar to the Hindu concept of prajñā.
However, from the suttas, the Buddha denies that there is such a permanent or universal consciousness, by defining the concept of "eye consciousness", "ear consciousness" (see here) etc. In other words, the "luminous mind", while being common for all, is not permanent or universal, because it arises and falls according to dependent origination. But it is the base consciousness or mind of all beings, which is not defiled by anything.
The base consciousness, just like the sense of sight, is common for all of us, but it arises and falls, just like sight, based on dependent origination. It is a common experience, but it is not permanent and it is not all linked together in the universe. This may be the Buddhist perspective, as opposed to the Hindu perspective.