text:
Should Lay Buddhists Teach the Dhamma?
Should a lay Buddhist teach the Dhamma in a dhamma centre? Can a lay person teach just as a monk does? If so, are there any differences (e.g., should they sit on a different level, should the audience pay respect in a different way, etc.)?

"Should" they... no.      Is it beneficial and will good come of it, yes. But only for those "asking" (be it verbal or implied) to learn or hear about it. Please dont go around acting like the christians, haha.

@ANonimous If you want to post this, please post it as an answer not as a comment. But if they're teaching "in a Dhamma centre" I would guess that's to a consenting audience, no?

Lay practitioner ==> monk is not a one way street. Some monks renounce their vows for various reasons (not always bad). A famous example in Western Tibetan Buddhism is Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche who ordained in 1947 and renounced in 1970, but kept teaching in lay status all the way until 1987. He still sat on a high platform and enjoyed the same honors as an ordained teacher. This is less about your official status and more about your spiritual achievements and realizations.
As Buddha himself said (AN 5.166),

Why should an elder be honored, respected, held in esteem, and venerated? On account of his broken teeth, grey hair, and wrinkled skin?

...

Possessing five qualities, bhikkhus, an elder is respected and esteemed:

He is virtuous; he dwells restrained by the Patimokkha, possessed of good conduct and resort, seeing danger in minute faults. Having undertaken the training rules, he trains in them.
He has learned much, remembers what he has learned, and accumulates what he has learned. Those teachings that are good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing, which proclaim the perfectly complete and pure spiritual life -- such teachings as these he has learned much of, retained in mind, recited verbally, mentally investigated, and penetrated well by view.
He is a good speaker with a good delivery; he is gifted with speech that is polished, clear, articulate, expressive of the meaning.
He gains at will, without trouble or difficulty, the four jhanas that constitute the higher mind and are pleasant dwellings in this very life.
With the destruction of the taints, he has realized for himself with direct knowledge, in this very life, the taintless liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, and having entered upon it, he dwells in it.

From this we can see that it is not whether you are a lay person or a monk that is important for you being a teacher, but your spiritual achievements and realizations, plus communication skills.

A great point is made in this answer. A Bhikku who lives on alms given to him is different to a mere beggar because of his practice of Dhamma in order to Bhikku (Bhawa + Kshaya). Bhikku = One who wares off (kshaya) Bhawa.

In countries without a Buddhist background the best way to teach is as a lay person. The issues like conversion, unfamiliar customs and outer look will not hinder people from accepting the practice. Once you start practicing you see benefits for you self and the practice will continue, but some cases the initial contact is best done by a lay person.
So yes. Ley people should teach, especially in the West and regions where there is not Buddhist culture.

That presupposes a sharp divide between lay and monastic communities within a sangha which isn't always the case. I practice with the Triratna Buddhist Community and while there are members of the order (who take dharma names) their status is not straightforwardly monastic or lay. They can elect to live in a retreat centre but often they will be members of the wider community with families just like anyone else. So the people who sit at the front for us are often more of the lay variety.
Even this though isn't straightforward. We are short of order members in my centre so people who are not order members sometimes take on some teaching particularly talks to beginners. I've done it myself and I think it makes sense. I did something on right-livelihood a while back and I have daily experience (and struggle) with this so I am well placed to say something rather than a full time order member who is employed by the centre. I was asked to do it by an order member so there is some kind of authority there I guess.
Just to summarise here is what order members would definitely teach and where there would be more flexibility

Study sessions for more advanced students - order members only
Meditation classes for beginners - order members supported by more
advanced students
Retreats - order members supported by more advanced students
Talks and regular evenings - mostly order members but others do get
involved
Rituals - anyone interested
Other events - anyone interested

I have to say though we might be very non-standard in this so I would be interested to hear other people's experiences.

I think some topics are ok for a lay person to teach like meditation or an overview of buddhism, however a few topics may be tricky, should be only taught by monks I guess.

@konrad01 fair point. I've tried to include this in my edited response

The Buddha's opinion:
'I shall not pass into final Nirvana until the lay-men and lay-women are accomplished and well-trained, learned and erudite, knowers of the Dhamma, living by Dhamma and walking the path of Dhamma, not until they pass on to others what they have received from their Teacher and teach it, proclaim it, establish it, explain it, promote it and clarify it, not until they are able to use it to refute false teachings and impart this wondrous Dhamma' (D.II,105).
Additionally, in A.I.26 the Buddha declares Citta as the foremost among laymen who teach the Dhamma.

In Theravada Buddhism there have been a number of significant lay teachers. Anagarika Dhammaphala was one, although he lived a very monk like life in general so he probably doesn't quite count.
In modern times the most famous example of this is probably S.N. Goenka, the famous meditation teacher whith the well known 10 day retreat program. Goenka's main teacher, U Ba Khin, was also a prominent lay teacher of meditation. Also U Ba Khin learnt meditation from a lay teacher, Saya Thet Gyi.

The question is "should there be lay teachers?" (I suppose, OP is asking for the views of people), not "are there?"

According to the Udayi Sutta:

"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
within the person teaching. Which five?
"(1) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
step-by-step.'
"(2) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"(3) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of
compassion.'
"(4) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for
the purpose of material reward.'
"(5) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without
hurting myself or others.'
Note:
According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down.
AN 5.159

It's definitely possible for a lay follower to become wise.

“But how is a wise lay follower defined?”
“It’s when a lay follower is wise. They have the wisdom of arising and
passing away which is noble, penetrative, and leads to the complete
ending of suffering. Then they’re considered to be a wise lay
follower.”
SN 55.37

excellent answer.  SN 55.37 does not say it’s when a lay follower is wise. They have the wisdom of pass away and re-arising again (aka "rebirth") y which is noble, penetrative, and leads to the complete ending of suffering

Seeing just:

Lay practitioner ==> monk is not a one way street. Some monks renounce their vows for various reasons (not always bad). A famous example in Western Tibetan Buddhism is Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche who ordained in 1947 and renounced in 1970, but kept teaching in lay status all the way until 1987. He still sat on a high platform and enjoyed the same honors as an ordained teacher.

There are only three reasons why one goes back to lower live: indoxication with, youth, with health, with life.
Many lay teacher have received Dana from faithful to live the holly live but at the end use this received on the three Gems, to make a livelihood even as lay person and even more "steal" from the Sangha. Go back into the west and "cheat" uninformed. More or lesser aware of this fact, making copies and modifications... Actually they live a poor kslaves" live having fallen, increasing their debts in this ways.
Renouncing higher life, going back to lower life, means to reject the three tripple gems. Not rejecting then, disrobing is still invalid (if not having abound refuge, he counts still as monk, even wearing householder clothes, behave like them). But by engaging in certain things one might transgress a parajika. So such as going back to householderlive to become even a better teacher is impossible, based on strong confusion, disrespect and corrupt. One would not find easy a case in the Canon an ex-monk teaching as lay person. That just modern defiled appearance, for trade and corrupt sakė It taking the Bodhisatta vows, doing so, receiving dana suggesting people one is part of Sangha, its a grave break of the root bodhisatta-vows (according to even the Tibetian school!)
It's the nature, it's impossible, has never been, that someone disrobes and teaches then the good Dhamma, not corrupt, as a lay person. Althought thieving from the tripple Gems is today very popular, even to make a livelihood (whether as lay person or monks) on Dhamma and the Gems, it's not for a good for one who does and destructive for many. Simply subject to corruption, sooner or later meeting much pain. Scandals, abuse... having not authority and no Vinaya, no Sangha able to rebuke and guide each other.
It's natural that there appear good teacher, althought possible that lay people can teach the good Dhamma, because they usually live in corrupt dependency by trade, it a very small chance to not just get corrup Dhamma from them. If really understanding, why not able to renounce houselife?
So be even more careful! Look always if a reacher depends on his students or gains his livelihood by independent ways. The Buddha therefore forbade his monks to teach in exchange with gifts. Do you know a lay person who does not by teaching makes his earning? Shameful...
There might appear merely independent rich people, like Anāthapiṇḍikassa occasionally, or similar like Goenka (in our days, even though because he organised it, oranised a laymens lineage, at leased got corrupt as well)). But most lay teacher are not capable, live and teach in very corrupt ways and improper dependency (mostgmany monks who teach lay people as well!)
People stingy, used to trade and buy, not having taken real refuge, tend to shopping, tend to householders teachings (whether in house clothes or robes). Corrupt people "mind" will always just meet up corrupt ways using Dhamma in corrupt and harmful ways.
So the place to work is on your own person, to be able to meet good teacher. See also: The Power of Judgment for more how to do.

just if like the moon (also for lay people)

Then the Blessed One waved the hand in the air: "Just as, Bhikkhus, this hand is not hold, not seized, not imprisoned in the air, even so, Bhikkhus, a families approaching Bhikkhus mind, whatever, does not get hold, seized, nor imprisoned admidst families: 'Let those, being selfish and given to gain, be selfish and given to gain, let those, being given to merits, do merits', and what ever he gains he is pleased and joyful, so as with what others gain he is pleased and joyful, like this, Bhikkhus, a Bhikkhu ready to approach families.

"What do you think, Bhikkhus, what kind of Bhikkhu is giving teaching on Dhamma impurely, and what kind of Bhikkhu is giving teaching on Dhamma purely?"
"Venerable Sir, the techings are rooted in the Blessed One, leaded by the Blessed One, having the Blessed One as protector. It would be good if the Blessed One would make the meaning delightful clear. Learned by the Blessed One, the Bhikkhus will bear it in mind."
"Then, Bhikkhus, listen and pay close attention, I will speak."
"Yes, venerable Sir," the Bhikkhus replayed to the Blessed One. The Blessed One spoke thus:
"There is the case, Bhikkhus, that a Bhikkhu teaches the Dhamma, thinking: 'Oh, may they listen to the Dhamma from me. Having learned my Dhamma, may they be settled in believe in it. Having been settled in believe in it, may they show their settlement in believe," this is a kind of Bhikkhu, Bhikkhus, who is giving teaching on Dhamma impurely.
There is the case, Bhikkhus, that a Bhikkhu teaches the Dhamma, thinking: 'The Dhamma of the Blessed One is well taught, direct visible, timeless, inviting to come and see, appropriate, to be self-experianced by the wise. Oh, may they listen to the Dhamma from me. Having learned the Dhamma, may they understand. Having understood the Dhamma, may they practice accordingly.' So he teaches the Dhamma because of the excellence nature of the Dhamma; he teaches the Dhamma out of compassion and kindness, out of pity. This is a kind of Bhikkhu, Bhikkhus, who is giving teaching on Dhamma purely.
Kassapa, Bhikkhus, teaches the Dhamma, thinking: 'The Dhamma of the Blessed One is well taught, direct visible, timeless, inviting to come and see, appropriate, to be self-experianced by the wise. Oh, may they listen to the Dhamma from me. Having learned the Dhamma, may they understand. Having understood the Dhamma, may they practice accordingly.' He teaches the Dhamma because of the excellence nature of the Dhamma; he teaches the Dhamma out of compassion and kindness, out of pity.
Bhikkhus, I advice you by the sample of Kassapa, or one who is similar to Kassapa's kind. Being adviced, you should practice in this way.

Even if bound to Vinaya, corruption can access, yet think if people are not bound voluntary to Vinaya... 1 in a billion.
"Buddhist" and their teacher, mainly lay people by heart, are disrespectful torward the Gems, torward the Sangha, torward the Elders, and not really having taken refuge in the Savaka Sangha, their objectives are not the best. That's by nature, thinking being smarter as the Buddha in regard of proper ways.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Yes, if he has enough knowledge.
The required lowest graduation:

Qualities of enlightened lay teacher for lay people:

Enlightened sodāpatti-phala, at least.
Proficient to recite and to understand 9 pāṭha, the whole K.N. khuddaka-pātha, and their commentaries.
Proficient to recite and to understand the whole K.N. Itivuttaka, and their commentaries.
Enough understand to judge/to decide about 8 precepts and lay-ārāmika's job.
Enough understand to judge/to decide about abhidhamma in his kammaṭṭhāna. This abhidhamma knowledge will come with his meditation and his enlightenment, no need to study. However, more abhidhamma knowledge is required for teaching the other qualities below, so lay teacher must study this part, such as Cittagahapati did.
5 years experience in buddhism.

I sum above qualities myself from the profile of lay-etadagga, such as Khujjuttarā, Cittagahapati.
However, the pāli canon never focus on lay teacher, because the ariya-lays very respect bhikkhu. So, they often invite bhikkhu to teach, first. But khujjuttarā can not invite bhikkhu into the king's palace, so she must recite & recollect tipitaka herself to teach inside the king's palace.
Another, if lay teacher will teach bhikkhu, he need this Qualities, that was writen in commentary according to V.N. Mahākhandhaka:

Qualities of nissayamuccaka-bhikkhu (teaching lay people)

Proficient to recite pāṭimokkha-pāli and to understand it's commentary.
Proficient to recite and to understand 4 bhāṇavāra (~1,000 syllable) of sutta and their commentary, to teach laymen on uposatha
day.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for bhikkhu's life such as andhakavindasutta, mahālahulovādasutta, ambaṭṭhasutta, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand sutta for teaching in 3 chances: banquet for saṅgha by layman (nidhikaṇdasutta), funeral
ceremony (tirokuṭṭasutta), and auspicious ceremony (maṅgalasutta).
Enough understand to judge/to decide about saṇgha's ceremony such as uposatha, pavāraṇā, etc.
Proficient to recite and to understand his kammaṭṭhānā throughout the nibbāna-course.
5 years experience in monk hood as a monk.

Qualities of bhikkuparisūpaṭṭhāpaka-bhikkhu (teaching bikkhus)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhus (ūpajjhā-ācāriya, nissaya-ācāriya), they must increase their skill level to all of the following qualities.
These are for abhivinaya teaching:

Proficient to recite mahāvibhagha and bhikkhunivibhaṅga (first 3 books of thai 45 books pali-tipitaka) of vinaya-pitaka-pali. At least, he
can relay with the other 3 bhikkhu. Proficient to understand it's
commentary, too.
Proficient to recite all saṇgha's ceremony in vinaya-pitaka mahāvagga and julavagga.
Proficient to recite 14 vatta in vattakhandhaka.

These are for abhidhamma (kammaṭṭhāna) teaching:

Proficient to recite one of this suttanta-pali: mūlapaṇṇassa (1st/3 parts of M.N.) for student in M.N. faculty, mahāvagga (2nd/3 parts of
D.N.) for student in D.N. faculty,
sagāthavagga+nidānavagga+khandhavāravagga of S.N. or  mahāvagga of
S.N. for student in S.N. faculty, before half of A.N.  or after half
of A.N.  or ekakanipāta+dukanipāta of A.N. for student in A.N.
faculty, jātaka+commentary  (because kammaṭṭhāna was described in
commentary) for student in jātaka faculty.

Qualities of bhikkunovdaka-bhikkhu (teaching bhikkunīs)
If above layman's teachers want to teach bhikkhunī, they must increase their skill level to all of these qualities:

Proficient to recite whole tipitaka-pali and commentary-pali. Or at least, he still must recite whole tipitaka, but he can recite just one
commentary of suttanta, first 4 parts of commentary of 7 parts of
abhidhamma. However, vinaya-commentary is what he must recite it all.

Reference: tipitaka and commentary of vinaya pācittiyakaṇḍa bhikkhunovādakasikkhāpada and vinaya mahāvagga mahākhandhaka.

Related topic: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22917/10100


text:
Would an advanced practitioner ever stop meditating?
The founder of the Buddhist community I attend said in an interview that he doesn't meditate anymore. I kind of found this really surprising. If we can say (just for arguments sake) that he is an advanced practitioner - is there any precedence for people once they reach a particular advanced stage in the path stopping meditating? Do people do this? Does it depend on the individual or is he very unusual in this and even potentially doing the wrong thing?

what does that have to do with your practice?... maybe consider the possible effects it may have kammicly and how paticca sammupada may relate in relation to what you are learning and practicing. Best i got, very speculative.

This is normal and even expected on very advanced stages of Vajrayana. Basically, as your meditation gets non-contrived, and your post-meditation awareness grows strong, the two converge. This is known as meditation of nonmeditation. Check out Lamp of Mahamudra by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol.

Would an advanced practitioner ever stop meditating?
If we take the Buddha & his disciples as an example, I would say, no. I would also not see a reason why. In the texts, the jhānas are referenced as pleasant abidings here-&-now and that is what the arahats do.

"Bhikkhus, if wanderers of other sects ask you: 'In what dwelling,
  friends, did the Blessed One generally dwell during the rains
  residence?'-being asked thus, you should answer those wanderers thus:
  'During the rains residence, friends, the Blessed One generally dwelt
  in the concentration by mindfulness of breathing.'"
  ...
  "Those bhikkhus who are arahants, whose taints are destroyed, who have
  lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  reached their own goal, utterly destroyed the fetters of existence, those completely
  liberated through final knowledge: for them concentration by
  mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, leads
  to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness and
  clear comprehension."
-SN 54.11, At Icchanangala

But having heard that Dhamma, those bhikkhus who are arahants, whose
  taints are destroyed, who have lived the spiritual life, done what had
  to be done, laid down the burden, reached their own goal, utterly
  destroyed the fetters of existence, and are completely liberated
  through final knowledge, are devoted simply to a pleasant dwelling in
  this very life.
-AN 9.4, Nandaka

And how does the disciple of the noble ones obtain at will — without
  trouble or difficulty — the four jhanas that constitute heightened
  awareness and a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now? There is the case
  where, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful
  mental qualities, the disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in
  the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied
  by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed
  thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana:
  rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free
  from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the
  fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses
  pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of
  which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant
  abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier
  disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the
  fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor
  pain. This is how the disciple of the noble ones obtains at will —
  without trouble or difficulty — the four jhanas that constitute
  heightened awareness and a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now.
-MN 53, The Practice for One in Training

There was a Sri Lankan monk named Balangoda Ananda Maiythreya thero, and he mentioned in one of his meetings with lay people that he had attained until Sankarupekkha-nana in vipassana meditation and if he had continued further, he could have become a stream-winner. But he didn't carry on from there because he had a wish to become a Buddha. However, he didn't completely abandon his meditation, still practiced samatha meditation and went on to achieve much higher levels in that as well.
So I think it is possible for advanced practitioners to stop doing it when they want to achieve much higher goals like Buddhahood once they reached a particular state in vipassana meditation. I don't see a reason for giving up samatha meditation though. Some illness might also be a reason for stopping meditation. There are several examples in literature how monks abandoned their meditation because of lust and also clinging on to wrong views .

Meditation has the benefit of dissolving fabrications and conditioning. So practicing this even after achieving the goal has advantage in subduing would be bad Karma giving unpleasant results.
Also an Arahat can enjoy the Fruit of Attainment by meditating.

Mindful living is another form of meditation (typically an advanced one), if one no longer needs to formally sit or walk in meditation... then i guess that would be that. But the way you phrased it, it seems it could be any reason.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is yoga an acceptable form of meditation for a practicing Buddhist?
Yoga is a form of mediation which involves physical exertions as well as inward examination.  Is this an acceptable form of meditation for a Buddhist?  Are there any sects of Buddhism which focus on meditations which involve physical exertion?

For a buddhist, sure... for the sangha, not so sure. Practicing vipassana is still important.

It depends on what your definition of 'acceptable' is.  Will it benefit you?  Absolutely.  For one, a case can be made that yoga is a mindfulness-of-the-body meditation and that it can even go beyond that - incorporating other aspects of sati (mindfulness).  I think it's also safe to say that all five of the hindrances can be temporarily suppressed during intense yoga and may even give rise to access concentration (upacarasamadhi).
Still, I don't think it's a perfect substitute for the kind of meditation the Buddha taught.  For starters, I wonder whether true jhana is available to someone in an asana other than a variant of the lotus position.  You'll be able to attain some amount of samatha, but the degree will be lessened by the effort it takes to maintain the other asanas.  Outside of lotus, I also don't think you'd be very stable, physically speaking, and that you'd probably just wind up falling over!  But maybe you aren't even looking to attain jhana.  Who knows!  There is precedent that such states aren't a prerequisite to enlightenment.
As per 'sects' of Buddhism that use physical excursion, well, there is a rich tradition of doing prostrations, schools like Tendai have their mudras (but I'm guessing that's not the kind of exertion you're talking about), and many martial arts schools with a Zen slant pay strict attention to bodily position - especially Japanese styles like iaido (and come on - meditate with a sword?  How cool is that!).
So yes - beneficial, absolutely.  A true alternative?  Mmmm...probably not.

Asanas are generally acceptable if you leave the ideological side of it and when you do the Asana be aware of the posture and sensation in the body. For timing purposes use the breath and heartbeat. This can be a good physical exercise also converting this to Kayanupassana and Vedananupassana in the 4 Satipatthana.
If you leave out the ideological part behind Pranayama then both are compatible. The distinction between the two are:

Buddhism: do not regulate the breath but watch the process initially but later slow the process
Pranayama: regulate the process

Some buddhist tradition sometimes do advice to regulate the breath to overcome being scatterbrained when meditating, being lethargic, and to induce pleasantness / joy. Also there is a view that Pranayama could have been originating or evolution from a Buddhist teaching. (See: Can Pranayama Be Derived from Anapana?)
Also when doing Breath Meditation some traditions mention certain prominent places to rest your attention. If you go by the Suttas only it say to rest the attention in front or around the mouth as some traditions interpret. (See Parimukhaṁ). This can be analogous to Chakras in Yoga. (See: Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings?).
Whatever you do start with at then end you have to see things as they are. For this you have to reduce the of the breath and develop strong awareness. If you are in regulating the process you lose the chance of being objectively observing and being aware. The awareness you develop would be shallow. This might be a hindrance later on. But if this is not the only techniques you use then it can become a tool. In addition you are creating new fabrication / conditioned existence where the objective was to get out of it. Having said that the path leading to the final goal is actually fabricated / conditioned. Sometimes good conditioning can help.
Having said all this do not give too much prominence of time to Yoga though it can be used for benefit as time is limited but use this as a tool in certain situation like to overcome lethargy, develop energy, overcome pain, etc.
For an alternate discussion see: Yoga: as seen in the light of Vipassana and A Re-appraisal of Patanjali’s Yoga-Sutras in the Light of the Buddha’s Teaching

Are you asking whether or not Buddhists can practice Hatha Yoga (i.e. practicing the physical postures) or the yogic meditative practices? I don't see any real problem with Hatha Yoga, but yogic meditation is based on a different set of teachings and is part of a different interpretive framework than Buddhism.
Buddhism rejects the idea of any self that exists other than as a convention and teaches that all of reality arises from causes and conditions without any underlying ground of reality.. Raja Yoga (the proper name for Yoga as a meditative system) is based very much on the exact opposites of these, teaching the existence of a supreme cosmic principle underlying all things called Brahman, and furthermore most teach that this divine Brahman is the true self, or Atman.
The actual meditation methods used in Raja Yoga are effective means of attaining concentration, but the purpose of attaining such concentration is quite different in Buddhism. In Buddhism, concentration is used to clear and prepare the mind for the realization that reality is impermanent, unsatisfying, and non-self, which leads to the attainment of enlightenment, and so concentration is combined with other methods which aim at this goal. In contrast, Raja yoga identifies the attainment of high levels of concentration (i.e. the Jhanas) with the realization of the Atman as being Brahman.
From a Buddhist perspective, such an interpretation is wrong view, and especially coupled with the fact that Raja Yoga doesn't have practices leading to the realization of the three characteristics, Raja Yoga isn't a system of practice which one should expect to lead one to Nibbana.

The question was about the kinds of yoga involving physical exertion, not Patanjali yoga.

Ok then. The physical exercises are fine.

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


text:
What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti?
What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti? Are they the same? What are the distinctions between them?

Phalasamapatti is a meditative state in which a person is absorbed in Nibbana itself. In this attainment there is a special kind of consciousness present called Lokuttara-citta.
In contrast to this, in Nirodhasamapatti there is no consciousness at all. In Chapter 8 section 42 of the Abhidhammatha Sangaha it describes it like this:

Having proceeded, thus, up to the base of nothingness, one then
  attends to the  preliminary duties such as the resolution, etc., and
  enters the base of neither-perception- nor-nonperception.    After
  two  occasions  of  javana  in  absorption,  the  continuum  of
  consciousness  is  suspended.    Then,  one  is  said  to  have
  attained  cessation  (nirodha- samāpatti).

Another difference is in who can attain them. Phalasamapatti is attained by each of the four kinds of noble beings just after attaining the knowledge of the path, and it can be cultivated and extended by them as well. Nirodhasamapatti however, can only be entered by non-returners and arahats.

Path to Nibbana by Ajahn Jodok says there are 3 samapatti (trances, i.e. states of unconsciousness) in vipassana: jhanasamapati (side-track), phalasamapatti (fruition) and nirodhasamapatti. Experientially, they are can not be different (unconscious). What is the theoretical reason to introduce lokuttara-citta?

@eudoxos.  I beleive they are unconscious in the sense that consciousness = vinanna.  And vinanna = split (vi) knowing (nanna).  It is what happens as the result of knowing/perceiving arisen objects.  So magga/phala (being the pinnacle of the unification of nanna) is simply knowing.  As opposed to the knowing of arisen phenomena (aka vinanna).
A total lack of awareness is called oblivion and should not be mistaken for magga/phala.  This is according to Mahasi Sayadaw's Manual of Insight.  (You can search the glossary for the term oblivion to find the relevant pages)

Here is what the Nirodha Samapatti is defined as
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm
Here is the Phala Samapatti progessions
http://www.palikanon.com/english/practice_insight/characteristics_of_forgetting.htm
Here is a discussion of if this kind of discussion is fruitful
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18101
I am not a strong supporter of discussion as a fruitful path to cessation as much as practice but I respect the right of all to choose for everyone may have a different path. It is not for me to say.

The 8 Jhanas(absorption's) are required for such attainment; the three mentioned in another post, co-inside with: stream entry, once returner, non-returner/arahant.
The five physical aggregates and mental aggregates are not self, the attachment to them are signs of attainment on the path from gross to subtle forms of clinging through desire/craving.
Nirodha samapatti is the extinction of the three poisons; greed, hate, and delusion; the 8th jhana absorption of total emptiness or extinction without remainder, kamma is what forms the gross or subtle body that others experience as form; through their attachment, albeit that attachment is one of ignorance and not one of loving kindness, compassion, or equanimity.
Since that attachment others have is not thus? Then that is what then becomes one's path having attained nibbana, and is the difference between a corpse and a monk... such attachments others have, are then the only cause for further becoming, for them their cause if not fully liberated; is further birth in the cycle of samsara.
One cannot walk the path nor liberate another; it is the duty of oneself to walk the path of the rightly self awakened one.
With Metta;
Jim

Nirodha-Sanna-sampatti is highly meditative steps where the practitioner first aware of neighther perception-nor non perception. It's a base for Nirodha. This state was attained by Udraka muni as said he never leaves place instead silent inside without uttering any word or movement. So, even he has attain this state he is still not succeed in eliminating perception altogether. Why? Because he had not then the Samma Ditthi. The ditthi is where even the perception is not there and also there is no one who actually ceased. Buddha then realised that what stopped udraka ramputta from cessation of perception that he attached to it. Buddha succeeded when he also got detached from this neither perception-nor non perception. And when done he realised 4th noble truth, the vision of Absolute and then back to perception. He realised, there is nothing in individual we can call own. Not body, feeling, perception, sensation nor counciousness. One who attach to it is seed for becoming and who have vision of 4th noblest truth, five khanda ceased to be. He do action but doer remain absent. He lives on until end but there is no one who is living. The conclusion can be put in example as: When a boy who is sweet but people call him ugly, with sadness in his heart by their treatment, goes to lake with distress, see his own face in clearer water and see his face. But after a while he jumped in joy that, I am not ugly, I am bright and sweet. This is like nirodha-sanna-sampatti. The face of boy in water can be termed as state of neither perception -nor non perception and the face of actual boy is that of nirodha sampatti or 4th noble truth or vision of absolute. So phala sampatti is attaining the fruit and niridha sampatti is frution. In 2nd example is like this": A student cried "master, master, open the door!" then Master says "The door is already opened, you are the one who is holding that!". The boy at the door is neither perception nor non perception. It's also called Maya or covering veil in Vedanta. A real fruit immortal is not sectarian and unfathomed is it's depth. So, wise accept any teaching or thought that is contain the fruit Immortal! Be transcendentalist. May all being attain it.

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


text:
What are the differences of Phala Samapatti between each stage of sainthood?
What are the differences of Phala Samapatti between each stage of sainthood? The fruit of each stage of Sainthood possibly would be different. Hence there would be some distinction and differences between the stages of sainthood.

The fruition consciousnesses are classified as being resultant consciousnesses (vipākacittāni) so they differ based on what the wholesome consciousness produce them, so the difference between the fruit of a stream-enterer and a sakadagamin is the wholesome consciousness that causes them. For the fruit of stream entry, the wholesome consciousness that causes it is the path consciousness of stream entry, and for a sakadagamin it is the path consciousness of a sakadagamin.
Then one will wonder what is the difference between the different path consciousnesses. That is an easier question to answer. It is the path consciousnesses that cut through the fetters. The path consciousness of stream entry cuts through the first three fetters, the path consciousness of a sakadagamin weakens desire and ill-will, etc...
For more information on this I would recommend reading §26 and §27 of A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma and chapter 22 of the Visuddhimagga. Both of these books are freely and legally available online as PDFs.

This describes different stages of Phala Samapatti
Here is the Phala Samapatti progessions http://www.palikanon.com/english/practice_insight/characteristics_of_forgetting.htm

Please avoid posting link answers. The question should be addressed in the answer itself.


text:
Are there Buddhist traditions without monks?
Are there any traditions without an associated monastic community or even where the monastic element is significantly minimised. I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and the blurring of the monastic and lay elements is a particular feature. I was wondering if we are very peculiar in that or if there are other traditions, modern or historic, where that also would be the case.

SGI, for example, describes itself as a "lay Buddhist organization".
I'm not sure I'd want to call it orthodox Buddhist, though.
Traditionally there might have been a split in lifestyle between monastery (and a literate life) and fields (and manual labour). I think I remember seeing a TV documentary with teenagers, monk-candidates, studying texts in a monastery: one said that the (academic) study is difficult/onerous, nervertheless easier (therefore a better career choice) than spending life working in a (agricultural) field.

Yes, Jōdo Shinshū (Shin Buddhism) has been a lay movement since it was founded in 12th century Japan. The following is from the description on the Facebook page of the North American Shin Buddhist Association.

Total Lay Control
NASBA follows the early Shin Buddhist ideal of total lay control of the sanghas with an egalitarian, non-elitist and democratic format. Originally, Shin Buddhism did not have or need religious professionals like monastics or clergy. Spiritual transmission was not passed down from teacher to student but as Shinran Shonin taught, it unfolds as shinjin (true entrusting mind), which manifests directly from the Primal Vow of Buddha Amida. Inspired by the original intent and teachings of Shin Buddhism, this North American association does not follow any spiritual hierarchical or vertical (top-down) organizational format but adheres to a flat or horizontal design. It does not ordain clergy or have any rituals of guru to student transmission. It believes that all spiritual endowments come directly from the inconceivable Great Compassion, symbolized by the Primal Vow of Amida Buddha.

Lay people can become lay ministers in Shin Buddhism and use the title Reverend.

Another tradition without monks is Aro:

The Aro teachers are not monks or nuns. They are ordained Tantrikas – whose lives are, in many ways, quite ordinary. They may have conventional jobs, or raise children. Many teach as married couples. Their wisdom is embodied in the ways they live everyday life. Facing the same life challenges as their students, they are able to offer advice that is grounded in personal experience as well as profound religious understanding.

It seems that, like the ones already mentioned, it isn't too orthodox.

There is a reason that the traditional Buddhist (at least Theravada) orders have Monks and Householders. The monks take the opportunity to practice more intensely  and with a fewer distraction than lay people. Also it is regarded a duty of the householder to support the monks.
Also for the survival of the Dhamma and Practice you need an institution which is the order of monks.
Also in the Theravada perspective when you are enlightened you have to enter the order as a monk hence the order needs to be there. As a householder you cannot survive. E.g. Pukkusati, Bahiya Daruciriya, etc.
Within the bound of Theravada line of thought you cannot have a Buddhist order with no monks.

I'm not sure whether 'survival' is a requirement: Thee Days More :-)

The enlightened person can become an anagarika I think, if there is no order.

"Also in the Theravada perspective when you are enlightened you have to enter the order as a monk...".  ¿What would happen if someone became enlightened and did not "enter the order as a monk"?


text:
What is the Distinction Between Knowledge of The Path and the Fruit?
It is said that this happens in close proximity. So it is always referenced together. What happens when you get the knowledge and how do to transition to the Fruit? What happens just before the knowledge of the path?

There are some suttas which give an indication that there is a time gap between path and fruit meaning that the fruit does not happen automatically following the path.
Specifically:
Udana 5.5 - Uposatha Sutta: mentions "stream-winners & those practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry; once-returners & those practicing to realize the fruit of once-returning; non-returners & those practicing to realize the fruit of non-returning; arahants & those practicing for arahantship."
SN XXV.1 - Cakkhu Sutta: describes the saddhanusari and dhammanusari - disciples by faith and wisdom respectively. Both are described as following the path - "one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill", and that "He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry". It clearly implies a time gap between path and fruit.
AN 4.170 - Yuganaddha Sutta: says that "developing tranquility and insight the path is born. He follows, develops and pursues that path, and by doing so his fetters are abandoned." Again there is a time gap implied.

Knowledge of the path is simply the first realization of Nibbana as one of the particular kinds of Aryas. In other words, the first time a person experiences Nibbana as a Sotapanna, Sakadagamin, Anagamin, or an Arahat is called knowledge of the path. During the path-knowlege, the fetters are destroyed or greatly weakened . Knowledge of the fruit is the same except that it doesn't cut away at the fetters in the same way so it is classified differently.
Knowledge of the fruit occurs automatically after knowledge of the path. You don't have to do anything specifically to make it happen.
Here is a description of these knowledges from the Visuddhimagga:

Here is a simile for this. An archer, it seems, had a target 3  set up at a distance of eight usabhas (about 100 yards), and wrapping
  his face in a cloth and arming himself with an arrow, he stood on a
  wheel contrivance (a revolving platform). Another man turned the wheel
  contrivance, and when the target was opposite the archer, he gave him
  a sign with a stick. Without pausing after the sign the archer shot
  the arrow and hit the target.
  Herein, change-of-lineage knowledge is like the sign with the stick. Path knowledge is like the archer. Path knowledge’s [675]
  making Nibbána its object without pausing after the sign given by
  change-of-lineage, and its piercing and exploding  the  mass  of
  greed,  hate  and  delusion  never  pierced  and  exploded before, is
  like the archer’s hitting the target without pausing after the sign.
And not only does it cause the piercing of this mass of greed, etc., but it also dries up the ocean of suffering of the round in the
  beginningless round of rebirths. It closes all doors to the states of
  loss. It provides actual experience of the seven noble treasures. 4
  It abandons the eightfold wrong path. It allays all enmity and fear. 5
  It leads to the state of the Fully Enlightened One’s breast-born son
  (see S II 221). And it leads to the acquisition of many hundred other
  blessings. So it is the knowledge associated with the path of
  stream-entry, the provider of many hundred blessings, that is called
  knowledge of the path of stream-entry. The first kind of knowledge is
  ended.
Immediately next to that knowledge, however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which are its result. For it is
  owing to this very fact that supramundane  profitable  [consciousness]
  results  immediately  that  it  is  said, “And which he called the
  concentration with immediate result” (Sn 226), and “Sluggishly  he
  reaches  what  has  immediate  result  for  the  destruction  of  the
  cankers” (A II 149), and so on.

(Visuddhimagga Chapter XXII 12-15, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf )


text:
Happiness vs. Euphoria from a Buddhist's point of view
Most of people these days will define Happiness as euphoria: A big party with friends, dancing, singing all night (sometimes drinking). From a Buddhist's perspective this is not even close to the true happiness, so how would Buddhism classify this kind of Euphoria? Something good, neutral or bad? Is it an addiction? Ignorance?

Euphoria may result in happiness but this is temporary. Reason being is you have not absolute to maintain the world to your liking. Every good movie or party eventually does come to an end. The base of this happiness is creating temporary pleasant sensation. In the case of a movie it is looking at the story line and playing the concept of the story. In the case of food it is taste from the tongue. All these sensations arise to pass away. Also when the stimulus is not there it does not arise any more.
The best way to have lasting happiness if in different to the arising and passing away of sensations and achieving an unconditioned state where you do not need an external stimulus to create pleasantness.

Partying, singing, dancing, and drinking do produce a certain kind of happiness, but it is a happiness based on sensuality, and so it is a fairly limited kind of happiness. Sensual happiness is always at least unwholesome, meaning that in terms of karma it doesn't lead towards future happiness and can impede spiritual progress. Some kinds of sensual pleasure (like drinking, drug use, sexual misconduct, etc...) furthermore produce evil karma which will lead to suffering.
Buddhism teaches that people should totally avoid those things which produce evil karma, but permits actions which are merely unwholesome for laypeople, encouraging moderation, but always praising wholesome happiness and pleasure (e.g. the happiness of generosity, virtue, wisdom, meditation, etc...) as being superior. In otherwords, it's ok for Buddhists to attend parties (although they shouldn't drink or take drugs, and they probably shouldn't go if these are the main reason people are going) but one shouldn't base their happiness off of a social life by just partying. Happiness needs a firmer foundation than that.

The euphoria you describe (a big party with friends / dancing / singing / drinking) is a form of suffering experienced by samsaric mind. If we look very carefully deep into ourselves we can see how even within so-called pleasant experience there is a seed of unsatisfactoriness. There is always this anticipation of hangover, or feeling that we're missing even bigger fun, or timidity and up-tightness etc. This is due to an element of confusion inevitably present in a non-enlightened mind.
In Buddhism, happiness (sukha) is different. There are two kinds of happiness: worldly happiness and happiness of sugatas.
Worldly happiness is a quiet feeling of ease and comfort we experience when our existence is not burdened by troubles and emergencies. This is achieved by following common guidelines for good living, first and foremost the five precepts.
Happiness of sugatas is suchness (tathata) rooted in Final Knowledge, transcending all dualities such as desirable/undesirable. This is achieved by following preliminary guidelines for taming the mind, the special guidelines for gradually reducing the clinging, and the secret guidelines for attaining the view of spontaneously self-existing great natural perfection.

I have to say that it is like a feeling of deep joy inside. Coming from our heart. Almost like when one falls in love. but then we let that feeling close up again. The key is to have that feeling always. A feeling of love with everything always.Partying and such just clouds the mind and takes us farther away fro  this true hapiness. It is the wrong direction to go in.

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

From the Niramisa Sutta:

"There is, O monks, worldly joy (piti) there is unworldly joy, and there
  is a still greater unworldly joy. There is worldly happiness, (sukha) there
  is unworldly happiness, and there is a still greater unworldly
  happiness. There is worldly equanimity, there is unworldly equanimity,
  and there a still greater unworldly equanimity. There is worldly
  freedom, there is unworldly freedom, and there is a still greater
  unworldly freedom.
"Now, O monks, what is worldly joy? There are these five cords of
  sense desire: forms cognizable by the eye that are wished for and
  desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense-desire and
  tempting to lust. Sounds cognizable by the ear... odors cognizable by
  the nose... flavors cognizable by the tongue... tangibles cognizable
  by the body, wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing,
  associated with sense-desire and tempting to lust. It is the joy that
  arises dependent on these five cords of sense desire which is called
  'worldly joy.'
"Now what is unworldly joy? Quite secluded from sense desires,
  secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and
  abides in the first meditative absorption (jhana), which is accompanied by
  thought-conception and discursive thinking, and has joy and happiness
  born of seclusion. With the stilling of thought-conception and
  discursive thinking, he enters upon and abides in the second
  meditative absorption which has internal confidence and singleness of
  mind without thought conception and discursive thinking, and has joy
  and happiness born of concentration. This is called 'unworldly joy.'
"And what is the still greater unworldly joy? When a taint-free monk
  looks upon his mind that is freed of greed, freed of hatred, freed of
  delusion, then there arises joy. This called a 'still greater
  unworldly joy.'
"Now, O monks, what is worldly happiness? There are these five cords
  of sense desire: forms cognizable by the eye... sounds cognizable by
  the ear... odors cognizable by the nose... flavors cognizable by the
  tongue... tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for and
  desired, agreeable and endearing, associated with sense desire and
  alluring. It is the happiness and gladness that arises dependent on
  these five cords of sense desire which are called 'worldly happiness.'
"Now what is unworldly happiness? Quite secluded from sense desires,
  secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and
  abides in the first meditative absorption... With the stilling of
  thought-conception and discursive thinking, he enters upon and abides
  in the second meditative absorption... With the fading away of joy as
  well, he dwells in equanimity, mindfully and fully aware he feels
  happiness within, and enters upon and abides in the third meditative
  absorption of which the Noble Ones announce: 'He dwells in happiness
  who has equanimity and is mindful.' This is called 'unworldly
  happiness.'
"And what is the still greater unworldly happiness? When a taint-free
  monk looks upon his mind that is freed of greed, freed of hatred,
  freed of delusion, then there arises happiness. This is called a
  'still greater unworldly happiness.'
"Now, O monks, what is worldly equanimity? There are these five cords
  of sensual desire: forms cognizable by the eye... tangibles cognizable
  by the body that are wished for and desired, agreeable and endearing,
  associated with sense desire and alluring. It is the equanimity that
  arises with regard to these five cords of sense desire which is called
  'worldly equanimity.'
"Now, what is unworldy equanimity? With the abandoning of pleasure and
  pain, and with the previous disappearance of gladness and sadness, a
  monk enters upon and abides in the fourth meditative absorption, which
  has neither pain-nor-pleasure and has purity of mindfulness due to
  equanimity. This is called 'unworldly equanimity.'
"And what is the still greater unworldly equanimity? When a taint-free
  monk looks upon his mind that is freed of greed, freed of hatred and
  freed of delusion, then there arises equanimity. This is called a
  'still greater unworldly equanimity.'
"Now, O monks, what is worldly freedom? The freedom connected with the
  material. What is unworldly freedom? The freedom connected with the
  immaterial. And what is the still greater unworldly freedom? When a
  taint-free monk looks upon his mind that is freed of greed, freed of
  hatred, and freed of delusion, then there arises freedom."

Interesting question! I like it!
I feel it is not ignorance, quite the opposite in fact. If anything, you experience life more so -- your sensations and emotions are almost 10 fold compared to what they would be usually, except you are slightly better at not being overcome by them. For example, neuroscientists recently discovered a hormone released by our brains that gets stronger and stronger the more we meditate. In turn, this hormone opens up our pathways of being able to empathise more with other sentient beings, or watching a film, or listening to music, or general life experience. From my own experience, I find that when I am practising and also spending a lot of time with my teacher, I am so excited about life that I can't sleep. As my friend calls it, 'joy induced insomnia'. I wouldn't say it means everything is positive and great and happy, because like anyone's life, there is always an element of suffering or sadness. It just means I am able to deal with those things better, and it also means that my senses are heightened and I am able to tune in or pick up these subtle things much quicker and almost feel them myself, quite deeply. Sometimes sadness sits with me after a meditation and I'm not sure why, and by karmic coincidence, something will happen and it all falls into place and I totally understand it. That in itself, is what stems the happiness. When you realise that everything is connected and that there is so much more to explore with this. Especially when you begin to see and meet others who are somehow going through something very similar. That then boosts your happiness!
I'd say it's nothing like an epic party, it's more a whole never-ending burst of love. That keeps coming. And awe in absolutely everything.

Hi thanks for the answer, do you have more details (or the source) about the hormones linked to meditation that you mentioned?

Yep, this is a very long lecture given recently at the Mind and Life Institute: http://youtu.be/Tvuvw9uupH0


text:
Does teaching Buddhism work?
Why did the Buddha bother to teach? Why does anyone teach today? Is there evidence (a charged word) or scriptural support that it really does any good? I read here many things that accord with my experience, but it also seems to "multiply entities" and so we wind up with lots of words when perhaps fewer would be better. Perhaps it would be more effective to simply have places of teaching, and those who wish to know would go there. A friend was saying to me recently that describing advanced experiences or ideas to family or friends only makes them think that one is deranged, it does not "light the way" for them if they are not looking.

Background to my question: I am actually a teacher, of computer programming. I find that there are so many possibilities, ways of doing things, subtle distinctions, pitfalls and so on even in a practical subject like programming that I wonder if all I am doing is watching while they accumulate their own experiences, like how I self-taught back in the early 80s with early computers. If it is all self-teaching anyway, why stand up there and lecture? How much more so with spiritual progress!

It seems that you support constructivism, that is, the view that every learner constructs knowledge on their own. This is opposed to cognitivism, which saw the teacher as the source of some objective knowledge, which is then transferred to the student. It does indeed seem that constructivism better describes the reality of learning, but it doesn't mean that there is no room for teachers. It means that teachers must facilitate the student's own development. And you say that there should be some places of teaching, so you do already see that students won't figure everything out on their own.

How do we interest people in attending the school?

well... i dont know about you but im glad everyone who ever taught me something useful bothered to teach.   Just sayin.

@ANonimous: did a teacher ever rouse your interest when you did not have any to start with? That is really my question. Does teaching "bring them in", or just give them something to work with after they have already shown up unbidden? If not, then I must reconsider teaching.

@Avaloka, yeah, people have sparked my interest in new things unexpectedly plenty of times. According to the vinaya (if im not mistaken) its best to only teach those who come looking though. Generally i am private about my practice and dont answer live questions, so (of course) it depends a lot on the individual and that specific situation.

It's possible worth adding that there is the tradition of direct transmission as evoked by the flower sermon. This is an important sutra within Zen Buddhism stressing wordless insight and perhaps the ineffability of the teaching. In this the Buddha holds up a flower and only Mahakashyapa understands, smiles then laughs. From here

When at last the Buddha came to his follower Mahakasyapa, the disciple
  suddenly understood. He smiled and began to laugh. Buddha handed the
  lotus to Mahakasyapa and began to speak. “What can be said I have said
  to you,” smiled the Buddha, “and what cannot be said, I have given to
  Mahakashyapa."

It's not always the Buddha sitting in front of his disciples exorting then to be a bit more mindful.
But to address the question directly, even here (or especially here) the emphasis seems to be on the receptivity of the individual. It's the right word at the right time. I've heard it been compare to being struck by lightening. You got to be on the hill waiting in the thunderstorm and lightening might strike. You could be struck at home (i.e. not really looking for the Dharma) but you are far more likely to the struck if you are out looking and standing on that hill.
If someone isn't interested in the Dharma then they are unlikely to benefit from the teachings. But if someone is (they might have had an real feeling of dhukka for instance) then teaching will benefit them greatly.

One of the non-dual teachers on the retreat I attended recently said something like this about putting oneself in the right place to be "struck". But I am not allowed to drag my family and friends out into the storm... It is up to them : ) There is no "advertisement" or "general teaching" that will appeal. We rely on self-selection, and in my experience, that is rare.

@Avaloka the (non?)evangelical nature of Buddhism is interesting. I think as far as family and friends go just them seeing you and your engagement with Buddhist practice is enough really and people sometimes become interested on that basis (IMHO of course)

To use your own analogy, if you were trying to learn how to implement an OO design pattern in JavaScript, would it be more expedient for you to try and figure it out for yourself or to learn it from someone who had already mastered the concept?  Buddhism can be a very technical religion.  There are some problems that will arise (and meditation alone is chock full of them) that you just won't be able to get past without someone there to guide you along.  What's worse, sometimes you don't even know what questions you should even be asking!  You might be doing something totally wrong, but without a teacher there to point it out, you'd never be the wiser.  You likewise might master somethings, but not know where to turn your attention next.
I don't think the importance of a teacher can be overstated.  One of the qualities of the Buddha is that he is an anuttaro purisadammasarathi - an unsurpassed teacher of persons to be tamed!  That wouldn't be in the Buddhanussati Gatha if it wasn't important!

So it seems that "tutoring" (individual instruction) is necessary, but that general instruction might be much less useful. I guess I am facing the problem of lacking a tutor (when my Guru is not nearby). General instruction is less useful for me at this point, and I wonder how useful it is overall: Are people more advanced than they were in the Buddha's time? Are people in general making progress?

There are two side to this. The teaching works when there is a eager recipient ready to receive the Dhamma. (Ripened in perfections.) And the recipient practices the Dhamma to reap benefit.
Also Buddhism is a practical religion where you have to practice the 3 fold training to reach Nirvana. As you said the best is that you choose a meditation center and star the practice with lesser discussion.

I appreciate your straightforward answer. In my experience, being in the presence of realized people is helpful, and other things, including reading, is not as beneficial or even makes me feel lost. I have not seen my Guru in 10 years (she lives far away) and there is much I could learn by being around her, without even asking questions. If I am not such a person, what could I teach? Where I live now, I don't know of anyone such, that I could spend time with. "Transmission" and teaching are different...

As Buddha himself said (AN 3.22), there are three types of people:

Those who can figure it out themselves, without a teacher.
Those who can't get it, even after having received the teaching.
Those who can get it, but only with teacher's help.

It is for the sake of the third category, however small, that we teach.

I was thinking of a 4th class of people: those we wish to help, who are not yet interested. Only by presenting it to them can I tell which of the other three classes they fall in to. Or, I can wait. Is a greater proportion of people seeking the teaching now than formerly? Is Humanity at large "getting the message"? I ask because I am trying to decide what is best to do. Pushing the river usually does not work, so I am testing it.

If we shine, someone will notice :) This "shining" is being awesome mixed 50/50 with hints useful to them. That's my practice these days.

I like this description of your practice. I find it awkward that the people I wish to reach are far away, and my hints are probably too cryptic, or unwanted. I wonder if others experience the same thing?

Enlightenment is ultimate disenchantment.

Chogyam Trungpa? I thought he said, "For the ego, enlightenment is the ultimate and final disappointment" But I read that about 13 years ago.

For reference: the set of tasks that the student can do only with the teacher's help is called the zone of proximal development, and is an important concept in the currently mainstream sociocultural learning theory. This is the place where teaching becomes important for the student's progress, not only while teaching Buddhism, but while teaching anything.

Eyal Chowers? "The outcome of both paths is therefore the ultimate disenchantment with the world and the rejection of any religious significance that may be embedded in it." He did not go far enough.

@Avaloka since you are not a buddhist... I invite you to go to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ and search for "disenchantment" in sutras. Non-duality is an intermediate step. If you follow non-duality all the way through its implications, you get to disenchantment.

Thank you Andrei, I will look at the web site. I know it is an intermediate step. I look forward to disenchantment, it must be that much better than disappointment : )

It is called the "miracle of instruction" for a good reason; it is easy to impart information; it is much more difficult to actually teach:

‘And what is the miracle of instruction? Here, Kevaddha, a monk gives instruction as follows: “Consider in this way, don’t consider in that, direct your mind this way, not that way, give up that, gain this and persevere in it.” That, Kevaddha, is called the miracle of instruction.
‘Again, Kevaddha, a Tathāgata arises in the world, an Arahant, fully-enlightened Buddha, endowed with wisdom and conduct, Well-Farer, Knower of the worlds, incomparable Trainer of men to be tamed, Teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed. He, having realised it by his own super-knowledge, proclaims this world with its devas, māras and Brahmās, its princes and people. He preaches the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle, lovely in its ending, in the spirit and in the letter, and displays the fully-perfected and purified holy life. A disciple goes forth and practises the moralities (Sutta 2, verses 41 — 63). He guards the sense-doors and attains the four jhānas (Sutta 2, verses 64 — 82); he attains various insights (Sutta 2, verses 83-84); he realises the Four Noble Truths, the path and the cessation of the corruptions (Sutta 2, verses 85-97),236 and he knows: “...There is nothing further here.” That, Kevaddha, is called the miracle of instruction.
-- DN 11 (Walshe, Trans)

Still, I find this question baffling. Unless you think that Buddhists have gained nothing from the past 2500 years of following the Buddha's teachings, how could one think it not useful to teach?
Admittedly, some people (perhaps like yourself) are able to find the path to enlightenment themselves; a far greater number of people follow the wrong path simply because it agrees with their predisposition, mistaking it for the true path and mistaking a non-enlightened state for an enlightened one. Many such people, upon meeting and conversing with an enlightened Buddha or one of his enlightened disciples were able to correct their practice and attain the right path and final goal. That, in a nutshell, is what teaching is for.
At any rate, the Buddha himself seemed to think teaching was a good thing, and that discouraging those who have realized the truth from sharing it was a very bad thing:

‘In the same way, Lohicca, if anyone should say: “Suppose an ascetic or Brahmin were to discover some good doctrine and thought he ought not to declare it to anyone else, for what can one man do for another?” he would be a source of danger to those young men of good family who, following the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathāgata, attain to such excellent distinction as to realise the fruit of Stream-Entry, of Once-Returning, of Non-Returning, of Arahantship — and to all who ripen the seeds of a rebirth in the deva-world. Being a source of danger to them, he is uncompassionate, and his heart is grounded in hostility, and that constitutes wrong view, which leads to ... hell or an animal rebirth.
-- DN 12 (Walshe, Trans)

Thank you. I suppose my question was more to ask whether interest can be roused in people who are not predisposed, which I suppose would be "no" in any field. I was hoping to interest people that I know, but was advised that it could wind up driving them away from the teaching instead.

@Avaloka I would think the answer would be "yes" in any field... with the right impetus (in Buddhism, suffering is that impetus).

apparently the Truth of Suffering has not come to the attention of the people I am wishing to talk with. I attempted to Delete, but it was not allowed.

@yuttadhammo Let's not forget that even the Buddha himself didn't want to teach initially - "As I reflected thus [on how hard it would be to convey his realization to those overcome by passion], my mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma (MN 26)..." so I think Avaloka concern isn't without precedent.   Sadly, not everyone has a Brahma Sahampati to twist their arm!  :-)

What a beautiful and profound question. As a fellow teacher (Middle School) I share your wonder. Can we ever really learn from each other? Can we really ease another's path by sharing what we have learned so far?
There are some moments when I think I might have made a significant difference in another's life, but it was not solely my doing. I was fortunate enough to be the right person, at the right time, in the right mood, and with the right turn of phrase. That is all. Teachers live for such moments, but they are painfully rare and unpredictable. They can not be engineered.
The example of the Buddha shows that having a teacher is not essential for learning, and that it is the dedication of the seeker that matters most. In fact, I think there is no hope if this is not true, simply because if having a teacher were essential, then the first teacher would have already needed a teacher, ad absurdum.
As far as I can see, learning begins when the student is ready, and painful as it may be, would we really want it any other way?

Thank you Ron, for your lovely answer. The question "can we ever really learn from each other?" is basically the question that would unask my life at this point. Like Byron Katie's beautiful "Is it true?" Perhaps this is why it was so important to me. I see it as not simply conveying information, but more like insight, as in the answer referring to the Flower Sermon. My thought is: If I cannot represent the truth of the Flower Sermon to someone (note that I did not say explain it) so as to interest them, then I cannot see what I am really doing here. I want to invite people to "be ready". <3


text:
Has anybody tried meditating forehead to forehead? Or communicated with others via meditation?
I have been trying to hunt far and wide to see if anyone in the internet world has attempted meditating with someone else by connecting your foreheads together?
As discussed in a previous thread about the significance of touching foreheads, the sky-eye, upper dantian, sixth chakra, etc is a hugely powerful aspect of the body and referred to during prostrations and greetings.
I have only meditated with someone else like this once, in a temple and was certainly aware of the intense connection it could hold before I did it. However, I wasn't sure if anyone else has tried to do this, or does this often, and if so, why? What is your experience? I have also experienced this in dreams, as well as visualised doing this in meditation with someone else who has received it during their own meditation practice too (which I find pretty incredible!). I'd love to hear of any experiences where you have managed to connect with others in meditation too?

I giggled when I read this question.

@Xiao Long, as powerful as foreheads are, they are nothing compared to chests. When my guru hugged me once, my anahata was open all night like a giant pipe! :))

@yuttadhammo Me too, I literary planned to make the exact same comment, it is actually kind of funny when you picture it ;).

I think this question is irrelevant to this community. @yuttadhammo

To be quite frank, I don't really see much point in this from a Buddhist perspective. What is the purpose in doing this? Maybe you can have some interesting experiences with different sensations, and for all I know, visions or psychic powers, but in the end these things don't lead towards awakening.
At most, these things could lead to a kind of concentration being developed, but there are other ways of developing concentration that can be used as part of the path. For example, one could develop the jhanas and then use them as a basis for examination. Practicing in that way would probably lead to a lot more pleasure than meditating on the chakras with your foreheads together, and it can be used to gain awakening.

Thank you for your answer. The relation to Buddhist context is when you connect with the intention of Buddhist practice. For example, in Lucid Dreaming or Dream Yoga in the Tibetan tradition, it is possible to meet with other practitioners or your Lama(s) and practice the Dharma. Ideally, by connecting forehead to forehead, you can awaken aspects within yourself and within each other. I am not looking at this from a pleasure perspective, more to understand the potential of what could be.

@Xiao Even with the practice of Milam, or dream yoga, I would find it very strange that one would do anything touching the foreheads together. From my reading it seems that the use of the chakras in Milam only use the heart chakra or sometimes the throat chakra. I've never heard anything about the head. One thing to note is that in Tantric Buddhism, there are only 5 main chakras (center of head, throat, heart, navel, and root) so there is no main chakra near the forehead.

Because some who practice group meditation claim they're tapping into an invisible network between others in the space and at large. Maybe so. Or maybe they're delusional.

In Buddhist meditation you have to do it more in seclusion (Sunyagara, under a tree, etc). There may be other techniques outside Buddhism (at least Theravada) where you may have pratices like this, but this practice does not conform to orthodox way meditation is done.
There is the practice of group meditation in certain Centres and Traditions but an healthy distance is maintained between the participants. This can sometimes be beneficial if you are experiencing agitation as near by meditators can influence your peace.

Thank you for your answer. I understand that meditation is done more in seclusion, I have been a practicing Buddhist for the majority of my life so this exploration in connecting in this way was somewhat 'new' to me and introduced to me via a teacher at the Kagyu school. It was more an experiment to see what would happen, especially whilst reciting mantra.

Those things like the sky-eye, upper dantian, sixth chakra have more to with Qigong/Yoga than Buddhism if i'm not mistaken. Too be honest I've never seen/heard such a thing, and it's i'm not really sure it's connected with the Buddhist teachings in any way. It is practiced among cats however.

Thank you for your answer. You're right, these terms are mostly used within the Daoist context, as well as Tibetan. I was brought up as Dao Buddhist so it was a new concept for me to see when I saw my Lama greeting people in such a way. I was later taught about its significance and an old friend/teacher and I decided to see what could happen if we connected foreheads and recited mantra with positive intention and liberation of suffering. I became rather fascinated with the significance of foreheads connecting with other sentient beings and their behaviour, so wondered if anyone else had tried.

Yes, I experienced something I can only call some sort of dual or shared meditation with my now ex wife. We would sit for head to forehead and breath as we would in normal meditation and fall into these extremely long sessions of meditation where sense of time and surroundings disappeared. There was also a sensation we both described as being able see/feel the body of the other through our closed eyelids, almost like a outline or lines of faint light. There were also odd sensations where our hands or legs touched.
As we grew apart for a multitude of reasons, the occurrence faded and though we tried to reach the same state it became harder and harder. We did eventually separate, but we are still friends and close in a way, but neither of us has ever experienced something like this with another person.
Both of us seem to agree on having the fear we may never experience that with another. I am hoping that is not the case.

I have a sencation in my eyes and fourhead when i touched soneone else is fourhead. If they have alot of energy i noticed the feeling is mire intense. I only noticed it by accident long ago lol. I still do not know why that happens. I recently put my hand on someones head and then felt that sencation. Still i di not know why that is. Maybe im sencative to energys ? I can only suspect.

Yes indeed...few people will understand this... this should be done sitting or laying down foreheads touching with eyes closed... let the energy flow uninhibited between you & your partner ...don’t think, don’t anticipate... just feel ...remain open to give and to receive. This is a much deeper form of communication than human speech which is just a refined form of grunting.

BTW this can be done between any two receptive people... & it can also be done with other receptive creatures... I used to do it with a particular cat too.


text:
Is the force of Kamma like a God for Buddhists?
We know Buddhism doesn't have a creator God like most religions, however there is the law of Kamma, a law we cannot see and also we cannot prove, in other words, a law that requires faith and cannot be measured like gravity or electromagnetism.
Once a Theravada senior monk said that: "Buddhists should not say they don't believe in God, because they believe in the laws of nature and Kamma, it works like a God, a higher force, only not a creator God, not a being we pray to"
So, Is kamma "like" a god?

One of the most sensible definitions of karma I heard was that it is what it means literally. "karma" means action. The idea is it is not a judge or something that is "out there" measuring and rewards/punishes your deeds. It is the deed itself that has its effect inscribed in it.

Sure, there is a way that karma could be understood as being "like" a god. It is one of the forces that controls the whole of the universe; it has the world in its power:

kammunā vattati loko
The world goes according to karma
-- MN 98

In that sense, it could be understood as sharing a similarity with the concept of god. That's about as far as the similarity goes, though.
The law of karma isn't an entity, it is a regularity of interaction between moments of experience, that certain types of experience (ethically intentional ones) have a creative force, for either good or bad. It is important to remember that the word "karma" just means "action". So, in a way you are asking "Are actions like gods?" which of course is silly. Nonetheless, the law of karma does act a bit like a god would, only a lot more logically.

+1 on That's about as far as the similarity goes. God in other religions' sense is a being that can think for itself, and can actively do things. Karma is more "reactive"

Such a highly dualistic analogy is completely wrong, from non-theistic Mahayana/Vajrayana perspective. His points seem to be that:

Buddhists believe in karma, and this belief is similar to belief in God.
Karma, like God, is a mysterious force that evaluates our actions and gives us our due.
Person is separate from God; Person is separate from karma.

However, in reality:

Buddhists do not take karma on blind faith. Instead, they know that karma is real, even if somewhat abstract, phenomena that (unlike God!) can be observed, studied, predicted -- and therefore controlled.
Karma is not some kind of transcendental (otherwordly) force. It is a natural tendency of regular action to lead to certain results. Karma does not evaluate our actions against some book of moral rules. Instead, our actions themselves lead to certain results. Our actions IS karma.
It is not like the acting person is one thing, the world is another thing, and karma is third thing. Person is a result of past karma, manifestation of past karma. Karma is just how the world works, so karma is the world. The world and the person are two sides of the same stick.

So no, not at all. Karma is not like God, is not "higher force". Karma is us and we are karma.

Points 2 and 3 are very good and I agree, point 1 I think is very open for debate, we cannot measure or prove that Kamma exists, it does requires faith at least for normal people (not Buddha's or enlighted beings)

The first point may be a bit controversial, nonetheless good answer. I agree though it can't be proven that easy - maybe it can't. You said "observed" and "predicted", but I think it's very hard to actually predict when/how one's action might have influence on something/someone.

Also Karma is not an object of veneration. Even if we don't accept that Karma is more literally real than God (I'm not trying to start a fight; just being logically rigorous), its relation to morality is completely different from that of the Abrahmic God.

but not all gods are venerated, some are feared and some are quite neutral, think about all religions not only christians

Karma is to Buddhism as gravity is to physics: fundamental, inevitable, basic, impartial, all-pervading and so basic it's quite hard to explain. The function of gods in religion centres around intention. Karma, like gravity, is a principle of interaction that is utterly without intent. Nor is it the subject of veneration. Given that many gods are not all-pervasive, I don't think that karma has any qualities that are quintessentially godly.

Yes, but Karma is not "without intention", at least in Buddhism, Karma depends on intention!

Often intention plays a role in deciding if something is ethical/unethical, has good karmic results, or bad. For example, accidentally killing versus intentionally killing. Outwardly the may look the same.
If intention matters, then karma would need to be able to reason and know our thoughts. These are exactly the sort of things we attribute to god(s).
I think this is in part why karma was eventually personified by King Yama, the judge of the dead.
As other answers have already mentioned, there is an entirely naturalistic way to look at karma. In a way, naturalistic karma is a harsher judge-- killing is killing and has consequences, regardless to intentions.

I think it's a very common misunderstanding that karma is something that happens to (other) people as a result of actions (they) did, like some sort of embodying force of justice.  Alternately, I might think that things are happening to (me) because of what (I) did and now (I) am being somehow punished.  This is a false conception though.  Nobody deserves to suffer for what they have done and I am not being punished for past wrongs.  There is no judgement, any more than gravity judges the car the drives off the edge of a cliff.
It's not that karma is unobservable, it's just that this mind is easily distracted and I have an ongoing habit of missing the obvious.  Meditative practices are one means of working through the distractions and learning how to pay attention.  When I'm paying attention, nothing is especially mysterious.  When I'm not paying attention, I stub my toe and curse the man who built the table.

But Kamma cannot be scientificaly measured, it is unpredictable when compared to gravity for instance, so for normal people like us it does requires faith, you cannot prove it works... right?

@konrad01, I don't think it requires faith to observe karma, but I do think it requires faith to begin following the Buddha's eight-fold path in the first place.  From there, understanding may follow.  Karma is not something remarkable or supernatural and it's not something normal people can't understand.  You understand it all the time; the challenge is whether I was paying enough attention to realize it.

The point with Kamma and faith is that it cannot be scientificaly proved, of course as a Buddhist you will take it as something natural, you are used to the concept of kamma, however you cannot prove it, you believe in it based on the Buddha's teachings and the credibility Buddha has with you, but I cannot say Kamma is like gravity in the sense gravity can be measured, calculated in details and is 100% predictable.

If you act like a jerk, people won't like you. When people don't like you, they don't volunteer to help you. When no one helps you, you are more likely to fail. Therefore, if you act like a jerk, you are more likely to fail. How does this require a leap of faith?

@AndreiVolkov: My understanding is that a buddhist would believe that if somebody murdered a baby and hid the corpse without anybody ever finding out (happens all the time) and without that person being mentally burdened by it (rarer, but there are people like that) that still will have negative consequences, or am I misunderstanding this now?

@David, as I see it, not all of karma is causation, some of it is correlation. Instead of one causing another, the two events may have a common cause. Whatever factors that led the person to killing the baby do not disappear magically, right? If they are effective, they will lead to trouble. Killing the baby and getting in trouble have common cause in the past. So killing the baby correlates with trouble. I understand that not all Buddhists share my view though.

@AndreiVolkov: Well, they could dissapear. The baby is killed, because the person in question doesn't feel up to handling the responsibility. By murdering the baby the responsibility does dissapear again... not saying that's always the case, but it definitely can be the case... assuming there is no greater steering force.

@DavidMulder not sure if your last construct is plausible... Every time this person would look at a baby, or discuss anything baby-related, he would remember his crime. Do you think this will not affect his life in any way? It is rather foolish to assume that our karma can just disappear. But there is the canonical story of Angulimala getting redeemed of past karma. In his case, the factors were uprooted through his conversion to Buddhism. I say, this is how it works. Although, even in his case, I'm sure some of his karma followed him.

My work (karma or kamma) or my action is my God for self-realization.i.e., only through my action can I see my God.
This Buddhist philosophy is stated somewhat differently in Hindu philosophy:

You have the duty and right only to Karma, no special rights for the fruits of action, not even for the privileges.

If the phrase above is a quote, where is it from: what is it quoting?

@ChrisW: It is a quote from the Bhagavad Gita, the Divine saying in Holy book. Wording is mine.Sanskrit origin only is authentic, though English renderings can be varied. If you google "Karmanye Vadhikarastay" you get many commentaries as it is one among the principal messages in the Gita or Geetha.

Some modern scientists proposed that Bhagavat Gita was positioned by its authors as a supposed "clarification" of Astica (orthodox) position in response to challenges by Nasticas (incl. Buddhists), but what it really ended up being is a synthesis of the two. The polemical question the above quote addresses was "Does Enlightenment require cessation of karma (intentional action)?" And the authors' answer is: "You are still obliged to perform your social duties, but cessation of clinging to the fruits is what's required for Enlightenment". Makes sense?


text:
What impact has the Chinese Government had on Chinese Buddhism so far?
State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) and the Buddhist Association of China are in charge of regulating religion in China.
So far, what effect have they had on doctrine for Chinese (non-vajrayana) Buddhism?
It's already well known that the Chinese government is hostile to the Dalai Lama.
(Also, as a side note, for those skeptical of any government's ability to regulate belief and practice- some percent of American Zen's doctrine and practice can be traced to Meiji era government initiated reforms)

I've seen quite a few news reports that focus on the huge growth of Christianity in China so naively I would have expected that this would now have overtaken Buddhism. However this report states that

The growth of Christianity is impressive, but Buddhist growth is
  extraordinary, especially with the country's history of official
  ideology of atheism

The figures are

18% identify as Buddhist
15% identify as Atheist
3.2% identify as Christian

Considering the vigorous supression during the cultural revolution (all monasteries closed, lands confiscated) it's notable that Buddhism has remained a substantial religion within China. However the attitudes of the Chinese authorities does appear to have softened and Buddhist are seen as a source of societal good. The Chinese government is clearly still very capable of suppressing religious movements (e.g. Falun Gong) and cultures (Tibetan) it finds threatening. Fortunately Buddhism doesn't appear to currently be a focus for this suppression.
As a reference note: This is a summary of the section on Buddhism in China from An Introduction to Buddhism by Peter Harvey (pp 409 - 410 in my copy).

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


text:
Meditation Retreat in India
Are there any good places for meditation retreats in India ? ( Theravada/Vipassana ) Could someone share their personal experience ?

Is this Off topic / too specific?

@AndreiVolkov given that this question remained open I would say this one should too http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/2349/157 though TBH I though the Paris one should have been closed and I was surprised it wasn't. That probably doesn't help :-)

Agreed, closing this one would not be consistent with that other decision. Although it is not clear to me if both are appropriate...

I'm not hugely fond of this style of question, going to take it to a meta question.

A list of center can be found in:

https://www.dhamma.org/
http://www.buddhanet.net/

Also it is best not to discuss meditative experiences and many traditions forbid this as individual experiences differ from one person to another since the sum total of your Sankara (conditioning /fabrication) differs. When you discuss experience what happens if people crave for different experiences and your meditation becomes unsuccessful.


text:
Ordination and support from parents
If one intends to ordain, say in Thailand, and one lives in India - would it be right/moral to ask support from one's parents (since one is not yet ready/able to support oneself)?

If they support you then it is OK.  You should ask for support according to their faith and ability.
Normally supporters and family are the same words in pali.
It is listed in the Metta sutta as family "kulesu", often translated as donors.
However, one should live a modest life and ask for only what one needs.  Asking for sangha needs is much better.  It depends on your family's desire.
There could be a problem with receiving donations from your parents if you gave them money beforehand.  I am not sure of the exact details.
While I do not know the exact rule for this, I do remember asking about this with a monk who gave his parents money and then asked for a computer specifically saying, "Use the money I gave you.". The teacher (Sayadaw U Kovida, paauk) said this would be unallowable. (This transaction never went through, by the way)
To avoid a situation like this, if you do give your parents your money, you should say,
 "This is yours, use as you wish."
Or "Do not use this for me or to monks."
Then when you ask them for things, whatever they do, it is their money and donations are from their own doings.
It is actually legal for them or even a bank to have money for you as long as you do not use it.  This is how one ordains temporary in a vinaya tradition.  If you decide to stay full time, things can get complicated with bank accounts (if you are one who cares about vinaya). Some need to temporarily disrobe to handle their affairs.
According to ratapala sutta, he told his parents to throw the money in the river.

Yeah, It's not an immoral act to ask for help, especially your parents. You shouldn't become dependent though, but as long as you really need it, there shouldn't be any problem.

Aside of being not allowed to ask lay people for nearly all of the requisites, a monk (Bhikkhu) would be allowed to ask his "near" family (blood relatives) members without violating the rules. Some Sanghas and sects expand near family to the seven generations, which in Asia then mostly includes the whole paticular village one lives.
If one actually does (ask) or not, is another matter, since from a kammic view (e.g. accumulating certain debts) it has it's impact as well. Especially if not really familar with Dhamma it can cause lot of troubles.
It's maybe worthy to note that monks for the most, especially from a modern or western backround, asked or not usually can not aspect much support or help from family. One leaving home therfore should be clear that he will be most dependent on the "new" family, the ideal Sangha and those following them (sometimes "only" cultural).
Generally one is good advices not to hope or count on support one was used to gain once having left home.
The other extreme is merely reality in SEAsia, where sure 80% and more monks maintain their lifes mainly on the family. A normal situation that as side effect let people mostly think "if he needs really something, he will ask his family", especial "problematic" in regard of medicine, if being someone have left home actually.
There is also a kind of new wave (certain western monks are included): children of rich people, with full support and living like such... they are really annoying when going begging if like or call mommy.
So all in all, a matter one should think very carefully about.
would it be right/moral to ask support from one's parents
In short: "Right is given to do so, yes. From a moral point of view: really if even better do only in cases of real emergency."
(Neither is it good for once conscious nor does it shine bright in regard of the Sanghas-members. And althought generally allowed one is actually easy and fast in transgressing a heavy falt: corruption of families, Sanghadisesa 13. Something actually very common sadly.)
Nevertheless, one support one would need from ones parents anyhow: the acceptance that one may leave home.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]


text:
What do we know about the historic Padmasambhava?
I had heard Padmasambhava referred to as a semi-mythic figure. Some of his reputed activities would fit a mythic character. However to what extent is he also a historical figure. What do we know about the historic as opposed to mythic Padmasambhava and what if any historic sources do we have about him and his activities.

Wikipedia says, "nothing is known ... apart from him helping the construction of a temple at Samye at the behest of Trisong Detsen and shortly being chased out of Tibet."

The Tibetans think of Padmasambhava as the second most important person for their lineage.
http://www.dharmafellowship.org/biographies/historicalsaints/lord-padmasambhava.htm
Here is a sample from the link above - more is available for your reading or study

There is no doubt in the mind of every practitioner of Tibetan
  Buddhism that the second most unique and extraordinary exemplar of our
  whole lineage after Pramodavajra himself, was the powerful Lord
  Padmasambhava, the Wisdom Master who was chiefly instrumental in
  bringing the tradition to Tibet. Known as the Lotus Guru (padma-guru),
  the Saint Lama (guru Rinpoche) of Tibet, and as a "second Buddha",
  Padmasambhava1 shines with the incomparable brightness of the morning
  star in the world's firmament of stellar saints. Long before he was
  born, mystics and prophets were signaling his advent. During his life
  he drew the respect and veneration of kings and emperors and after his
  death the multitude made his memory into an imperishable icon of the
  Absolute.

The history offered is extensive so will let this quote be the introduction to a very long web page.