text:
What is the Buddhist perspective on child abuse?
Suppose a father is abusing his 3 year old child. As a consequence, the child is suffering. Who is the cause of the child's suffering?

The child is causing the child's suffering. Others may cause us pain, but only we can choose to suffer because of it. Out of delusion, we see no other choice but to suffer pain.

Why not ask, "What is the cause of the suffering?" For example, ignorance etc.

@Ryan Ideally try to post an answer as an answer, not as a comment (comments are not made for answers but are more for asking for clarifications or suggesting improvements to the question).

I always feel like my "answers" are too short and succinct to be accepted as actual answers, hence I post them as comments instead. I'll try to be thorough enough to be able to post real answers going forward

@Ryan What's wrong with a short, concise and pithy answer like your "comment" above? Do you mean the child causes the child's own suffering by "reacting" to the pain?  Pain X Reaction=suffering?

@uilium yes, reacting and/or resistance to pain is what causes the suffering. anyone that has sat for any period of time and faced and has overcome pain can see this to be true.

Because of many different answers, I still don't know which answer is correct. So what is the cause of the child's suffering? Does Buddhism teach there is only one cause or that there are many causes? From what I read, there's only one cause: craving within the one who is suffering. I'm I right or wrong on having such view?

The Pali scriptures (SN 12.17) state, from the perspective of ultimate truth, that the cause of suffering is 'ignorance' (rather than 'one-self' or 'another').
However, in the conventional scenario presented in the question, the father is causing the suffering because a 3 year old child does not have the cognitive capacity to engage the Buddhist path.
What is occurring to the child has no relationship to any (imaginary) past lives. I have never read this idea in the Pali suttas, where suffering (dukkha), let alone the suffering of helpless small children, is attributed to past lives.
The suffering is due to the evil within the mind of the father because the child cannot overcome the in-born ignorance in their mind that is causing the suffering.
Dhammapada 137 clearly states there are "innocent" victims of crime & AN 3.61 states what a person feels in not related to past kamma.

137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten
  states:
138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges,
  loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging
  fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in
  hell.

~~~

When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a
  contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those
  brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

I don't know if you intentionally chose "Who", since "What" seems a better question.   I'll take some license and rephrase the question (I hope you don't mind).

Q: What causes the child's suffering?
A: Many things.

For any event Y, X caused Y if removing X removes Y.  Note that Y can have many causes! For instance, some of the causes of the child's suffering include...

The abusive parent.
The child's reaction.
The child's nervous system.
The laws of physics.

And so on.  Remove any of them from the equation and the suffering ceases.
Thinking in terms of a single cause of suffering (or in terms of who suffers) reinforces the kind of "ownership" of action or "mental object" that serves as a focus for clinging, especially to self.
Now if you wish to relieve an abused child's suffering, then I recommend local law enforcement or a child protective agency.

Lord Buddha has rejected the following

That everything happens automatically, for no specific reason or
force.
That everything happens according to a will of a God or similar
That everything happens because of Karma

It is the 3rd that you seem to question here.
The Father is definitely choosing to do the action. He is responsible for his own actions, he cannot leave the responsibility to Karma or anything else. Buddha had Vinaya Nikaya with set of consequences for those who miss-behave.
How past Karma applied here is anyone's guess (except for Lord Buddha, who could see directly). It's extremely difficult to say, and the subject of "Karma Pala" (Karma Result) was once classified as "Achinthya" meaning infinite, which would be just too much for a normal mind to grasp. Note it's the result of the Karma which is hard to grasp, the Karma itself is well taught of. This could be because we accumulate an infinite amount of Karma.

Are you saying that the cause of the child's suffering is the father because the father is choosing to do the action?

In a simple answer to "Who" is, father yes. I am aware that you could analyse how Karma in action here and how suffering is in your own mind rather than action. But father is still responsible and will have the consequence. Karma shouldn't just be used to explain extreme examples, the fact that we see is also result of Karma.

You are saying the father is the cause of the child's suffering. I have updated my answer, to reflect my thoughts on it.

"Phagguna, if anyone were to give you a blow with the hand, or hit you with a clod of earth, or with a stick, or with a sword, even then you should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly. There, Phagguna, you should train yourself thus: 'Neither shall my mind be affected by this, nor shall I give vent to evil words; but I shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and I shall not give in to hatred.' This is how, Phagguna, you should train yourself." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html
"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html
"165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html

Indeed, the father's abuse should be stopped if it can be stopped, but we should remain unaffected by his actions. Why?
If we are trained like it is said above, the actions of the father should not give raise to aversion, hatred, evil words, hostility, anger, sadness, ill will and similar in our minds. Only a delusioned mind, permeated with ignorance, could be affected by the father's actions.
Indeed, the abuse of the father is wrong action done by the father. Why?
If the father would be trained like it is said above, his mind would never give raise to aversion, hatred, evil words, hostility, anger, sadness and similar. Only a delusioned mind, permeated with ignorance, could be affected in such a way to give raise to aversion, hatred, evil words, hostility, anger, sadness, ill will and similar. Thus, if the father knew this truth and practiced it, he would never abuse his child, his mind would be unaffected, ill will would never arise in him and the abuse stemming from ill will would never happen.
Indeed, the father should be helped if he can be helped. Why?
If we are trained like it is said above, we would feel an immense compassion towards all beings, especially towards the ones whose minds are permeated with ignorance who have not or cannot yet accept the truth like it is said above.
Thus, the abuse of the father is wrong action done by the father. The cause of abuse is in the father.
This is the truth of the cause of suffering of the father.
Indeed, the child's suffering should be stopped if it can be stopped, but we should remain unaffected if it can't be stopped. Why?
If we are trained like it is said above, the suffering of the child should not give raise to aversion, hatred, evil words, hostility, anger, sadness, ill will and similar in our minds. Only a delusioned mind, permeated with ignorance, could be affected by the child's suffering.
The suffering of the child is wrong action done by the child. Why?
If the child would be trained like it is said above, his mind would never give raise to aversion, hatred, evil words, hostility, anger, sadness and similar. Only a delusioned mind, permeated with ignorance, could be affected in such a way to give raise to aversion, hatred, evil words, hostility, anger, sadness, ill will and similar. Thus, if the child knew this truth and practiced it, he would never suffer, his mind would be unaffected, sadness, anger and fear would never arise in him.
You could argue: "Yes, but a 3 year old child cannot be trained like it is said above. He is too young to grasp the truth and liberate his mind from ignorance! Thus, the child's suffering is not wrong action done by the child!"
It is wrong action. Just as a lion cannot grasp that killing is wrong action, in the same way a 3 year old child cannot grasp that suffering is wrong action. Just as an adult cannot grasp that suffering is wrong action, in the same way a 3 year old child cannot grasp that suffering is wrong action.
Indeed, the child should be helped if he can be helped. Why?
If we are trained like it is said above, we would feel an immense compassion towards all beings, especially towards the ones whose minds are permeated with ignorance who have not or cannot yet accept the truth like it is said above.
Thus, the suffering of the child is wrong action done by the child. The cause of suffering is in the child.
This is the truth of the cause of suffering of the child.

What would a liberated Buddhist say is the cause of the child's suffering: the father, the child, both the father and the child or something (or someone) else?
I think the answer to the cause of suffering can only be one: the cause of suffering is always within the one who is suffering.
Consider a 3 year old child. His father is abusing him. As a consequence, the child is suffering. Remove the abuse and the child will stop to suffer. But, is the cause of suffering in the child really removed? No. Read the story about Mistress Vedehika http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html
When the abuse is removed from the child, the cause of suffering is still present within him, his mind is still ignorant.
Even if the child had a perfect father and perfect living conditions for the rest of his life, in such a way, that no aversion, hatred, evil words, hostility, anger, sadness, ill will and similar would arise in his mind until the moment of death, he would still not be liberated from suffering - he would still be reborn after death. Why? Because he still craves and clings, even though his life was perfect, without any suffering. He was clinging and craving. He was suffering.
Furthermore, if we take the view "the cause of suffering is sometimes within me and sometimes outside me", we would make the same mistake described in the story of mistress Vedehika. We would remove the cause outside us, but the true cause of suffering would still be within us. By taking such a wrong view "the cause of suffering is sometimes within me and sometimes outside me" is like putting your head in the sand. No liberation would come in taking such wrong view.
Indeed, if we had a chance to help the child or the father, we would not say to them: the cause of suffering is always within the one who is suffering. Why? Because they wouldn't understand it properly because of ignorance. The child would probably become even more hurt because the blame for his suffering would be put on him. The father's evil doing would probably continue because he would have one more excuse to cause suffering to others: "I'm not to blame, I'm not the cause of anybody's suffering". Thus, we would need to choose our words carefully and wisely. That was not the question. The question was, what's the cause of the child suffering, not what would be the best way to liberate the child from suffering.

UPDATE
Suppose we have this view regarding the child's cause of suffering: "The cause of the child's suffering is the father"
With such a view, liberation from suffering comes from the child's ability to have control of his surrounding environment. When he will develop perfect control of his surrounding environment, his suffering will cease. Now suppose 20 years later a bandit comes into his perfect environment and abuses him. As a consequence, he suffers. Has the child really attained liberation from suffering? No. Why? Because the child clings on his surrounding environment.
Furthermore, is his environment permanent or impermanent? Impermanent.
Can he have perfect control over his environment or can he not? He can not.
Is worldly existence satisfactory or unsatisfactory? Unsatisfactory.
How could this be the right path towards liberation? It can't and it isn't. Why?
Because the child is searching for the cause of suffering outside, not within. The child had wrong view "the cause of my suffering is outside me, in my environment, in beings that surround me, in actions these beings perform on me, in actions my environment performs on me, in actions my body performs on me, in actions bacterias and viruses perform on me, in actions bandits perform on me, in actions my father performs on me, ..."
With such wrong view, clinging and craving cannot be removed. With such wrong view, the Second, Third and Fourth noble truths cannot come to fruition:

Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering — in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects."
The origin of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is the craving that produces renewal of being accompanied by enjoyment and lust, and enjoying this and that; in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being.
Cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is remainderless fading and ceasing, giving up, relinquishing, letting go and rejecting, of that same craving.
The way leading to cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is simply the noble eightfold path, that is to say, right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html

Suppose we have this view regarding the child's cause of suffering: "The cause of the child's suffering is in his fathers's Karma"
With such a view, liberation from suffering comes from the child's ability to have control of his father's Karma.
Can we have full control over the Karma of others? No.
Can we have "some" control over the Karma of others? Yes. How? By having the ability to control the actions of others.
The ability to control the actions of others arises from the ability to have control of our surrounding environment. Again, liberation from suffering would come from our ability to have control of our surrounding environment.
Is the environment permanent or impermanent? Impermanent.
Can we have perfect control over our environment or can we not? We can not.
Is worldly existence satisfactory or unsatisfactory? Unsatisfactory.
How could this be the right path towards liberation? It can't and it isn't. Why?
Because we are searching for the cause of suffering outside, not within. Our view "The cause of the child's suffering is in his fathers's Karma" is wrong.
With such wrong view, clinging and craving cannot be removed. With such wrong view, the Second, Third and Fourth noble truths cannot come to fruition.

Suppose we have this view regarding the child's cause of suffering: "The cause of the child's suffering is in the child's Karma"
With such a view, liberation from suffering comes from the child's ability to have control of his Karma.
Can we have full control over our Karma? No.
Can we have "some" control over our Karma? Yes. How? By having the ability to control our actions.
The ability to control our actions arises from the ability to have control of our minds.
Can we have perfect control over our minds or can we not? Yes we can.
How could this be the right path towards liberation? It is. This is the right path to liberation. Why?
Because we are searching for the cause of suffering within. Our view "The cause of the child's suffering is in his Karma" is right.
With such right view, clinging and craving can be removed. With such right view, the Second noble truth will come to fruition. When the Second noble truth comes to fruition, the Fourth noble truth will lead us to meditation - a search for the cause of suffering within, not outside. Once we find the cause within, the Third noble truth will come to fruition.

And what is the cause by which stress comes into play? Craving is the cause by which stress comes into play."
And what is the result of stress? There are some cases in which a person overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, grieves, mourns, laments, beats his breast, & becomes bewildered. Or one overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, comes to search outside, 'Who knows a way or two to stop this pain?' I tell you, monks, that stress results either in bewilderment or in search. This is called the result of stress."
And what is the cessation of stress? From the cessation of craving is the cessation of stress"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html

Suppose we have this view regarding the child's cause of suffering: "The cause of the child's suffering is in the child's mind" or "The cause of the child's suffering is in the child" or "The cause of the child's suffering is within the child"
With such a view, liberation from suffering comes from the child's ability to have control of his mind.
With such a view, liberation from suffering comes as already described above.
Whenever we are searching for the cause of suffering within us, sooner or later the four noble truths will come to fruition. Whenever we are searching for the cause of suffering outside us, the four noble truths will never come fully to fruition.

Craving and clinging within the child is the cause of the child's stress. This is the only right view if we want to reach full liberation.
Conventional thinking about the cause of suffering goes like this:
When things are in order, I'm happy. When I'm happy, I will cling on things being in order.
When things are not in order, I'm not happy. When I'm not happy, I will crave for things coming into order.
Things are changing order, there is nothing I can do about it. Thus, sometimes I'll be happy, sometimes I'll be not happy.
Buddhist thinking about the cause of suffering goes like this:
Things are changing order, there is nothing I can do about it. When things are in order, I will not cling on things being in order.
When things are not in order, I will not crave for things coming into order.
Thus, I'll not be, which is beyond happiness or anything you've ever imagined.

The law of kamma does not apply to animals such as lions. The answer is also wrong in negating the view: "A 3 year old child cannot be trained like it is said above. He is too young to grasp the truth and liberate his mind from ignorance! Thus, the child's suffering is not wrong action done by the child!". The Pali suttas explain 'kamma is intention'. The child does not act with intention thus its suffering is not due to kamma. The suffering is solely due to ignorance. This is why in the secular world children, let alone 3 year olds, are not treated in courts of the law the same way as adults

I don't understand how we could ever be fully awake or conscious of past lives we have had. How can something we have no memory/awareness of and no way to gain memory/awareness of be the cause of karma in our lives now? That just seems so unfair. I'm not sure if I even believe in past lives, future lives - that's not the point of the Path, right? The Path is to live here and now, always.
Also, I understand that suffering always comes from inside so the child suffering from an abusive father's actions is "the cause of his or her own suffering." Logically, without judgment, I understand that. But what choice does the child have in their situation? They do not have the choice to be aware. The choice to follow the Path and love themselves and everyone else in loving kindness. I wish to God I had had the awareness when my mother was yelling at me that I was a pig and selfish and criticizing my body and just everything about me - I wish as a child I had been able to somehow discover Buddhism. But ultimately, what choice do you have when you're brought into the world in a hypnotic mind-state where all you do is observe and soak in everything around you? You soak up all the suffering your parents are going through. It doesn't make it your "fault". Your brain is literally just new and growing. I don't understand putting responsibility for change and growth on a child. I just don't. I gues what I'm saying is why ask that question in the first place - who or what is the cause of the child's suffering? Does it help the child to determine logically that the child is the cause of its own suffering? No, because they don't really have the wherewithal to have a choice in their situation - or the resources and tools to change anything, really.

I'll try to give some perspective. Memory/awareness is a fabrication. Not truth. There is no death and birth. Both are fabrications, not truths. Child has no choice to be aware/follow the Path, due to ignorance. Not having many choices and only observing and soaking is due to ignorance. It is none fault, because of no self. It is your/father's/mother's/etc. fault because of ignorance. Thus, child is only a fabrication. Responsibility is a fabrication. Everything is a fabrication.

Child can't determine logically his suffering, due to ignorance. Nobody is to blame for that - remember: no self. Even though everything/responsibility is a fabrication, a being needs to fabricate everything/responsibility/memory/awareness/etc. to be able to follow the Path, remove his ignorance and gain wisdom. That's why Buddha teaches how to live a responsible life, in peace and harmony (no violence, no stealing, no hatred, etc.).

Another way to answer this, is that there isn't really a child suffering in ultimate reality, and no father either...All there is is what we are truly experiencing in awareness, moment by moment. One really can't fit a child or father into moment by moment reality(ultimate reality). In ultimate reality no one is to blame, suffering is just suffering that is the effect of a previous cause. ...but that doesn't mean we throw conceptual reality out the window. All of the Pali Canon is conceptual after all. I doubt anyone could understand this without practicing continuous moment by moment mindfulness. That is why I stress that the answer to this question can be found eventually in the practice of mindfulness(along with virtue and concentration).

+1 for the sammuti sacca vs. paramattha sacca explanation.

This still does not answer the question: who or what is the cause of the child's suffering?

@beginner Sure, in conceptual reality you can answer this question but you won't get a truly deep answer unless you meditate. In ultimate reality, if you saw "the child" it would be just a formation. Reality doesn't say "this is a child", "this is a car", "this is suffering", "this is a bellybutton"...We say these things, they don't arise in ultimate reality ...they arise from language...they arise from our minds. Did reality name you? No, a mental process named you. Things like names, laws and Redwood Trees are concepts from conceptual reality.

Another user has already mentioned the different realities so i will make it short.
In paramattha sacca, i.e. ultimate reality, there exists no conventions or concepts, meaning that there is no one who suffers, there is no creator of kamma or receiver of kammic results.
In sammuti sacca, i.e. conventional reality there exists concepts such as people, entities, animals, a father, a child etc.
Here the father is the cause of his own suffering. He is creating his own suffering by giving rise to unwholesome intentions based on Greed and Delusion.
The child is the creator of its own suffering by reacting to the phenomena, i.e. the fathers abuse. There might arise physical and mental pain, anger, sadness and the like. If the child reacts to these mental and physical phenomena the child is taking ownership of them and identifying with them.
There is a difference between saying:
"Pain, anger or sadness has arisen" and "I am angry, sad or feeling pain".
First one is objective. There is observation and non-interaction with the object(s).
The second one is when one is having wrong view due to ignorance and thinking that there is a Self that is experiencing and the owner of these phenomena.

To sum up: The child is the cause for its own suffering. The father can only impinge on the child's senses. Its the identifying, taking ownership of and having aversion to the objects that creates the suffering.

Thanks for the answer. Are you saying that with the removing of ignorance, anger or sadness still arise, but the experiencer does not react to it? If yes, do you have a source for this?

Look up "Paticca sammupada, i.e. The doctrine of Dependent Origination": http://www.vipassana.com.my/ebooks/deporigin.pdf. Removing of ignorance takes place when one achieves wisdom which is insight knowledge into how reality functions, i.e. the 3 signs of existence.

@beginner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment#Path_and_Fruit suggests that "freedom from ignorance" implies "arahant". Freedom from anger or ill-will implies "anāgāmi" (non-returner). Freedom from identity view (saying 'I' am suffering) implies sotāpanna. So I think that anger has ceased to arise, before the removal of ignorance is complete.

In paramattha sacca, i.e. ultimate reality, there is suffering & a creator of kamma or a receiver of kammic results. SN 12.17 states "It's not the case, Kassapa, that stress does not exist. Stress does exist." Ignorance is the creator of suffering & the mind (citta) reaps the results of karma.

@Dhammadhatu. A Creator is a concept just as a man, woman, animal etc. In ultimate reality concepts do not exist. There exists only Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, Nibbana. This is my understanding of it.

We suffer as a result of past unwholesome karma(action). In the next life it is likely the abuser becomes the abused. That's Buddhism and the reason we don't like it is because we cling to our ideas given by society and we have no deep understanding of how things are what they are and nothing more. We don't like children to be abused more than we don't like adults to be abused when ultimately in Samsara we are all infants making our way.  We can gradually grow up(become enlightened) when  we constantly practice virtue, concentration and mindfulness. In order to practice mindfulness we first must learn a meditation technique(hopefully under a teacher's guidance but a teacher isn't absolutely necessary). Then it takes a little faith to practice the technique that may appear, at first glance to be pointless and repetitive. Then it takes effort to practice, it takes interest in the practice. One should ask themselves if they are interested in not suffering. When practicing, we little by little see directly what the Buddha was trying to teach us and this gives us faith or rather it gives us confidence in the Buddha's teachings we still can't understand.

So, the abusing father is not the cause of his child suffering?

The abusing father is the cause of his own suffering. You cannot harm another without first harming yourself.

Is the abusing father the cause of the child's suffering or is the abusing father not the cause of the child's suffering?

The abusing father is not the cause of suffering. The child is giving rise to suffering through its ignorance. The father is only causing pain.

Ok. If this is the correct answer I will mark it as answered. Write an answer so I can mark it.

So... an eye for an eye? (-1)

@Pragabhava no, not an eye for an eye. Nobody is punishing anyone. Do you believe this Isn't an answer in accord with the Buddha's teaching?

@beginner I think it's what the Buddha taught but some disagree. I don't understand why but I think it is just hard to   buy something so contrary to our parental instincts.

@Uuu IMO, thinking of Karma as the wheel of retribution is a simplification that (in some cases, I'm not speaking of you) leads to indifference and justification (hence the -1). As I've been taught, Karma is conditioning. If you are conditioned to violence, you'll generate and live in an environment of violence, suffer because of it, and reinforce your inclination to violent behavior (hence the wheel). Is the ignorance of the father that makes him suffering and violent; the child, as object of this violence, also suffers. Eradicating the father's ignorance eases the child's suffering.

@Uuu The Bardo Todol speaks loudly on the chances of a bad rebirth due to mistakes in the intermediate state that are more related to ignorance than Karma.

@Pragabhava What retribution? It's merely cause and effect that can also have "good" results. Nobody is to blame and nobody is punishing anyone. Karma is not conditioning, karma is our actions based on our conditioning.  Conditioning is probably a good translation for sankaras. The child suffers as a result of his own reaction to the pain. I suppose this all could be  my opinion too but are there any scriptures to corroborate this more radically different approach than I am used to?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I would like to amend this post with the following statement about Karma.
At the risk of coming across as a troll to the religious minded I feel I must state my opinion concerning the nature of Karma and its place in the above question.  I base my opinion upon my own direct personal experience of the Truth. That said, in the spirit of Sanatana Dharma, that there is no end to the different ways the Elephant of Truth can be experienced I do not claim anything more than a provisional voice where the sound of silence is concerned. Though I have grasped more than one leg of the Great Mystery I do not claim to be a sage. I am at best a Wayfarer. For me there is only one Truth that no truth can fully describe. Some things can only be said in Silence.
In my opinion to blame or burden all but the most exceptional of 3 year old children with any responsibility for anything he or she does is in itself a form of child abuse. I do not believe we carry the burden of our past nor the honor of our past with us from one incarnation to the next. In my opinion the notion that our past places our future is at best a dualistic notion that is not based in or on Reality. Rather, it is simply a means of maintaining the status quo of the World System. No small child is responsible in any way for his or her environment. For most people this is the only time in their life that they are in fact free from karmic entanglements. Mountains are mountains again. We start over from scratch with each turn of the wheel until we die to every conditioned sense of self we cling to while objectified. To make any limiting statement about the spirituality of any small child is a form of abuse. Physical death is a time out period. The acquired personality dies but our essence is eternal. Changeless. Fully Empty is about as good as any dualistic expression can come. Our Original Face never changes. A human being that has set off on the Journey to the Interior simply see's more and more of what has always been. I concur with the Buckminster Fuller saying, "The Gravity of Metaphysics is Love." And Rumi, "The Love Religion has no codes or doctrines, only Love." Or the Apostle John, "God is Love!" God being what we focus on the most.
With each new incarnation a new ego is developed. The task then becomes to overcome or see through this conditioned sense of self that the World of Maya does it's best to force upon us. At the end of the day We are "Transcendent Beings", each a permanent member of the Family of Existence. We transcend all relative terms, be they poetic or mathematic, every name is a map at best. A map of Idaho is not Idaho.
It is my opinion that the Buddha's fundamental teaching was for one to primarily learn the Truth for oneself not through teachings but from one's personal experience of the Great Transpersonal. That we each have been granted by existence a Free Charter of Inquiry. Each of us has the Great Gene of Transcendence but only we can open our inner eye to It. We are Godlike in potential. And yet even the Buddha after his Great Experience still spent the rest of his embodiment learning how to express or think of things from the Awakened Perspective. At first he did not think women had the Enlightenment Gene, but in time he came around. No one has a patent on the Truth. But some do have Copyrights. Thus, the Buddha's Great Charter of Free Inquiry. What made the personage of the Buddha so great in my opinion was his ability to grow in human understanding. Though his awakening was instantaneous it took time for him to come to a mature position where the true essence of women is concerned. One's cultural milieu is a powerful glue. Even he had to get up and walk away from the Great Aloneness to wholly enter into the Great All Oneness. Everything is in relationship with everything else for we are each parts of that which has no separate parts. Truth is more a State of Being than a state of mind. The mind will always lag behind Being, or what some people call Mind. I believe the word Being comes closer to the essence of Truth than Mind, but I am talking nuance here. The tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. There is no end to our embodied education. I believe the Buddha's greatest message was that until one knows for oneself what one truly is one doesn't really know anything. The Buddha had arrived at a Peace that Passeth Understanding. He knew enough to know he was not a separate God because he was truly Awake. A separate God is a Fake God. An asleep god. That to be Awake did not mean the end of dependent relationship, but the beginning of true cognitive understanding of what has always been. As Jesus stated, "I and the Father are One!". Everything is interconnected. "From the first Totality has been a Unitive One!. Hui-Neng. As do all the Great Sages from every place and every time proclaim. Truth is Universal. Therefore, it is my opinion that one does not have to quote the Buddha to support a Buddhist opinion. There are Buddha's among us. But we do not always recognize them for to truly know a Buddha one must be a Buddha. The Buddha chose one word to describe himself. He was Awake. We must be wholly Awake to wholly know a Buddha. Born again as it were. Childlike. Sleeping teachers, leave the Kids alone.
It is not the letter of the law, it is the spirit that matters most. Words do not contain the truth anymore than a map of Idaho contains Idaho. For this reason the Buddha spent the last 40+ years of his life talking about not talking. Until one directly experiences the Great Truth for oneself talk is cheap. Karma is a relative term for actions do not matter near as much as intentions. And yet even the best of intentions can have unintended consequences. So intend only Love. Though limited by their nature words can at times trigger a knowing that leadeth to True Understanding. Everything is potentially useful, even the old twisted and knotted tree can provide shade. So the Buddha talked much about that which cannot be realized through any simulacrum. Any representation falls short of that which is of itself so. Such a thing/not-thing are we where Truth is concerned. Absolute Truth is more a unitive one than a numerical one. Great Poetry speaks to the Great Heart within each of us. More a feel, than a think. If one wants to see the Moon one must take their eyes off a pointing finger and simply look at the Moon for oneself. Or as Jesus would say, "Look with the Third Eye". Look with the nondual eye, the inner eye of being.
Reality is not a state of mind nearly so much as it is a state of Being. Grace listeth where it willeth but rarely on those not looking for it with their heart. With their inner being. With at least the shadow of their True Being. One cannot defeat or cancel out any good or bad karma through any purist ascetic practice. There are no lines of demarcation in Nature, rather, there are merely areas of confluence. Nothing is separate from the Whole. All anyone can do is decide that the most important thing to know is the Truth. All commandments reduce down to one categorical imperative, love. The love of the Truth. Whatever the Truth is. One must be willing to give up anything and everything to know anything with true certainty. What the heck is really going on? I am going to sit here until I know! The Buddha was a Lion of Being. As are all the sages of the perennial philosophy.
The above Question is a Koan of sorts. An indirect question with no direct answer. Let go of dualistic thinking, two ends of a string appear to be separate until one sees the underlying unity of a whole string. Awaken from the Fall into Dualistic thinking. Yin and Yang are not opposites. Yin and Yang are opposite non-opposites for one contains the seed of the other. Day is relatively meaningless without night. To know a Buddha one must become a Buddha. Like knows like. As above so below. Samsara is Nirvana. Silence must be heard. The action of the Sage is non-action. Wu Wei. Action that is not driven by external circumstance alone. Action that is driven by context as well as content. Awakened Action. The Third Eye Perspective.
Even in a relative world there is no excuse for Child Abuse. It is one's duty to take responsibility for one's actions. The young child is just reacting. The responsibility of the Adult subsumes any reaction the child might have. But, as the child grows up, he or she must at some point begin to take responsibility for their negatively reactive actions if they are to ever get past their victimization. We are just spinning the Wheel of Karma to continue into adulthood while stuck in a reactive mode. Increased Awareness is the ticket off the Karma train. Otherwise we just keep playing the Game of the Victim. A game that many times turns into the Solipsistic Game of I Am God. The only thing or person that matters is me. I am not only me, but I am everyone else as well. I can do whatever I please. I am all that matters. I can abuse children, and others in a less dominant position than I am.
To that I say, "No one is above the Law!".
Butcho

This seems to be a general description of the overhead teaching. Please address the question, which is: "What is the Buddhist perspective on child abuse?".

In a relative sense, it is obvious that the father is the cause of the child's immediate suffering.  That is plain to see.  If the father was not abusing the child, then at least this one suffering would not exist.
On a deeper level, however, all suffering is caused by karma.  That is one of the four noble truths.  For the father, his karma has ripened in a negative way such that it bears the fruit of abuse.  His karma also has likely placed him in an environment to lead to such a situation.  The father's suffering in this situation is thus caused by his own karma.
For the child, his/her karma has ripened in such a way that he/she is in a relationship that has fostered abuse against him/her even if it is not the child's direct immediate responsibility.  It is the law of cause and effect - the child's suffering was the result of ripened karma.  The child was born into a specific circumstance and so on, and so forth.
This does not mean that the child bears guilt for the situation at all.  We, especially Westerners, develop attachment to the victim in a situation and produce a dualistic mindset of perpetrator vs. victim.  On a relative level this is important - the father should be punished under the law.  However, according to Buddhism, we develop equanimity for all.  We feel equal compassion for both the child and father as we see with deeper wisdom that the karmic fruits of both parties led (and will lead) to their suffering.  But each person bears their own karma - each person bears their own suffering as a result of their karma and the ignorance in their mind.
To contrast, I recently read an account of two Tibetan nuns who were imprisoned, tortured, and raped for many years by their Chinese oppressors after the 1959 occupation of Tibet by China.  Instead of choosing suffering, however, these women viewed what was happening as the result of karma and thus were able to find peace in the situation in that the karma was being resolved - it would not linger any longer after the events were over.
Horrific and horrible as a situation may be, a mind directed towards enlightenment can view any situation and opt to avoid suffering and thus end the negative karma.  We can also choose not to act on negative karma (i.e. in the case of the father in the abuse) and avoid it as well.  It is not fatalism to hold such a view of karma - each decision is indeed our own responsibility moment to moment.  That said, if we are not brought out of ignorance, we may never see it as such and thus cycles of abuse can persist across generations of families.  Perhaps the father was abused when a child - you can see how things get complicated quickly.
Of course, it would be wrong to simply say, "Well, too bad, that was the karma."  That is fatalistic and incorrect and lacking compassion and love.  However, once one has received wisdom and had some level of realization, you can see how any one being's suffering, be it human, animal, or otherwise, is the result of their own karma and the subsequent results from karmic causes.  It is the cause and effect that has persisted indefinitely backward in time and stopping one's own negative karma is indeed a big part of enlightenment.

Hi Mishtook, correct, if you read further down you would see I agree with you: "Horrific and horrible as a situation may be, a mind directed towards enlightenment can view any situation and opt to avoid suffering and thus end the negative karma. We can also choose not to act on negative karma (i.e. in the case of the father in the abuse) and avoid it as well. It is not fatalism to hold such a view of karma - each decision is indeed our own responsibility moment to moment...."

The child is the cause of his own suffering in this lifetime. The Father is the perpetrator of the suffering inflicted on the child in this lifetime. By the laws of karma, the child suffers from their own actions of the past. The Father will suffer too as a result of the action he has taken against the child in this lifetime, when the soul within his human vehicle reincarnates again in a future lifetime, be it that he chooses ignorance for the remainder of this lifetime.
The same way that the child was born into this lifetime carrying the karma that caused his/her suffering from this lifetime. The child is living the consequence of his own actions of the past and therefore is the cause of his own suffering. The Father is the soul contact who is teaching the child his karmic lesson, and the person who inflicted the suffering, but the Father is not the actual cause of the suffering, by the laws of karma.
People can't grasp it because they are not viewing it in spiritual terms of the soul essence reincarnating into another human vehicle. People view it as a child being hurt and abused, an innocent child in this lifetime, but they neglect to acknowledge that this child's soul may have lived a life as a serial killer in a past and they are now having their own karmic debt repayed. Or what if in a past life the child was the Father's, Father and the Father was abused by the child in that lifetime, and this lifetime the child is carrying the karma from those actions that he/she now must repay, by the laws of karma. Everything is energy, what you give out must come back.
Every action has a consequence, you reap what you sow. If we are all taught to look within, as a natural way of life, we can heal and release some of this karma we all carry and heal the ancestral lines of our genetic dna. If we look within we can access our akashic records and learn what our karma is about, understand our life lessons, learn them and stop them from reoccuring. Of course in order for this to happen the Parent must first become aware before they become a Parent, and then raise the child in the same fashion so that the child has a chance to also be aware, and release attachments to emotions and the past.
The karma can be minimized but the lessons still need to be learned to end the repeating and to get out of the karmic wheel of reincarnation. But the suffering must still exist for people to grow and evolve. If life was always great why would we need to seek out our higher selves, why would we have a need to no longer be ignorant if their was never suffering or lessons to be learned we would cease existence. But, there are better ways of going about this than by staying ignorant. Everytime a harmful action is taken by someone, someone or something must then return that same action to the one who first created the harm.
And then that something or someone must also have someone or something return that energy back to them, and so the karmic wheel of reincarnation goes around and around. Until we all heal ourselves and others, learn to love each other unconditionally and accept that spiritually we are all of the same energetic consciousness, learn forgiveness, patience, non-judgment and selflessness, then the wheel will keep going.
That's nature and with nature comes karma. Heal your past karma and that of your ancestry, live in mindfulness, look within and connect to your higher self, create a balance of giving and receiving, love and treat everyone as equal, and live and act in kindness and honesty and you will only create good karma.

I negatively scored this post because the following ideas have not been supported with reference to any teachings of the Buddha: (i) By the laws of karma, the child suffers from their own actions of the past; (ii)  the soul within his human vehicle reincarnates; (iii) the child was born into this lifetime carrying the karma that caused his/her suffering from this lifetime; (iv) Father is the soul contact who is teaching the child his karmic lesson; (v) this child's soul may have lived a life as a serial killer in a past and they are now having their own karmic debt repayed; etc, etc, etc


text:
Wisdom Devoid of Compassion
Some schools of Buddhism focus on the cultivation of wisdom/understanding as a way to reduce suffering in this lifetime and to move towards Nirvana. Other schools of Buddhism focus on cultivation of compassion as a means towards these same ends.
I've occasionally heard and read statements to the effect that developing wisdom without compassion can be risky, dangerous, cold, cruel, etc.
My question is, can true wisdom ever be devoid of compassion? Or would true wisdom by it's nature necessarily contain compassion? In other words, is the risk of developing a cold, cruel wisdom a real possibility?

Wouldn't you say the very essence of wisdom is that it's marked by compassion?  Wisdom without compassion is like having water without wetness.

I read this bio of an European monk in Sri Lanka who IIRC came to be a monk shortly after WW2 and was declared a Sakadagami or better by many. The biographer recounts he gave off a very strong presence of wisdom about things, calmness, learning and solidity, but he didn't really bother to teach or associate with other monks or lay people. In the monk's own words, he didn't ever practice metta - he had tried it a few times and didn't enjoy  it. So wisdom yes, but maybe not perfect wisdom. I'll link to it when I remember the name. When Jhanas come easy, and one wants nothing, one can go inwards.

@Buddho, thank you for your thoughts. I wouldn't agree though that an advanced practitioner who chose not to teach or associate with others or practice metta necessarily lacked compassion. I believe there are scriptures advocating solitude in some cases. And if this monk was a sakadagami and had only eradicated the first three fetters, he might have foregone metta practice to avoid lust. Not sure. But I don't think that necessarily implies a lack of compassion.

Similar Question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9360/why-does-insight-lead-to-to-compassion

Yes, similar but a bit different too as one is "How does A lead to B?" and the other is "Is it possible for A to exist without B?" Sort of. But crossovers in the answers for sure. Thanks. :)

@Robin111 Even Arahats slipped up from time to time according to sutras. I'm not sure whether they lacked "true wisdom" but none other than the Buddha had perfected compassion it appears.

Ananda already knew that the Tathagata, the World Honored One, had admonished Subhuti and great Kashyapa for being Arhats whose hearts were not fair and equal, and he regarded with respect the Tathagata’s instructions on impartiality, to save everyone from doubt and slander. 1:132

It depends on what you mean by wisdom. By wisdom, if you mean intelligence as well, it can be dangerous and cruel. ex: coming up with more effective ways to invade countries, deceive people to make more profit etc.
But wisdom from a Buddhist perspective can be seen as two fold.

Worldly wisdom: Wisdom that helps you live a successful family life, be an ideal husband, wife, householder or worker; wisdom that helps you improve a good business; wisdom that leads you to a happy destination, next life. etc. Singalovada Sutta has many such examples.
Wisdom that leads to Nibbana.
Basically this means the understanding of the four noble truths.

can true wisdom ever be devoid of compassion?

Sure! Wisdom need not be associated with compassion.
Ex: take each of the 16 Vipassana Nanas. Those mind states have nothing to do with compassion. Some of them are associated with fear towards Samsara. Wisdom can also come as disappointment towards sensual pleasures. Read the story of Upatissa & Kolitha who later became the chief disciples of the Buddha.
Even the four stages of enlightenment don't have compassion as a quality.
To reach enlightenment, one needs to cultivate the Five Spiritual Faculties:

Faith
Vigor
Mindfulness
Concentration
Wisdom

Balancing of these five faculties is more important to the progression in the path:

For one who is strong in faith and weak in wisdom places his
  confidence foolishly in an unworthy object. One strong in wisdom and
  weak in faith errs on the side of cunning and is as hard to cure as a
  sickness caused by medicine. But with the balancing of the two, faith
  and wisdom, a man has confidence only in a deserving object.

But this doesn't imply compassion(Karuna) and kindness(Metta) are unimportant. They have many useful benefits and they help us to stay away from hells by subduing our cruelty and hatred. That is very conducive to attaining Nibbana. Realising that is wisdom.
When a being attains or passes the state of Anagami, he removes aversion completely. Then there's no obstacle in his mind for compassion and kindness to arise, when he interacts with people. That's why they are naturally inclined to help other beings attain enlightenment. That is the reason why we even have Buddhism today. If the Buddha did not have any compassion towards the worldlings, he wouldn't have preached the Dhamma just because the Maha Brahma invited. Compassion and wisdom can work in tandem. Ex: Maha Karuna Samapatti Nana of the Buddha. But compassion is not a requirement for wisdom to be present.

This is really good. Thank you Sankha. Lots here to think about. Thank you for links as well.

Welcome, Robin!

I cannot agree that there can be wisdom without compassion any more than one side of a mountain can be high while the other side is low. To be Realized is to be At One. There is no more this or that, so whatever one is, it is all, total, cannot be added to or detracted from. If there is total wisdom, there is total compassion, total everything. The mountain is either high, or it is not high. This is Nonduality.

I think you are referring to a Mahayana teaching. This answer is given from a Theravada perspective. We analyse mind as a moment to moment causes and effect process. Not as a soul. So the analogies you have given don't fit well.

I wouldn't say cruel, but I certainly would say cold.
The path to enilghtenment is divided in 4 stages. Before reaching each stage there is a progression of the insight that is similar in structure in all of the stages, and culminates with the attainement of the next stage. A simplified description of this progression of insight is that it is divided in the knowledge of impermanence, followed by the knowledge of unsatisfactoriness, followed by the knowledge of no self. When this culminates, the next enlightenment stage is attained.
Now, during the period where you are at the knowledge of unsatisfactoriness, you feel a lot of negative emotions. Having known impermanence before this, you now feel everything around you, and inside you, is ending. This causes you enormous turmoil. This is where the concentration meditation and/or the compassion meditation are very helpful: to ease the suffering and to not allow this negativity to be destructive to you and to others.
The advanced meditators that are going trough this period again, many times feel subjectively that their negativity is not strong. And in fact it isn't. But what they say is perceived to be extremely cold and sometimes, yes, cruel. But this is because neither party is fully aware of the real situation. That's why I say it's not cruel, because it is not perceived correctly by those who hear it, nor it is spoken correctly by the meditator. But it can be perceived as cruelty, when in fact it's just coldness.
When the whole path reaches its end, this coldness is no longer there. There are some teachers who are somewhat cruel to a few of their disciples, but the fully enlightened teachers usually do this for the benefit of their students who are inclined to be instructed with strong words, or have a complicated karma to be resolved. But for a fully enlightened teacher there isn't a single drop of cruelty in their hearts. You have to be on the look out, though, for fake teachers who are genuinely cruel. The mind of the totaly enlightened teacher, while not having an intrinsic quality of compassion, inclines to compassion almost automatically because there is no negativity to be entertained by their minds. They feel compassion as naturally as we breathe.
For more about this look into Mahasi Sayadaw "The Progress of Insight".

You can often find suttas talking about the unenlightened as silly, and making unflattering comparisons. This doesn't of course make the Buddha cold hearted, he speaks from a place of great wisdom to an audience of monks, usually. However a lay person very attached to his self, and materialism may find it objectionable at first. Hardly anybody likes to be told their entire life is a mistake, and will likely take offence.

Indeed. The Buddha's wisdom, I believe, was deep enough that he could say those things with the correct intention and having the correct impact. But the meditators who are not enlightened, who going trough the periods of the knowledge of unsatisfactoriness and who practice very little jhana, are somewhat confused and are not able to see clearly how their speech can be perceived as cruel, even though this perception is (half) flawed. This is not uncommon among "dry vipassana" meditators who are not enlightened yet.

Also see Pilinda Sutta where monks took offense at some words that were not meant to be provocative.

My question is, can true wisdom ever be devoid of compassion?

No

Or would true wisdom by it's nature necessarily contain compassion?

Yes

In other words, is the risk of developing a cold, cruel wisdom a real possibility?

Yes but within Early Buddhism there is less of a chance since the very first training--which comes before the training in wisdom--includes loving-kindness meditation, as well as compassion, and mutual joy.
--
In Buddhism, Wisdom is seeing the Three Characteristics, seeing that our reality is impermanent and interconnected--not being confused into thinking that anything really exists on its own.
In my own experience, knowing this does not necessitate compassion, but it certain makes compassion almost automatic.
It is unusual to be wise (read: to see the interconnected non-self nature) about something and not compassionate as well. Usually it is because when one has wisdom
To explicate the word "compassion" further, in Buddhism, there are four of these very wise emotions, the Four Brahmaviharas: loving-kindness, compassion, mutual joy, equanimity.
These four qualities are interrelated with wisdom--especially the latter.
When someone says "compassion" they are usually talking about the Four Brahmaviharas.
One should read about or do these meditations to find out how closely tied together they are with wisdom.
Nonetheless, the two are not always synchronous and there do exist states of mind during the Stages of Insight where the one's wisdom and ability to see the Three Characteristics is high but one's compassion for oneself and others not so easily attained.
Basically, compassion/the Brahmaviharas often lend to greater wisdom, relative and absolute, but in my experience, wisdom only occasionally leads to compassion--especially because wisdom is missing the element of calm and peace.
It may also answer your question to think about The Five Faculties (wisdom, faith, energy, concentration, mindfulness). After learning what they are and having an idea how they inter-relate to each other it would be worth noting the following: no single factor is in its true form unless supported by the other. They are one cohesive organism... every organ is strengthened by the others. These five factors are recommended as evaluative gradients to be mindful of to enter into concentration.
The wisdom component has its opposite complement: faith. This is similar in energy to compassion in its unconditional love, acceptance, and understanding.
Thus, contemplate about those 5 Faculties. Instead of just Wisdom and Compassion, there may be more fruit of thinking of Wisdom, Faith, Concentration, Energy, and Mindfulness and how they power each other up and may even be Ultimately the same thing.
Also, another perspective:
Dualism is the modality through which our thinking mind operates and is able to master the world--but it is also the very trap that sets us apart from Awakening. That previous sentence is a very trite sentence in Buddhism but it is valid and true: sometimes we can use our distinction-creating mind where it is not correct. At the Ultimate level Compassion and Wisdom are the same thing. Knowing is Loving, Loving is Knowing.

Thank you. Could you you expand the last few words ("five faculties") into a sentence or two, to explain how they relate to the question? Is your point that "compassion" is mentioned nowhere e.g. on this page?

To me, the idea that wisdom can be separate from compassion points to separation in general. If you see yourself as separate... you are. As this Answer says, "Dualism ... sets us apart from Awakening."

To liberate from suffering, both wisdom and compassion are needed.
If you focus on the cultivation of wisdom/understanding, compassion will come with true wisdom/understanding. If you focus on the cultivation of compassion, true wisdom/understanding will come with cultivation of compassion, and true compassion will come with true wisdom/understanding.
True wisdom, the one that leads to the cessation of suffering, cannot be devoid of compassion. True compassion, the one that leads to the cessation of suffering, cannot be devoid of wisdom.
Wisdom without compassion is knowing without doing.
Compassion without wisdom is doing without knowing. Doing without knowing is doing because "it feels right". Doing because "it feels right" can lead to wrong doing.

Quote by Victor Weisskopf: "Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; knowledge without compassion is inhuman."

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Alternatives to sitting meditation?
I'm not exactly a Buddhist, just a meditator.
However, I was wondering if there are alternatives to just sitting and watching the breath? Especially, are there things I can practice throughout the day to accomplish the same effect?
The fact is I, and many other people, will not have time to meditate consistently and see its benefits. I appreciate your responses.

the path to awakening is not limited to any one posture - "when walking, he knows 'I am walking'; when standing, he knows 'I am standing'; when sitting, he knows 'I am sitting', when lying down, he knows 'I am lying down';

The Buddha taught many forms of mindfulness and meditation.  I encourage you to check out the Satipatthana Sutta and Ven. Analayo's absolutely indispensable commentary on it.  Teachers like Goenka are also worth a look.  That being said, nothing can replace seated meditation; there is nothing available that has the same effect on consciousness.  You simply cannot calm and slow the mind to the same degree with any other practice.  Concentration is necessarily diffused when mindfulness is carried into activity.  With that limitation, mindfulness can only take you so far.
All teachings on mindfulness culminate in seated meditation.  In fact, awareness of the breath is one of the deepest mindfulness practices available.  While other mindfulness practices are a great supplement to your time on the cushion, they cannot replace it.

Well, you can apply a meditative mind to anything but in my experience, sitting meditation gives you the most opportunity to go deep.
For instance, there's walking meditation, Tai Chi, Yoga (including its more dynamic variants), eating meditations, and yes, even driving meditation.
Mindfulness can be applied to anything.

There are some good answers in this thread already. What I would like to emphazize is "Walking meditation". This type of meditation is very beneficial and its a great vehicle to carry over your sitting practice into daily life.
By doing a "moving" meditation it will also become easier for you to remain mindful throughout your day while doing daily activities such as taking a shower, brushing your teeth, doing the dishes.
Here are 2 videos on walking meditation by Ven. Yuttadhammo:

How To Meditate III - Walking Meditation
Ask A Monk: Why Walking Meditation Comes First

Also here is an article on "The Benefits of Walking Meditation" by Sayadaw U Silananda.

You could do walking meditation or you could just meditate while doing something (a sport, painting, cooking, washing dishes, doing the laundry, etc.).
If you are really busy, there is one more meditation that you can do:
If you don't have time to meditate consistently, then make a habit of going to bed 10 minutes earlier. Prepare as if you would go normally to sleep. Lay in your bed. Lay on your back, legs a little bit separated, hands on your sides, some 10-15 cm from your body, fists opened, palms on your bed, fingers spread. In this position you won't fall asleep immediately because it's not a comfortable position to fall asleep.
Once you are in position, empty your mind and meditate for 5-10 minutes (if you fall asleep before 5-10 minutes, there's nothing wrong with it, just go with it). Then turn in your favorite position and fall asleep as you normally would.
Repeat the above for a few days. Then, do the same, but don't change position to your favorite position. Just lay on your back and meditate until you fall asleep.
The later you fall asleep the better as your meditation session will be longer. Don't worry, you won't feel sleepy when you wake up because your mind will rest during meditation.
Meditate as described for as many days, months as you wish. If you wake up during the night and can't sleep, meditate as described. If you take a nap during the day, meditate as described. Also, try to meditate a few minutes immediately after you wake up. Just lay in your bed and feel your mind relaxed and empty. Enjoy.
While doing this kind of meditation, before you fall asleep or immediately after you wake up, you will notice many unusual sensations arising in your body. You could hear things, see colors, feel vibrations, have lucid dreams, fly, travel to other dimensions. If it happens, don't worry, don't intellectualize, relax and enjoy the experience.
Once you get comfortable meditating as described, you will realize that there is something in you that is yet unknown. The unusual experiences will confirm you the existence of this yet unknown "you" or "something". This will hopefully motivate you into exploring this yet unknown "you" and you will move to sitting meditation spontaneously.

One of my teachers recommended the following:
Stay "inside" your body. Do not get so carried away as to lose yourself in thoughts. Especially among people, do not "fly away" to see yourself from their perspective. Stay in your body.
Learn to be comfortable. Do not sit or stand in awkward poses. When we are busy or stressed we tend to focus on the issue and put the body in an uncomfortable position. Get used to be comfortable. As a nice side-effect, when you are physically comfortable internally, you look more graceful on the outside too. Stretch a lot. Keep the good balance of weight when on your feet.
Do not suppress bodily urges to the point of getting uncomfortable. If you need to use restroom, do not hold it until you can't wait. If you feel suffocated staying inside for long time, and know that going outside for a walk will help, go for a walk. Do not ignore your body.
Develop awareness of your abdomen. Many people suppress emotions by blocking the muscles or the sensations in the abdomen. Learn to be aware of the tensions and practice control of abdomen muscles by "pushing" the abdomen out.
Develop awareness of your feet. Oftentimes people tend to get so "heady" as to lose their feet altogether. Having connection with feet is vital for healthy body image. You may have to tap your feet on one another occasionally, until you learn to regain sensitivity.
Finally, learn to be aware of sensations in your solar plexus and any blockages of breathing, especially when you are stressed or nervous.
When practiced for a long time, day after day, all of these combined should pretty much substitute for sitting meditation.

The only Meditation in which siting is required is the Breathing meditation "Anapanasathi"
There are many other forms of meditation that does not require it.Here are some with the full explanations.
Click on the links and Learn
 Slaughtered cow (Meditation on elements)
A bag with an opening at both ends (Meditation of foulness)
Just a body with movement (Meditation of posturest full awarness)
Verily my own body, too (Meditation on nine cemetery contemplations)

I can only speak from personal experience but I am suspect of the idea that one can only meditate effectively in the sitting (ideally, lotus or half-lotus) position and that not doing so will impede one's development on the spiritual path. In the end, all the arguments and pronouncements for one or the other postures, are somebody else's opinion and must be taken on faith. Meditation, and all that emanates from it, are private experiences; perhaps the ultimate of what is meant by 'personal experience'.
The only way you could really determine the superiority of one posture over an another is to divide oneself in two and spend a lifetime mediating in the sitting position and another mediating walking, lying down or whatever. The fractal nature of the mind which is illuminated and rarefied during the meditation experience is simply too subtle to measure by ordinary standards. I presently practice Shamatha and I meditate lying down. I've been doing this for just over a year now. When I first began the practice I tried sitting but lower back and knee problems interfered. The pain I experienced was not the discomfort suffered by the neophyte who sits in the lotus position. Here the instruction is to ignore it and come back to the object of reference and it will eventually subside.
My pain was based on physical malady and I discovered through well-intentioned trial and error, that it would not subside in a sitting position, only deepen. When this happens you are not meditating, you are focused on pain. For a period it was discouraging: one person even going so far as to say I should give up the practice altogether. I took naturally to lying down and though you are warned that this posture too often leads to drowsiness or sleep--I have never experienced either, once, in the whole time I've been doing it. I correct my position, sometimes before, sometimes during practice, so that the line running from my feet to my neck is straight. If I have a bit of congestion I will slightly elevate my torso until it clears. I try not to get too hung up in the do's and don'ts. I don't scratch an itch but I do get up and go to the bathroom if I have to and this has never interfered with--in the sense of ruining-- my sessions.
So my advice, if I were asked, is to find what best works for you. Shamatha is a challenging form of meditation but if one can simply stay focused as best as able on the object of reference, progress will be made. And remember, while you're interested in making progress, it is more important to forget the whole idea of progress: in other words, you're only doing it when you're not doing it.

There is two ways to do the practice, go and read about the samatha and the vipassana way.

Hello El3ctron. Could you add some more information to your answer and preferable some references or other material that can back up your statements. One-line answers cannot be considered answers. This is a "best answer format" and we aim at getting the best answers with the highest quality. We also have some guidelines for new users you can take a look at.

Four Foundations of Mindfulness, essentially vipassana, can be done during any activity, mobile or immobile.
Sitting meditation is meant to help stabilize it so that you can do it during activity.
Just like when one learns to walk, one first learns while in one place, stumbling, falling, and crawling.
Once one is able to stand up, one can start moving... very slowly... and then fall again.
Eventually, one will be able to walk normally, run, and even participate in marathons.
It is the same way with vipassana -- which is the truest form of meditation.
Other forms of meditation such as visualization and mantra, are sometimes compatible with activities and sometimes not.
Vipassana is a transparent meditation that can be done with any activity and simulates our true nature, which is always watching and just watching. Thus, vipassana is not "vipassana" but just awareness/mindfulness.
All that being said, although Masters greatly prize the student that can do meditation in the midst of activity, it is certainly challenging to achieve the deepest states of meditation, samadhi, whilst doing novel activities. It is better to start off with any form of immobile meditation and attain stability with that before trying moving meditation.
Edit:
I recommend the book The Life-Saving Zijiu Method... this method is truly an amazing mix of Buddhism and Taoism made by someone who has a gift of seeing others' chi channels.

A simple exercise is to simply count. You can do this anytime your concentration isn't needed for another activity- while walking, riding the bus, etc.
Some people recommend aligning your counting with the breath, but I often found, when I did that, I'd just lapse into a dull, rhythmic counting that didn't really help me learn to concentrate, just to go into a kind of droning stupor.
But if you mentally count, a new number every few seconds, not rhythmically but a little bit randomly, then your mind stays alert and alive to your surroundings, while training your mind to not go off into daydreams or worries. Because you can always tell exactly when you lose the thread, it really helps build the "mindfulness" muscle, and helps train you to be attentive and resilient. It will set you up well if you want to study any other meditation techniques.
Just one thing to keep in mind: the point isn't to learn how to count well :)  If you lose track, it is OK: just start over again, with no judgment.

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


text:
How should i understand "Stored up kamma"?
I'm reading the book "The Noble Eightfold Path" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. I'm currently reading about "Right View" and i have a question regarding an explanation by the author.
The quote can be found on p. 19. The highlight in the quote is made by me:

"Kamma can operate across the succession of lifetimes; it can even remain dormant for aeons into the future. But whenever we perform a
  volitional action, the volition leaves its imprint on the mental continuum, where it remains as a stored up potency. When the stored up kamma meets with conditions favorable to its maturation, it awakens from its dormant state and triggers off some effect that brings due compensation for the original action."

How should "stored up potency" or "stored up kamma" be understood?

It's somewhat sloppy language... "stored up potency" doesn't really mean anything; it's a concept, the concept that certain experiences will somehow be related to other experiences. There is nothing in Theravada Buddhism, AFAIK, even hinting at karma being stored up, or of a continuum being imprinted.
So, it should probably be understood as conventional language, similar to explaining how a seed from one tree makes a new tree - the potency of the first tree is stored in the seed, creating a tree continuum. In ultimate reality, the continuum doesn't exist, nor the potency, the tree, or the seed.

Thanks for the clarification about language and the seed-simile.

I was just reminded of the wanting to understand kamma and how pondering about it is not relevant for liberation.
I then remembered "The Four Imponderables" where the Buddha taught that the workings of kamma should not be thought about since it hinders and distracts one from the practice.

"Pondering over the four acinteyya is a hindrance to the attainment of liberation"
"Therefore, o monks, do not brood over [any of these views] Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna, etc"

While I think "the four imponderables" makes for a nice answer, is there a necessity for the bold and the final remark? Not only we are open for other traditions that might have something to say here, but not all of us who come here would consider other answers a distraction.

@Thiago. I have removed the final remark. Answers from all traditions are of course welcome.

It should be understood as it is said:

Whenever you perform a volitional action, the volition leaves its imprint on the mental continuum, where it remains as a stored up potency. When the stored up kamma meets with conditions favorable to its maturation, it awakens from its dormant state and triggers off some effect that brings due compensation for the original action.

Anything else is mere speculation and does not lead to liberation, but to clinging and craving on views.
If you feel that the answer to the question will lead you closer to liberation, meditate on the question and you will eventually experience it. Once you experience it, you will answer it. Once you answer it, liberation will be closer.

It doesn't need to be understood. Instead, look at your wanting, craving, to understand, learn, have an explanation. Understanding the totality of karma is not part of the Noble Eightfold path and will not lead you to cessation. The extent to which one should or is able to understand karma is experienced directly in the practice, beyond this for unenlightened beings is mere conjecture.

In the buddhist texts, 'storing up of kamma' is described best by the Pali word vipāka, which is most commonly translated as the 'result', 'ripening' or 'effect' of kamma.
The Buddha says (AN 6.63):

"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three
  sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which
  arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that.
  This is called the result of kamma."

We don't need to understand the mechanics for this - in fact, as you have said yourself, the Buddha encouraged us to avoid speculating on it. But we can start asking questions about our actions and their results. There is plenty written about it, but I will offer a few questions to perhaps start you thinking about it in a practical way:

Do my actions in the present moment have any effect on the future?
Is there any pattern I can experience in these effects?
Do skilful actions lead to good results, and vice versa?
What's the problem with harming others, or stealing?
What happens to this mind as a result? Is there any effect beyond the present moment?

Alternatively, we can read what the Buddha said about what is skilful and unskilful, and take it as a 'working hypothesis'. Then see for ourselves the effect of our actions...

It's funny I read this, because I was just talking about this with a friend the other day (though not in this philosophical framework).
Both him and I have been addicted to opiates, I have been clean of them for 2 years now and he is just starting to take seriously the concept of never doing them again.  He was talking about how he wishes he'd never started, that he would go back in time and change it if he could, but I know for myself that if it hadn't been opiates it would have been something.  There are booby traps in the soul, is what I told him.
Some experiences, you just have to go through because that is who you are.  The partner who ruined your life but was too awesome in bed to refuse.  The improbable business venture that ended in bankruptcy, but seemed too irresistibly lucrative.  Opiates.  These kinds of things are printed on your soul at birth, part of the fascination mechanism that drives your curiosity, appetite, and love of life.  Without these drives, there is no reason to exist.  But packaged with each one is a booby trap, and the only way to disarm the trap is to spring it and survive the consequences.
Like the Man said, though...there is no use thinking too hard about how it works.


text:
Can this question be asked?
In Buddhism, If I ask the following question:

Suppose you completely empty your mind of all thoughts. You go into complete emptiness of mind, where nothing is arising.
  Suppose that in that state you make a choice to arise a thought. If in that state a choice is made to arise a thought, "choice" is the arising of "this thought".
  "Choice" must be arisen before "this thought" is arisen.
  Is there something that must arise before "choice" in order for "choice" to arise?
  If there is "something that must arise before 'choice' in order for 'choice' to arise", is there something that must arise before "something that must arise before 'choice' in order for 'choice' to arise"?
  etc. etc. etc.
  So, where does it end?
  What is the first "thing" that arises in your mind before the rest arises out from this first "thing"?

Does the above question fall into the category of the Four imponderables? Specifically "The jhana-range of a person in jhana... [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana]"? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html
If yes, why? If no, why?

Is this not tantamount to asking how did I begin? This seems clearly to not be the path of Buddhism, but as far as the technicalities of Jhana states, I do not know.

In my experience prolonged absence of thoughts is accompanied by equanimity. Thus, the only cause for the thinking brain to startup then would be external causes and conditions, like someone talking to us. However, even in such no-mind states it is impossible to know if there aren't underlying invisible brain processes - because most no thought states end sooner or later, it implies the brain is constantly changing even when we think it isn't.

Zeno's Paradox - motion is impossible, because in order to go thus far, I must first go half that far, and so on.

Let me try to answer the question with basis in the 2 of The Four Imponderables and with quotes from the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammanda.

The 4th acinteyya:
"Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about".

This acinteyya discusses the origin of the cosmos but i think the question about the origin of the intention that must give rise to the forming of a mental formation, here a choice, might fall into the same category. Why is that?
It is similar to be searching for a "first cause". A first cause complicates the entire picture. One can then ask what caused the first cause? Or what caused the cause that caused the first cause? And so to infinity. It will not give a satisfying answer, unless one is a Buddha. If one is not, then it will only leave the mind agitated and stressed out which is not conducieve to practice.

Here are some quotes that i think fit to your question. They can be found in above mentioned book, from the chapter: "Can the First Cause be Known?", p. 166-168:

"According to the Buddha, it is inconceivable to find a first cause for life or anything else. For in common experience, the cause becomes the effect and the effect becomes the cause. In the circle of cause and effect, a first cause is incomprehensible."

"With regard to the origin of life, the Buddha declares, ‘Without cognizable end is this recurrent wandering in Samsara (cycle of birth and death). Beings are obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving. A first beginning of these beings is not to be perceived.’ (Anamatagga Samyutta in Samyutta Nikaya)."

"... And it is more difficult to understand how that first cause came into existence at the beginning. For if the first cause can exist though uncreated, there is no reason why the other phenomena of the universe must not exist without having also been created."

"As to the question how all beings came into existence without a first cause, the Buddhist’s reply is that there is no answer* because the question itself is merely a product of human beings’ limited compre- hension. If we can understand the nature of time and relativity; we must see that there could not have been any first beginning. It can only be pointed out that all the usual answers to the question are fundamentally defective. If it is assumed that for a thing to exist, it must have had a creator who existed before it, it follows logically that the creator himself must have had a creator, and so on back to infinity. On the other hand, if the creator could exist without a prior cause in the form of another creator, the whole argument falls to the ground. The theory of a creator does not solve any problems, it only complicates the existing ones."

About the 2nd Acinteyya which says:

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana... [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana]".

Based on that i would think examples of questions could be: Can one learn to fly? Can one read others minds? Can one travel in time? Can one become invinsible? Can one perform magic tricks? Can one see through walls? Can one transform into another physical form?
If you are interested in this "The Visuddhimagga" has a section called "THE SUPERNORMAL POWERS" on p. 369-400. In here you will find the benefits of concentration and the kinds of Supernormal Powers.
Here is an example of a power:

"24. That given as follows, “Having abandoned his normal form, he shows [himself in] the form of a boy or the form of a serpent ... or he shows a manifold military array” (Paþis II 210), is called success as transformation because of the abandoning and alteration of the normal form."

Thanks. That's a very good answer. Do you know examples of questions that fall into the category of 2nd acinteyya (The jhana-range of a person in jhana)?

I have updated my answer and tried to bring in some examples of questions pertaining to the 2nd acinteyya. There is also a link to the Visuddhimagga. Let me know if this answers your question or if you need further info.

Knowledge has limits.
"Mind is not Buddha. Knowledge is not the Way." But then, even saying this is leading you astray again, so I should shut up. Your question can be asked, because you have asked it. But not all questions make any sense. I think that the error is the choice of your second word, "Suppose you..." This word has no referent. But to communicate with you, I need to resort to meaningless terms like 'you' and 'I'. Try not to get hung up on them.
"Have you had breakfast?"


text:
Automatic body scanning? What is happening here?
This has happened to me a few times  on Goenka retreats.
When I have been practicing mindfulness of breath and body scanning for a while, near day 7 or so my attention will be moving quite quickly, rapidly, performing a scan of several points in the body every few seconds in a set pattern. By this point in the retreat my attention is flowing smoothly like water so it only takes a second or two for every cycle, which is very fast even if it can get quite tiring.
At some point after this suddenly my attention gets hijacked by some autonomic process, and my attention will hit points in my body in a super complicated but precise pattern (I think it draws a mandala) that I can never hope to consciously replicate. It is ridiculously fast and precise, covering 50 or more  points in the body in under a second.
It happens only once, so a second later it is over, and now I note that my habitual set pattern I used to follow to scan the body is now in cruise control mode. I can actually sit back (metaphorically speaking) and let the body scan itself, or so it would seem. My mind will now go do other things, like contemplate dhamma or whatever, and when I return to attention of my body I would find it is still going strong, doing the auto pilot body scanning.
This will usually last a few days, even after the retreat. The funny thing is the attention is spatial. If I get up from the half lotus, the body scan still happens, but it is now hitting empty space near my hip where my thighs and legs used to be folded.
Often this means when I go to my room I won't lie down until I absolutely have to because it feels weird to have the body scan happen only to my upper body and not my knees and toes when I am lying flat.
If I wake up from sleep the body scan is still happening.
After day 13/14 slowly this auto scan will grow less and less pronounced until I can't sense it anymore.
What is happening here?

I thought one of the desirable effects of practice is that it becomes second nature? The brain develops functional modules for repeated procedures, just like functions in programming languages. An analogy is practicing a martial art. You learn the right action. In the beginning you have to consciously think about it, which slows your reaction time. But with disciplined practice, it becomes almost instinctual--the mind assumes ownership, goes into overdrive, movement becomes a reflex, and reaction times are dramatically reduced. Are you saying you are not welcoming this body scan automation?

The martial arts analogy would be apt if the body continued to strike poses during sleep. I can wake up from deep sleep and find the scanning operation still on. It seems similar to kundalini kriyas in its autonomous nature. I'm merely wondering what insight is to be derived from this. There's no question of welcoming or not welcoming -merely observing what happens and trying to derive insight. :)

So you think you're doing this in your sleep too? Are you dreaming it? Or does it resume upon wakening? I wish I had an answer for you, I'm curious myself and just trying to understand the phenomenon. Good luck finding out what's going on.

I have no doubt it is going on 24x7 at that point. When I am walking or eating, I may not notice it, but I only have to pause eating a moment to see it is doing its thing. 3-4 days after the retreat the intensity of the sensation fades away, and I can only spot it when I am very mindful. A couple of days later I can't tell if it is there even in meditation, so it stops or at least becomes imperceptible to me within a week.

@sss4r p.s. thanks... it's not super important, plenty of funny things have happened to me, this one is pretty harmless :)

Ha! Good :-) Does this sensation coincide with the breath? In breath? Out breath? If both, is it the same sensation in and out?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

While researching stages of meditation, I came across something which could shed some light on your experience. In a section covering Khanika Samadhi (momentary concentration) I found a similar description of your experience. While the author is writing specifically about the noting technique in Vipassnana, I think technically it has relevance to Goenka scanning as well.

Pure Vipassana yogis can appreciate and understand the power of Khanika concentration. For when their noting gains momentum, they can see for themselves how the noting goes on by itself uninterruptedly without a break. The noting seems to run on its own steam without any need for the yogi to make any concerted or deliberate effort. Thus, it is not unusual for a yogi to be able to sit for an hour, and even several hours, absorbed in noting. During good noting, especially at the insight knowledge of equanimity (sankhara-upekkhañana), the mind just stays put on its objects and refuses to wander. Even if one wants to send the mind out, it refuses to go and it recoils back to whatever Vipassana object it is noting.

From KHANIKA SAMADHI: Momentary Concentration

Thank you, I think you found it spot on. When I read the description now in Mahasi Sayadaw's Stages of Insight, I appreciate this. This has been my problem with reading this manual - even though I have hit several of the stages of insight I can't pinpoint that this experience is this stage or this aspect of insight.

When this knowledge of re-observation is mature, there will arise knowledge perceiving evident bodily and mental processes in continuous succession quite naturally, as if borne onward of itself. This is called "knowledge of equanimity about formations."
[...]
Now, in the act of noticing, effort is no longer required to keep formations before the mind or to understand them. [...] It is as if no further effort need be made by the meditator.

This automatic body scanning that you mentioned is your ego playing games with you. During meditation, your Self or ego is becoming weaker and weaker. When the ego sees he is dying, ego will do everything to not die. You could hear sounds, vibrations, gain supernatural powers, travel to distant galaxies, predict the future, read minds, gain magical powers, fly through walls, visit astral planes, talk with devas, have out of body experiences, etc.
Ego wants you to cling onto something. Ego wants you to crave. That's why he gives you weird experiences. If you show fear to such experiences, ego will give you experiences that you'll be afraid off. If you show attachment to such experiences, ego will give you experiences that you'll be attached to.
The important thing is not to get attached to these experiences and get beyond them. Don't worry, if the experience arises, just go with it, enjoy, relax, have fun and don't intellectualize. The most important thing: never, ever be afraid. If a bad experience arises, smile, don't worry, just go with it, enjoy, relax, have fun and don't intellectualize.
The closer you will be to liberation, the less such experiences will arise.

Thanks, I appreciate the answer. I'm neither afraid not attached, haven't felt either sensation in a few years to be honest. I was hoping someone could point me to references to this in the visuddhimagga, or other literature. Is this an outcome of samatha or vipassana etc.

My reaction whenever I've had strange experiences is a reduction of the sense of self, because it is clear that for powers to work the interconnectedness of consciousness is necessary. So I don't know if those experiences boost the ego for others, but for me it had the opposite effect, reducing my belief in grasping materialism.

"Closer you are to liberation, less such experiences arise " - do you have a source for this? The Buddha and arahats routinely indulged in magical powers like divine sight, peeking into past lives of others and so on.

These experiences are a sign that your ego is ceasing. When such experiences arise, self must be present. After liberation, self ceases. When self ceases, experiences cease too. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this. The Buddha refused to talk about it and disliked it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha http://buddhist-spirituality.com/suffering-end/the-eightfold-path/right-thought/four-imponderables