Does illegal downloading or viewing of copyright material violate the second precept? As a kid I used to download a lot of softwares and movies using torrents. Even if something  illegal is done, it doesn't necessarily mean that it violates a precept. But can this be considered as stealing in Buddhism?
How can this be explained according to the Buddhist view?

No, it does not. In order to steal, something has to be misappropriated from the original owner.
Copying is not theft, even according to modern jurisprudence; copyright is an artificial "right" granted to the "owner" of a specific intellectual activity to prevent the "copying" of the product of said intellectual activity. "Intellectual property" is likewise an artificial construct.
The presumption that someone has a right to restrict the copying of their ideas is suspect at best, but it should not be confused with the right to restrict the use or appropriation of one's physical property, since the latter involves singular, rather than identical, entities. You don't call it stealing if someone breaks into your house, copies down the way you set your table and goes and does it the same in their own home.
It is important to understand as well that the question of whether copyright infringement is unethical hinges not on whether the owner doesn't want you to copy, but on whether they have a right to forbid you to copy. It is not unethical doing something just because you know someone else doesn't want you to do it; otherwise I shouldn't have become a Buddhist.
The misunderstanding comes from our acceptance of copyright as a tool for monetary gain. We have come to accept that because certain people want to be able to market their ideas, they therefore have a right to do so, whereas it was previously understood that only one's potential at coming up with good ideas (i.e. their value as a person) was marketable. It is not the case that just because someone wants to be able to make money through a certain means therefore they have a right to society's protection in so doing; otherwise, pushing rocks up a hill would have to be paid proportionately.
The main reason we tend to think that copyright is an actual right stems from the massive propaganda machine of the entertainment industry (and mara, I assume) that has managed to equate people who copy the ideas of others with bloodthirsty sea-faring mercenaries (a.k.a. pirates).
Furthermore, though it's now outside of the realm of your question, a person's insistence on controlling copyright may be arguably considered unethical from a Buddhist standpoint; it can be seen as selfish (since it costs nothing to allow others to copy one's ideas), invasive (since it is not really any of your business), and hypocritical (since everyone copies just about everything they come in contact with throughout their lives from the time that they're born). Again, just because we want to be able to make a living in a certain way, doesn't mean we should be protected in it. Theft, on the other hand, does cost the owner, is the owner's business, and expecting protection against it isn't necessarily hypocritical.
tl;dr: copying without permission and theft are two different concepts; whether copying without permission can be considered immoral is suspect at best, but at any rate is not directly related to the second precept.
Q&A
Doesn't the second precept deal with more than just misappropriation?
No, like all the precepts, it really only means what it says. Anyway, if it was interpreted more broadly, where would you draw the line? Copying someone's words without their permission is stealing, but distributing pictures of them without their permission isn't? Or distributing pictures of them is, but looking at them isn't? There is no clear definition available, except the clearly bogus one of "not doing what other people don't want you to do".
Isn't intellectual property the same as real property?
First, let's get one thing straight; copyright infringement isn't theft; the law doesn't look at it as theft, the RIAA doesn't look at it as theft, no one considers it to be theft except the public who have been misinformed as a part of ongoing propaganda that it is a kind of theft (or piracy, which is really silly). It is actually more like a kind of breach of contract. To explain: the law doesn't concern itself with the physical entity that houses the information; it concerns itself with the fact that something has been copied against the wishes of the copyright holder. The issue isn't that a new copy exists, it is that a copy has been made. It is the act of copying that is illegal.
But the question remains, whether the person who has put all the work into creating a piece of intellectual property doesn't have the same rights as a person who puts work into a physical creation. The thing is, intellectual property isn't like other property in that it can't be given, sold, bought, etc. It can only ever be copied. When you tell someone a secret, you have created a copy of the information. When you publish a book, you are not selling the book, you are selling the right to a copy of the information it contains. So when a person makes money off of intellectual property, what they are actually selling (and this is how the industry really understands it, afaics) is a license; you can't actually sell information. So when concerning ourselves with the poor victims of intellectual property theft, what we should ask is "what gives someone the right to license their ideas?"
The difference is driven home when you consider that a person who creates a physical item of value is able to sell it once. They are only able to sell it because someone else wants to own it; if there are cheaper versions elsewhere (patent and copyright laws notwithstanding), their customers are free to go elsewhere.
A person who holds a copyright over information, on the other hand, holds their creation hostage, pimping it out repeatedly and ever retaining sole ownership over it. They do no extra work for each payment obtained and can, in cases where demand for the information is high, expect to receive payment massively disproportionate to the original work performed to obtain the information (which, incidentally, most likely involved copying information from others).
In short, the real question should be, "what exactly do real property and intellectually property have in common?" The answer is: "not much."
Isn't copyright infringement breach of promise?
In cases where you promise a sentient being of something and then break that promise, yes. Clicking on an EULA isn't a promise because you are communicating with a machine. When you buy a book, if you clearly communicate that you promise to use it in a certain way, then yes, you would be breaking your word if you used it in a different way. If you download software from the Internet, you make no such promise at any point.
Isn't it a cause for mental defilement to go against the wishes of the copyright holder?
Potentially; the situation is that you are being requested not to do something that is otherwise within your rights to do by the owner of the copyrighted work.
You have to weigh whether that request holds merit or not. If your friend asks you not to performing some action, you have to ask yourself whether performing said action is important enough to upset your friend, keeping in mind there is nothing unethical about performing said action. There is nothing unethical about copying other people's work without their permission (assuming, of course, that you properly attribute the works to the correct author and don't try to take credit for other people's work); there is something potentially problematic about upsetting people, especially friends. By the Buddha's words, we can see that upsetting others should be done carefully, but is not necessarily outside of what is wholesome.
As to whether wanton downloading of entertainment is a cause for mental defilement, I don't really think that has anything to do with the argument at hand, since it has nothing to do intrinsically with the matter of permission to do so.
Doesn't copyright infringement hurt a valid industry/artist?
Anyone who thinks this should really brush up on their history of "intellectual property". Specifically, I recommend reading anything by Cory Doctorow, Lawrence Lessig, or Richard Stallman. At the very least this would give a look at the other side of the propaganda war waged by the entertainment industry. Honestly, a lot of what these guys say sounds more Buddhist than some of the opinions of the card-carrying.
As I've said above more than once, though, those people dependent on copyright to make a living (really this is only the entertainment industry bigwigs; the majority of content creators could do better if they adopted a more crowd-friendly approach like Cory Doctorow) are suffering from the same problem scribes had when the printing press was created; they were expecting to be rewarded by a system that was no longer necessary to society. Thoreau put it best when he said:

Not long since, a strolling Indian went to sell baskets at the house
of a well-known lawyer in my neighborhood. "Do you wish to buy any
baskets?" he asked. "No, we do not want any," was the reply. "What!"
exclaimed the Indian as he went out the gate, "do you mean to starve
us?" Having seen his industrious white neighbors so well off- that the
lawyer had only to weave arguments, and, by some magic, wealth and
standing followed- he had said to himself: I will go into business; I
will weave baskets; it is a thing which I can do. Thinking that when
he had made the baskets he would have done his part, and then it would
be the white man's to buy them. He had not discovered that it was
necessary for him to make it worth the other's while to buy them, or
at least make him think that it was so, or to make something else
which it would be worth his while to buy. I too had woven a kind of
basket of a delicate texture, but I had not made it worth any one's
while to buy them. Yet not the less, in my case, did I think it worth
my while to weave them, and instead of studying how to make it worth
men's while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the
necessity of selling them. The life which men praise and regard as
successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at
the expense of the others?
Walden, Ch. 1

It's okay to make baskets, but to force people to buy them when other means present themselves is silly. If your reason for doing something is to make money, then the onus is on you, first and foremost, to ensure that your product is valuable; copyright is just an artificial means of placing a monetary value on something (information) one cannot otherwise.
But the question remains, whether we would lose valuable content if there were no copyright laws. The answer depends on what you understand as "valuable". If, by valuable, you mean "marketable", then of course the answer is yes, we would lose a lot of marketable content. We would also lose a lot of addictive content, since the logical outcome of encouraging and protecting monetary gain through copyright ownership is content that is primarily designed to encourage demand (i.e. addictive). The entertainment industry would stop stooping to the lowest common denominators of sex, violence, and absurdity in bringing pleasure to others. I for one could live without that.
If information were free, as it really should be, there would be no powerful incentive to encourage addiction to intellectual property; there would be a reversion to the days when, at worst, one propagated information as a means of promoting one's own value as an individual. Maybe people would stop writing books and making movies on film, but really, haven't we shown already with YouTube and the Internet that these are outdated mediums? It doesn't really cost millions of dollars to create any more.


Are learning signs and counterpart signs a must to enter jhana? I have been meditating for a while now and i found my way to get into jhana, well i haven't enter jhana but it was more me not fully in knowing how but now i think i understand. But one thing i keep getting stuck on is the signs. I haven't to my knowledge experienced a nimita. Maybe cause i use visualization to enter the jhanas

From what i gathered first you have initial & sustain thought. Then as time goes on you developed joy. Which brings this pleasant feeling. Then you move your attention from that to the pleasant feeling to enter rapture and the first jhana. So where do any counter or learning sign come in. Is that only for certain meditations

Important note at the beginning: I practice mainly vipassana, if samatha then I do metta meditation. Therefore I don't have a huge amount of knowledge on this subject.

What I do know is this:

What kind of sign appears to the mind depends on the chosen meditation object.
You stay with the object. Don't go with your attention to the effects of the concentration, in your post "...to the pleasant feeling". By moving to a different object you break the concentration.
I don't believe you can just pick any object. There are 40 or so possible objects given by the Buddha. Pick one of those. Also, pick the one that fits your nature. Not every object is advisable for every person.
It's good to adjust what you think of nimitta and jhana are. If you see it more as a natural thing, it can temper your expectations. Which is always a good thing. Have you ever seen figures, animals, faces or so on, in the floor when walking? If yes, then you have seen nimitta (according to my teacher). So, it's not always as fancy as we think.

Anyhow.
Here two site with more info. Maybe it can help you further.
http://rc.leighb.com/more/Nimitta.htm
http://realitysandwich.com/27172/jhanas_meditative_absorptions/


Do you have to become a Monk to attain enlightment? It seems that the answer is no, but in this case, why would you want to become a monk instead of staying "normal" ?

A lay person can realize Nibbana in a very short period of time(In few years or even in a shorter period of time) If s/he practise mindfulness all day long with effort. Even a very young lay person can realize Nibbana. Realizing Nibbana isn't about being in a particular place but it is the result of the right living. Not all of the people who realize Nibbana becomes a monk because some of the once-returners becomes spiritual teachers or they are in an old age and they are retired from their jobs etc.

In most cases being a monk is absolutely better than being a lay person because human world is crazy and is opposite of spirituality. The human civilization is the manifestation of the narcissistic human world's madness. But a person's decision to become a monk depends on many factors. If a spiritual person has a sangha and in an old age and retired maybe s/he would not want to leave the lay life and become a monk. A person who realized Nibbana and especially an once-returner is in continous bliss and contentment so s/he would not leave his home If the conditions are suitable for him/her.(Solitude or having a sangha etc.)

So a lay person's giving up the spiritual practise is a wrong idea because realizing Nibbana in the lay life is certainly possible.


What are the 10 Bhumis? Yes, I checked wikipedia. That article is low quality.

These 10 Bhumis are part of the 53 stages of liberation as set out in the Avatamsaka sutra.

The 10 Bhumis for me are completely bemusing. In a path of liberation, I'd expect to find a description of what to do, but the titles of the Bhumis seem to describe results or suggestive adjectives.

The ten Bhumi are stages of enlightenment post initial breakthrough or satori (what I personally equate with stream-entry). As such they are not meant to be comprehensible or serve as instructions for those who did not make it to the first Bhumi yet. They speak about practitioner's relationship with the world as he or she transitions from student's perspective to that of a buddha and teacher.

To get to the first Bhumi, the student must accomplish non-conceptual (experiential) realization of Emptiness. This in its turn requires disbanding the ego -- the main purpose behind the six paramitas and various "humiliating" experiences teacher drives student through.


Is Mahayana Buddhism a form of idealism? Do Mahayana Buddhists believe that the whole world and all objects are created by the mind? For example, my friend and I see a train. Do I and my friend see the same train?
Tell me if it is correct to say that Mahayana Buddhists believe that the people they see in front of them have consciousness and sensations (individual mindstreams) and exist independently of the imagination of Buddhists, but all of us and our whole world are dependent on all people and their minds, that is, we co-create our world together?
And what about the Yogacara school, which is considered idealism?

Mahayana Buddhists do NOT believe that the whole world and all objects are literally created by the mind.
Yogacara and especially Mahayana is not a form of subjective idealism, that's a popular urban myth/misunderstanding.
"the people they see in front of them have consciousness and sensations (individual mindstreams)" - yes of course.
"but all of us and our whole world are dependent on all people and their minds, that is, we co-create our world together" - maybe but that's beside the point.
The way I would put the mainstream Mahayana view is: each person's subjective reality is a projection of their mind which in turn is a result of their background and choices. Different backgrounds&choices give rise to different minds which project different subjective realities. Subjective realities overlap to the extent the backgrounds/choices/minds are alike.
Your friend and you see similar trains to the extent your minds are alike. To the extent your backgrounds are different you will pay attention to different aspects of the train, your interpretations will differ etc. - to that extent your respective trains will be unique.


What does a traditional Buddhist wedding look like? I have been to Christian weddings (American), Jewish weddings, and Hindu weddings, but I have no idea what a traditional Buddhist wedding looks like.  I realize that there are probably differences between the different sects of Buddhism, but are there any common cultural threads?

These are more inherent with the local culture and customs than to do with Buddhism. So they might change from region to region and country to country.

The is no Buddhist wedding as such though some elements of Buddhism are incorporated like hymns (Jayamangala Gatha).


How did the Buddha debate? Was he trying to convince or persuade people?  Did he go towards them or did he let them come to spread the Dhamma?  How did he react when he was not understood or listened?

I have noticed that I often tend to get carried away in debates where I try to convince my interlocutor of the truth of Buddhism and I get angry when he doesn't listen to me or disagree with me and then I blame myself for having debated in the first place.  Then I often find myself with the feeling that I should have kept quiet, and I remember this quote:

  He detested objective truths, the burden of argument, sustained
  reasoning. He disliked demonstrating, he wanted to convince no one.
  Others are a dialectician’s invention.

  Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born

Should we keep quiet in a "save yourself before saving others" logic?

The Pali suttas say the Dhamma is taught only to those who are interested, per AN 9.5:

  The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again
  to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear.

  Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, peyyavajjānaṃ yadidaṃ atthikassa ohitasotassa
  punappunaṃ dhammaṃ deseti.

  https://suttacentral.net/an9.5/en/sujato

The Pali suttas say debate is not the purpose of Dhamma, per MN 22:

  They just memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and
  winning debates. They don’t realize the goal for which they memorized
  them. Because they’re wrongly grasped, those teachings lead to their
  lasting harm and suffering. Why is that? Because of their wrong grasp
  of the teachings.

  https://suttacentral.net/mn22/en/sujato

The Pali suttas generally show the Buddha debated people who visited him to debate him, such as MN 35:

  Now at that time Saccaka, the son of Jain parents, was staying in
  Vesālī. He was a debater and clever speaker regarded as holy by many
  people. He was telling a crowd in Vesālī: “If I was to take them on in
  debate, I don’t see any ascetic or brahmin—leader of an order or a
  community, or the teacher of a community, even one who claims to be a
  perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha—who would not shake and rock
  and tremble, sweating from the armpits".

  Hopefully, some time or other I’ll get to meet Master Gotama, and we
  can have a discussion. And hopefully I can dissuade him from his
  harmful misconceptions.”

  https://suttacentral.net/mn35/en/sujato


Psychology of 'flow' I guess (perhaps I'm wrong) that humans and life in general tend toward homeostatis -- i.e. wanting to stay the same as before -- and not just physically but socially and mentally too, e.g. to keep what you have and avoid what's new.
An "avoiding extremes" doctrine might encourage that.
The theory of 'flow' in psychology suggests that people want to engage in activities which are not too boring but also not too challenging.
I think that school-teachers are aware of that phenomenon, and school-children become trained (habituated) to it.
But however useful or pleasant that may be, perhaps that (i.e. the pursuit or maintenance of that 'flow' state) is just samsara.
Does Buddhist doctrine challenge this? Or endorse it, use it?
Wikipedia says,

In positive psychology, a flow state, also known colloquially as being in the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity.[1] In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one's sense of space and time.
Named by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi in 1975, the concept has been widely referred to across a variety of fields (and is particularly well recognized in occupational therapy), though the concept has existed for thousands of years under other names, notably in some Eastern religions, for example Buddhism.
The flow state shares many characteristics with hyperfocus. However, hyperfocus is not always described in a positive light. Some examples include spending "too much" time playing video games or getting side-tracked and pleasurably absorbed by one aspect of an assignment or task to the detriment of the overall assignment. In some cases, hyperfocus can "capture" a person, perhaps causing them to appear unfocused or to start several projects, but complete few.

Can you comment on either of the highlighted statements from a Buddhist perspective?
Also perhaps this is related to my previous question, Aversion and Mahayana -- I guess that 'flow' might help you to do things, even useful things, even things you might not do otherwise, like your maths homework at school -- I'm not sure it's a useful tool (or habit) for handling aversion however, i.e. any activity which takes you "out of the zone" is something you might avoid.

This sounds like the application of the practice of mindfulness in daily life.

For example, from "Chapter Six: Daily Life" of Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's book "How To Meditate":

  When cooking, cleaning, exercising, showering, changing clothes, even
  on the toilet, one can be mindful of the movements of the body
  involved, creating clear awareness of reality at all times. This is
  the first method by which one can and should incorporate the
  meditation practice directly into ordinary life.

From the teachings of Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh, we find the use of mindfulness in daily life for example:

In the kitchen:

  The kitchen is also a meditative practice space. Let us be mindful
  when we are cooking or cleaning in this space. Let us do our task in a
  relaxed and serene way, following our breathing and keeping our
  concentration on the work. A few words only may be needed about the
  work at hand. We might like to start our work by offering incense to
  the kitchen altar, to express our gratitude and to remind ourselves to
  work mindfully.

  Let us support the kitchen teams by not disturbing this meditative
  space unnecessarily. We do what we have to in silence and leave the
  kitchen so the teams can do their work.

  While cooking, we allow enough time so we will not feel rushed. Let us
  be aware that our brothers and sisters depend on this food for their
  practice. This awareness will guide us to cook healthy food infused
  with our love and mindfulness.

  When we are cleaning the kitchen or washing our dishes, we do it as if
  we are cleaning the altar or washing the baby Buddha. Washing in this
  way, we feel joy and peace radiate within and around us.

Drinking tea (tea meditation):

  Tea meditation is a time to be with the Sangha in a joyful and serene
  atmosphere. Just to enjoy our tea together is enough. It is like a
  “good news” occasion, when we share our joy and happiness in being
  together.

  At times, when we are drinking tea with a friend, we are not aware of
  the tea or even of our friend sitting there. Practicing tea meditation
  is to be truly present with our tea and our friends. We recognize that
  we can dwell happily in the present moment despite all of our sorrows
  and worries. We sit there relaxed without having to say anything. If
  we like, we may also share a song, a story or a dance.

Eating together:

  We should take our time as we eat, chewing each mouthful at least 30
  times, until the food becomes liquefied. This aids the digestive
  process. Let us enjoy every morsel of our food and the presence of the
  dharma brothers and sisters around us. Let us establish ourselves in
  the present moment, eating in such a way that solidity, joy and peace
  be possible during the time of eating.

  Eating in silence, the food becomes real with our mindfulness and we
  are fully aware of its nourishment. In order to deepen our practice of
  mindful eating and support the peaceful atmosphere, we remain seated
  during this silent period. After twenty minutes of silent eating, two
  sounds of the bell will be invited. We may then start a mindful
  conversation with our friend or begin to get up from the table.

  Upon finishing our meal, we take a few moments to notice that we have
  finished, our bowl is now empty and our hunger is satisfied. Gratitude
  fills us as we realize how fortunate we are to have had this
  nourishing food to eat, supporting us on the path of love and
  understanding.

Service meditation:

  To participate in service meditation can be a great happiness. It is
  an opportunity to engage in the maintenance and care of our practice
  center while enjoying our practice of mindfulness. When we wash the
  cars, or turn the compost piles or chop wood we stay mindful of our
  breathing and the activity that we are doing. We speak only when
  necessary and about the work at hand. We can maintain a light and easy
  feeling as we work. An environment that is quiet can make the work
  more pleasant and enjoyable. When we work in the garden we get in
  touch with the plants and nourish our connection to the earth we are
  living on. Sweeping and mopping the meditation halls we see that we
  are already practicing to calm our mind and body. Please, do not be in
  too great of a hurry to get the job done. Our most important
  contribution to the Sangha is to maintain our practice of mindfulness.

  Service Meditation links us to our everyday life, both here and when
  we return home. As we are working at our computer or preparing dinner
  for our family or teaching a class, we can practice stopping, calming
  and refreshing ourselves with our conscious breathing. We can relax
  and smile at our co-workers and pace ourselves to maintain a light and
  serene state of being.


Blind police justice and right livelihood The police seem necessary for any defiled society; but that doesn't mean being a police officer, who must follow laws objectively but also blindly, is necessarily right livelihood.

They are encouraged in the US to use violence, depending on what the laws say not what their hearts say, and are allowed to lie to make the job easier. What do the suttas say? What does your heart say?

this comes to me, im not 100% sure if my memories correct.  One time, Lady Visaka (or other rich merchant in savatthi) was upset (or even crying) that king Pasendikosala denied her something.   Buddha said to be under someone's authority is suffering, but being under the authority of sensual desires is much worst.  When I get bullied (by bosses or any authority figures), my heart would think of this.

As far as view from authority figures, they have options not to break precepts.


Does/did Buddhism assert that everything that is/was important to know about the world is/was already known? Harari (2011) claims:

  Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known.

From my limited understanding of Buddhism, the above seems false of Buddhism.

I was hoping an expert on Buddhism could give a more definite explanation as to whether the above statement has any truth. (Restrict attention to the bit about Buddhism.)

The buddha said that some people found the truth before him, but of coure most people didn't

  “In the same way, I had now arrived at the ancient way of the noble
  ones, the ancient path of the noble ones, the ancient way trodden by
  the noble ones, along which passed the noble ones of ancient times,
  and which I should now follow, namely this Noble Eightfold Path: right
  view, right aim, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
  skilful means (effort), right mindfulness, right concentration.

https://suttacentral.net/sa287/en/choong


An example of right livelihood A little reference-request question.
As I remember it it's the story of someone who supported his aged parents. He did this by taking loose river clay -- without digging it -- making it into pots, and leaving the pots, without setting a price. People would take the pots and leave in exchange whatever they chose to, and thus he supported his parents. This was portrayed as praise-worthy, ethical.
It's perhaps not a sutta but, I don't know, perhaps one of the stories from the Dhammapada or something like that. Or possibly it's later but I thought it was from the Pali canon.

This is the story of the lay potter Ghatikara from MN 81, who lived in the time of Buddha Kassapa.
From MN 81:

Ghaṭīkāra has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the
Saṅgha. He doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual
misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. He
has experiential confidence in the Buddha, the teaching, and the
Saṅgha, and has the ethics loved by the noble ones. He is free of
doubt regarding suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice
that leads to its cessation. He eats in one part of the day; he’s
celibate, ethical, and of good character. He has set aside gems and
gold, and rejected gold and money. He’s put down the shovel and
doesn’t dig the earth with his own hands. He takes what has crumbled
off by a riverbank or been dug up by mice, and brings it back in a
carrier. When he has made a pot, he says, “Anyone may leave bagged
sesame, mung beans, or chickpeas here and take what they wish.” He
looks after his blind old parents. And since he has ended the five
lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become
extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.


11 year old daughter suffocated, was dead and was resuscitated now in a state of reduced concsciousness I am a father of a now 13 year old daughter. She was born with the genetic disorder Achondroplasie (Dwarfism, "small people").
At the age of 11 we decided that she should undergo leg-extension surgery.
Everything went OK, she woke up after the OP and talked with us, was happy to see her feet beeing longer, was happy to get back home.

2 hours later, while back in the patient room, she was unattended and suffocated. My wife found her, started resuscitation and called the emergency team who then took over. They brought her back. At least some of her.

Today, 2 years after this horrible incident, she is now in a state of reduced consciousness.
She has her eyes open, can groan and moan, feels it when you tickle her toes, even laughs when you tell a funny story e.g. about her cats (she had 4 and loved them).

She can not talk though, chew or drink or use her body parts (like moving any part of it on intention). She is lying in a bed 24/7 listening to audio CDs with books for children. If the audio runs out, she starts crying and moaning.

My wife, my son and I myself are devastated. She was such an active, life-loving kid, although she had this genetic disorder, she was best in her class and wrote essays and made drawings you would not expect from an 11 year old girl. And now she is forced onto the wheelchair, damned to stay the rest of her life in bed or this chair.

So my question is this: what would Buddhism say that happened to my daughter? What is she today? Where is she? Is she still my daughter or has reincarnation taken place? What is the purpose of her being damned to this state?

Thank you for your answers!

Best regards
Palerider

After my wife died I found that she existed in my mind quite a lot (as well as formerly existing physically).

That existence (in my mind) could make me happy ("what a privilege to know her") or sad ("miss her dearly").

Whether I'm sad or happy is partly my choice, it's not inherent in or obliged by the physics of the situation -- instead a matter of how I train myself (habitual thought), a.k.a. it depends on how I "view" it.

On the subject of memory, one of the things to remember (according to Buddhism) is "virtue" -- for example skilful, altruistic, compassionate behaviour -- "recollection of virtue" is an mind-object whose result or purpose could be an "absence of remorse". So when people behave virtuously, remembering that doesn't cause regret -- instead, looking back, "I'm glad she did that" and "I'm glad I did that" and so on.

Because it's a matter of doing the best you can in the circumstances.

So my question is this: what would Buddhism say that happened to my daughter? What is she today? Where is she? Is she still my daughter or has reincarnation taken place? What is the purpose of her being damned to this state?

If Buddhism were speaking carefully I think it would adapt what it says according to what you understand and know -- perhaps a gradual training.

I tend to think of Buddhist doctrine as starting with "the four noble truths", but according to this topic it might begin with talking about ethics, and generosity, and heaven.

Then there are the four noble truths, which are approximately (as I remember them):

Birth, sickness, death, are dukkha (the word dukkha is translated variously as "suffering" or "stress" or "unsatisfactory"); and not getting what you want, being exposed to what you don't want, not being able to keep what you want to keep, are dukkha; in short, the five "aggregates of clinging" are unsatisfactory.
Dukkha is associated with tanha (literally "thirst", usually translated "craving") craving for sense-objects, craving for becoming/existence, even the craving for ending
Dukkha ceases when craving ceases
There's a way (Buddhist practice) which leads towards the complete ending of  craving and suffering

So apparently suffering arises with (and results from) various forms of craving -- wanting things to be other than as they are.

Another important part of the Buddhist doctrine is that everything that's put-together (including "beings") is impermanent -- so I guess you'd better not expect "compound things" to last forever ... including "human bodies" (but even also day-dreams may be fabricated and based on a false assumption that the body is under your control, e.g. that it remains healthy and unchanging).

Buddhism also praises "seeing things as they really are" -- which includes seeing, "they're impermanent" -- but I think that also includes seeing a distinction between moral and immoral (seeing kindness, altruism, and so on).

There's another doctrine, the anatta or "non-self" doctrine. If the four noble truths are the first doctrine then anatta is the second. It might be difficult to understand or explain -- those who do understand might be called semi-enlightened, there are dozens of questions about it on this site -- it might be summarised as "any view of self will result in dukkha" -- where examples of "self-view" include "I exist" but also "I don't exist" and "this is me" and "this is mine" and "this is my permanent self".

For that kind of reason the question "What is she?" is difficult to answer in a way that wouldn't cause you pain -- I think that Buddhism might say that there is no satisfactory answer to that question.

Going further the question might be described as the product of unwise attention. Conversely "wise attention" focuses on questions like "what is stressful?" and "what is not?" -- for example, "recollection of virtue" and questions like "what was virtuous?" and "what is virtuous now?" might be a more kind of "enlightening" way to try to think about things.


Did I describe the following concept correctly? In a discussion, my meditation leader was talking about people who cannot control their cravings and wants, who are easily subjected to actions based on their whims and wants of their anger. He associated these people with having akusala thoughts. He could not find the English word to describe the person, and so I gave him the word impulsive as a way to describe these people.

Was this the right word to use, and is there a better word that I could have used?

That's a great translation.  Other words that may fit like impulsive

hasty
imprudent

@ChrisW mentions in a comment that kusala means skillful, so a +kusala would mean the negation of kusala (if you look at how sanskrit works), thus another word may be unskillful  and it sounds like your meditation friend was trying to expound on what that term actually means.

Many words have nuances that can become lost in translation, so sometimes it is good to leave words untranslated, or look at how they were constructed.  For example: we could not say "pulsive" as the negation of "impulsive" even though "possible" and "impossible" have the same relationship as "kusala" and "akusala" -- it just depends.  Again, good translation, but be open to the idea that not everything need be translated (and thus nuance can be ushered into a new language body and preserved)


How many monks required to ordain or create new Sangha? How many monks does it take to ordain a new monk? How many monks does it take to create a new Sangha?

I've read this before, now I can't find it.

I think these are very old rules & are similar across different traditions.

Note. I already know that schism is considered the worst thing in the universe by traditional Buddhism.

Quorum of 10 of 10 years standing, 5 in border areas. 5 is the quorum generally outside India. [page 108, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) 2nd Edition
by Richard F. Gombrich]

The quorum to perform a patimokkha ceremony is 4 [page 110, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) 2nd Edition
by Richard F. Gombrich]


How many pieces of paper are there? I read the following article about the fullness of emptiness and this statement stuck out to me:

  ...when we look at a sheet of paper, the sheet of paper is part of our
  perception. Your mind is in here and mine is also, so we can say that
  everything is in here in this sheet of paper.

Now, the question is: prior to my perception of the paper, was it the same sheet of paper?

Based on the article, my answer would be no. I would expound on that with the following thoughts:

prior to my perception of it, a paper exists that does not have my
perception of it as an aggregate, paper #1
after my perception of the paper, a new paper came to exist consisting of all of the aggregates of paper #1 plus my own perception, resulting in paper #2

Conclusion: there are two distinct, co-existing pieces of paper. Thoughts?

I guess according to your definition, the "two" are not "co-existing" -- because one is "before" and the other is "after", so they're not at the same time.

I think that, conventionally, people would say that there's one piece of paper -- no matter how many people are thinking about it, nor whether anyone is looking at it and when.

The article says something poetic, about the cloud existing in the paper. Perhaps that implies that the paper-on-the-table and the paper-in-the mind are the same piece of paper too ... or that they "inter-are".

The bit of the article that stands out for me, is ...

  If we ask, “Empty of what?” he has to answer. And this is what he said: “They are empty of a separate self.” That means none of these five rivers can exist by itself alone.

I think that the anatta doctrine is something like, "There isn't a 'myself' that's independent of other things, e.g. of the shandhas."

And Thich Nhat Hanh explains that the sunyata doctrine means that, for each skandha, "There isn't an 'itself' that's independent of other skandhas." (I assume that means that pereption depends on form and vice versa, and so on).

Also interesting to note that the paper is composed entirely of non-paper elements (e.g. minerals, human labour, sunlight).

Anyway, he's saying what the sutta means when it says that "form is empty".

Also, which is less clear, "because of emptiness, form exists" (I say "less clear" but perhaps that's a classic example of taoism -- also it quotes Nagarjuna's saying, "Thanks to emptiness, everything is possible", so I suppose Nagarjuna explains that too somehow).

The bit at he end of the article, about the leaf and the tree, is quite nice too: reassuring, tender.

He seems to be taking the opposite strategy towards self-identification than I'd expect -- not saying "I am not" but saying, "I am everything -- mother, cloud, leaf".

May he be well. :-)


Can we be too analytical It seems to me that analysing everything to the tiniest degree takes joy and spontaneity out of life. I admit, being mindful can make for better decision making and therefor better outcome, but do you want to be around me if I am so thoroughly earnest?

I think i get what you mean and being too analytical can seem strange because one will definitely be no fun at a party nor is one likely to participate to begin with. However being constantly serious and ardently training is going to make one more happy and one will be able to benefit other people in a far more useful way.


Not getting what one wants as a good thing or something to be thankful I understand that craving stuff leads us to suffering (Second Noble truth) and that getting what we think we want won't lead to happiness.

However, is there any explicit indication that it's even good not to get what we want? (any similarity with The Rolling Stones' lyrics is just a coincidence).

The only quote I can find is from the Dalai Lama:  'Remember that sometimes not getting what you want is a wonderful stroke of luck.

Certainly not getting what you want is unsatisfactory. This is Dukka Dukka. I will not say this is a good thing though this kind of thought can help you emotionally. Sometimes it might be true that not getting something may be better as you might be blinded by craving as not to see the downside e.g. a partner lower in morals.

Even if you get what you want this is not satisfactory as you have to part with it at some point.

The root cause of craving is sensations experienced then in contact with the object that you want or mental satisfaction in owning it (has come into the spear of mine).

If you don't get something wanted then the sensation you experience is painful. You have to look at it as impermanent or if you are developed in meditation as arising and passing of sensations (phenomena which is experienced or felt). By doing this you are weakening your root of aversion.

When you experience satisfactory experiences you have to look at the sensations again equnimously. When you experience the pleasantness passing away do the same. This is because doing so weakens the root of craving.

When you experience neutral sensations, the process of fabrication continues. Use this as means to eradicate your ignorance. Neutral sensations are unsatisfactory since we still have conditioned existence.

By reaction to sensations you create craving. Carving with further thinking and pondering and conpept polifration  creates clinging. At this point you will be planning on how to aquire what you want. If you miss de railing the train at feeling this is the next place you can try this by developing mastery over the mind. This is nothing wrong working towards getting what you want within the framework of morality and right livelihood. But in doing so you should try to be equanimous as possible to sensations and try developing more mastery over the mind to prevent craving and clinging.


A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are? Samadhi Sutta
(Concentration)
[Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.]
“Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present...

Is this an accurate translation of this part of the sutta? Isn't seeing things as they are mindfulness territory or mindfulness and concentration territory?

My understanding is that a  strongly concentrated monk usually focuses on concepts not actual reality. When one concentrates on reality as it is(reality without concepts) then it's difficult to get strong concentration but when one concentrates on a concept that doesn't move around and is more stable than actual impermanent reality then the concentrated monk can reach those great blissful jhana states.

Only meditation of reality will lead one to the understanding of reality or panna.

I don't know but it kinda  sounds like this translation is implying that concentration always shows one reality as it actually is but usually, concentration meditation involves one pointed attention on one concept not reality as it is.

The kind of concentration that is usually used for "seeing things as they are" is khanika samadhi or momentary concentration. This kind of concentration is used in Satipathana Vipassana meditation. It's like one pointed concentration only when a distraction comes, the distraction becomes the new focus until the distraction falls then it's back to the original focus that is often the sensation  breath as it happens, moment by moment.

Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present.
Samādhiṃ, bhikkhave, bhāvetha. Samāhito, bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti

Seeing things (pajānāti) is the terrority of wisdom (panna indriya), similar to seeing the signs, traffic, bends, dangers & safety in a road while driving a motor car in the rain.
Concentration is the mind undistracted & clear; similar to the clear windscreen of a car in the rain.
Mindfulness remembers to keep the mind undistracted & clear; similar to the windscreen wipers of a car constantly moving back & forth, keeping water off the windscreen of a motor car in the rain.
Mindfulness does not engage in 'seeing things'. The word 'sati' ('mindfulness') means 'to remember'; 'to bring to & keep in mind' (refer to MN 117).
The false idea that mindfulness 'perceives', 'sees' or is 'bare awareness' is possibly the greatest error in Buddhism, made by many notable mass-market 'teachers', including Ajahn Brahm, Henepola Gunaratana, Bhikkhu Yutadhammo & Joseph Goldstein.
Ajahn Jayasaro provides a correct explanation of mindfulness in this short video.


Is "Fake it 'til you make it" an acceptable Buddhist behavior? Does Buddhist psychology view the concept of "fake it 'til you make it" as an acceptable social behavior (eg, cheerful behavior rather than stressed behavior, or calm behavior rather than emotional behavior)?

For example, I recently attended my first meditation retreat (a weekend event). I was overcome with emotion a couple of times during meditation practice and teaching sessions, with quiet tearfulness. Also, during the sharing time, at the end of the retreat on the final day, I wept as I finished my expressions of gratitude to the teacher and group.

Should I have restrained that last public display of emotion? Was that display of emotion an ill-timed expression of ego/self, and, therefore, according to Buddhism, best to be avoided?

The idiom "Fake it until you make it" or the recent turn of phrase "Fake it until you become it" used by Amy Cuddy in a Ted Talk about body posture and how it effects your psychology seems to focus mostly on the concept of confidence: http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are

In that sense in the west there seems to be an interesting idea that confidence is key to success and therefore one should be confident at all times. This is of course not possible and there is where this idiom comes in. The idea is that if one act and behaves as if one is confident, one becomes more confident by way of training. in other words: "embody as best as you can, that which you want to be."

If taken in this way the idea may be applicable to Buddhists, not waiting for confidence, not being paralysed by uncertainty but practising being the person you want to be. Note that this is not the same as ignoring ones feeling or suppressing it. Nor is it a mode you don't allow yourself to fail.

I agree with the other answers that you did not act inappropriately. As long as one does not flinch because of it, or see it as a failure.


Is "the blind men and the elephant" a true Buddhist story? It is hard to trace the source of this lovely story, it is present in different religions from India.

In some versions of the story, the Buddha was there, in other versions the Buddha only told the story and there are also versions without the Buddha (participating or telling it)

Is this story on the Dhammapada? Is it from a Sutta? I would like to know if it is present somewhere in the Pali Canon

Can anyone help?

Is “the blind men and the elephant” a true Buddhist story? I would like to know if it is present somewhere in the Pali Canon.

Yes, the story is present in the canon:

  "Once, monks, in this same Sāvatthī, there was a certain king, and the
  king said to a certain man, 'Come, my good man. Gather together all
  the people in Sāvatthī who have been blind from birth.'"

  "Responding, 'As you say, your majesty,' to the king, the man — having
  rounded up all the people in Sāvatthī who had been blind from birth —
  went to the king and on arrival said, 'Your majesty, the people in
  Sāvatthī who have been blind from birth have been gathered together.'

  "'Very well then, I say, show the blind people an elephant.'

  "Responding, 'As you say, your majesty,' to the king, the man showed
  the blind people an elephant. To some of the blind people he showed
  the elephant's head, saying, 'This, blind people, is what an elephant
  is like.' To some of them he showed the elephant's ear, saying, 'This,
  blind people, is what an elephant is like.' To some of them he showed
  the elephant's tusk... the elephant's trunk... the elephant's body...
  the elephant's foot... the elephant's hindquarters... the elephant's
  tail... the tuft at the end of the elephant's tail, saying, 'This,
  blind people, is what an elephant is like.'

  "Then, having shown the blind people the elephant, the man went to the
  king and on arrival said, 'Your majesty, the blind people have seen
  the elephant. May your majesty do what you think it is now time to
  do.'

  "Then the king went to the blind people and on arrival asked them,
  'Blind people, have you seen the elephant?'

  "'Yes, your majesty. We have seen the elephant.'

  "'Now tell me, blind people, what the elephant is like.'

  "The blind people who had been shown the elephant's head said, 'The
  elephant, your majesty, is just like a jar.'

  "Those who had been shown the elephant's ear said, 'The elephant, your
  majesty, is just like a winnowing basket.'

  "Those who had been shown the elephant's tusk said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like plowshare.'

  "Those who had been shown the elephant's trunk said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like the pole of a plow.'

  "Those who had been shown the elephant's body said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like a granary.'

  "Those who had been shown the elephant's foot said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like a post.'

  "Those who had been shown the elephant's hindquarters said, 'The
  elephant, your majesty, is just like a mortar.'

  "Those who had been shown the elephant's tail said, 'The elephant,
  your majesty, is just like a pestle.'

  "Those who had been shown the tuft at the end of the elephant's tail
  said, 'The elephant, your majesty, is just like a broom.'

  "Saying, 'The elephant is like this, it's not like that. The
  elephant's not like that, it's like this,' they struck one another
  with their fists. That gratified the king.

  "In the same way, monks, the wanderers of other sects are blind &
  eyeless. They don't know what is beneficial and what is harmful. They
  don't know what is the Dhamma and what is non-Dhamma. Not knowing what
  is beneficial and what is harmful, not knowing what is Dhamma and what
  is non-Dhamma, they keep on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding
  one another with weapons of the mouth, saying, 'The Dhamma is like
  this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like
  this.'"
  -Excerpt from Ud 6.4, Sectarians (1)


Am I falling asleep or am I deepening my concentration? I use the Tara mantra as my focus during Samatha meditation prior to beginning Vipassana but lately I am beginning to wonder...am I falling asleep? I can't tell, really. I don't get drowsy but my mantra becomes so quiet that it begins to merge with the thought-stream that it is resting on, and then I lose awareness of both until my consciousness returns to the fact that I am still chanting, but without any awareness of what, if anything, I was actually thinking about-the thoughts being too quiet to catch or to get caught in. But just as there is no going, there is no returning either (no waking up) with this experience, just very subtle ebb and flow. When I began a regular meditation practice about five months ago discursive thought would become loud enough to break my concentration. It still does, of course, more often than not, and I thoroughly enjoy the challenge of "getting caught up in the flow" only to return to the mantra. But lately it is like meditation has lost its urgency. It has become so much a part of my life. It has become like that ebb and flow and I just want to rest in the stillness of that. It is just so beautiful...but then I start to think that maybe it is an escape from being present and that my mind is playing with me. I would really like to know what is going on, and if there is somewhere I should be going with this, some way that I should be practice with it skillfully.

Ah, the bliss plateau. Good that you caught this now.  Some practicioners never get past it, the quietitude is too enticing for them to push past.  In Zen, we call this "dead sitting" and it can completely ruin the practice of even experienced monks.
What you're experiencing now is step two on your way to absorption.  Step one was the monkey mind that you put to rest.  Here, correct me if I'm wrong, but I bet you can sit longer than you could in stage one.  Your body is probably moving less, and, like you mentioned, your thoughts aren't as intrusive.
In order to go beyond, you need an anchor point.  Unless if you have one to apply your mind to, you are going to drift off into that see of oceanic bliss and never find your way to the other shore.
You're working with a mantra.  That's similar to how we work with a koan in Rinzai.  One thing I've found effective is to hold the vowel sounds.  Keep them going so the mantra takes up the entirely of a single breath.  Wait for that exhalation to stop.  Don't force the breath out.  The technique I have been using more often these days is to simply find a spot and anchor your attention there.  Don't force the concentration point.  Sit on it.  Just like you don't have to force your butt down to stay seated, just plop your attention down on that point and let it sit there.  Dont let your mind shift off that spot.
If you're doing this right, a feeling of energy is going to start to emerge.  It may feel like tension or discomfort in the body.  It can also start as a feeling of pressure in the head.  Theres going to be a temptation to move your body or slide off your seat of concentration.  Resist that.  Stay with that energy.  Eventually it will crack - but please don't try to crack it.
When that happens, you'll have this meditation thing pretty well sorted!


What can one do with knowings that occur from strong intuition? Please see a breakdown of how one may approach the question...

'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six senses as a substrate between the seeming reality out there and the seeming mind in here. However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently separate from this process.
Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no previous auto-suggestion.

The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing that rebirth is so.

Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so?

What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer these also!)

Knowing is not dependent upon the external senses, otherwise, how would you know that you have dropped the senses in 2nd Jhana? How would you know the 3rd and 4th Jhanas? Now to answer your question about what is mind. Mind is created or produced by that-which-flows. That-which-flows is the activity of the unborn. Do not think that the unborn is static. It is not, but mind cannot access it. Knowing of the unborn comes by that-which-flows. A glimpse of that-which-flows is the attainment of Sotopanna. Realizing that-which-flows is the fulfillment of Sotopanna (obtaining the fruits thereof). This realization is often called self-realization (not of the ego self). Self-realization is beyond mind. It is the “turning in consciousness” spoken of in the suttas. Consciousness is changed when this realization happens. The first three fetters are dropped and you are never the same.


What's the difference between these 3? What is the difference between satipatthana, samatha and anapanasati?  When I read about them they all seem to be saying the same thing so how are they different?

Those three terms do have a lot of similarities when we apply them.

Anapanasati is a broad term translated as "mindfulness of breathing", it can refer to any type of breath-meditation where we apply mindfulness. In the anapanasati sutta it mentions being mindful of the body while you are breathing, therefore you don't have to be mindful of the breath directly.

Samatha means a calm state so samatha meditation is a type of meditation where we try to create calm. Often being aware of the breath is a way to create calm so this can appear similar to anapanasati.

The word satipathana means a foundation for mindfulness. This is a type of meditation where to aim to practice mindfulness of anything we choose. The satipathana sutta uses the body and feelings as examples of things we can be mindful of. If you don't have much calm then it can be good to be mindful of the breath because it is quite stable. This can be a type of anapanasati meditation; also notice how it is linked to creating calm (samatha meditation).

Those three types of meditation overlap a lot and sometimes we could use more than one of those words to describe what we are doing.


Why am I getting upset after meditation and sleepy during meditation? I've started to meditate in recent days. After meditation, one day I feel happy and the other day I feel upset, angry and depressed. Also, at the end of the meditation I feel like I just woke up from sleep.
Why is this happening to me? Is there any solution to overcome this issue?

Ven. Vijithananda said this is due to practicing Samatha meditation. When you practice Samatha you have the irritation towards any disturbances to your meditation such as sound and the people around you. You also irritated for not being able to experience that meditative happiness.
As per Ven. Vijithananda, sleepiness is some sort of progress (defeating four Maras) however you have to go beyond sleepiness.
The solution for this is to practice Satipathana.


Have the copies of original Tipitaka written in Aluvihara Sri Lanka now been lost? Have the copies of original Tipitaka written in Aluvihara Sri Lanka now been lost?
It appears that the Tipitaka used in Sri Lanka an import from Thailand or Myanmar.
I ask because in this essay, The original Alu Vihara manuscript does not exist, Ven. Sujato writes,

The original text copied 2,000 years has long vanished in the mists of history. Manuscripts in Sri Lanka generally do not last longer than a few hundred years, and presumably it would have been re-copied multiple times. The Alu Vihara, it seems, remained a center for preserving manuscripts. Sadly, though, the old library was destroyed, along with any manuscripts, during the Matale rebellion of 1848 4. So we shall never know exactly what was in it at that time.
We do know, however, that the Sri Lankan Sangha requested that manuscripts be imported from Myanmar and Thailand during the colonial period ...
... Despite all this, it is a common belief among Sri Lankans that the Alu Vihara original Tipitaka still exists.

... and later, presumably referring to a deleted post,

Just in case anyone is wondering, the above post is exactly the kind of conspiracy theory I am trying to dispel.

So -- are "copies of the original" lost? What is the "evidence" on that subject?

I am not an active participant of this forum anymore, but in seeing this OP, I just could not be without expanding on the question that I just asked. The writing of the Tripitaka, Theravāda Pāli Canon, was performed at the cave temple “Alu Lena”  and not at the cave temple called Aluvihare in Matale area in Sri Lanka. Tripitaka was committed to writing by 500 monks in the first century BC. The Cave temple in Aluvihare cannot even hold 50 monks, leave aside 500. It is just not spacious enough. But whereas in “Alulena”, this cave is spacious enough to accommodate 500 monks and it is well illuminated by the sunlight.

Before the introduction of paper, palm leaf was the main raw material used for writing and painting for several centuries, and palm trees are abundant in and around “Alulena”. Anyway to your question proper…  The sacred Buddha Dhamma preached by Gautama Buddha 2600 years ago is secured and well preserved only in the Tripitaka Canons which were written in the present-day Sri Lanka. Today this original Tripitaka written in Sri Lanka is found in the British Museum. The present Neville Collection in the UK has 2000 manuscripts. The first of these were taken by George Turner and the second lot by Hugh Nevill of the British Civil Service.

![Now we have a copy of the original scriptures with us.
]1


What is considered lying in Buddhist (five) precepts? This precept is often translated as harsh speech or false speech. The meaning of this precept is often understood as not to tell lie. But how are we supposed to define "lie" in Buddhist context particularly fourth precept?

An example:
One student got kicked out from a University because of unacceptable conducts. Someone knows this and is asked by his friend what has happened to that student.
Instead of telling his friend that student got kicked out, his answer is, that student probably already moved to other University.
The truth is, the student has committed unacceptable conducts therefore the student got kicked out.

There are many cases in life because of security reason, sensitive information, privacy, etc. we say another thing when we are asked. But is this the same as telling lie e.g. harmful food is said/declared as healthy food, counterfeit product is answered as genuine product? Is being honest the same as having wisdom?

Not providing all information, changing the subject or staying silent does not break the precept. But, marketing harmful food as healthy food or selling counterfeits as originals does break the precept.

Understanding the importance of honesty and knowing when to speak,what to speak and whom to speak are all instances of wisdom.


how desire for cessation, never to be reborn, is different from desire for non-being? The Second Noble Truth identifies three aspects of craving, one of them being craving for non-being.

How does the desire for cessation, to attain final Nibbāna, never to be reborn, differ from the desire for non-existence?

Vibhava tanha (craving not-to-be) is a type of craving.

Cessation of being (bhava nirodha) is the cessation of craving (tanha nirodha).

The "desire for cessation" called 'chanda iddhipada' is not a type of craving (tanha).

Also, bhava nirodha is not "never to be reborn". "Bhava" is "egoism". "Bhava nirodha" is the cessation of egoism.

If mind believes believes in "ego" or "self", now can it ever stop being "reborn"?

"Jati" ("birth") itself means "egoism'. "Jati nirodha" happens when egoism stops.

The only way to reach Nibbana is stopping egoism.


Is sky burial ritual inhumane and if not what is the reason for doing it? When it seems inhumane, why is it practiced?

I know Buddha didn't find.

Wikipedia document says:

  Sky burial (Tibetan: བྱ་གཏོར་, Wylie: bya   gtor, lit. "bird-scattered" is a funeral practice in.  which a human corpse is placed on a.   mountaintop to decompose while exposed to.  the elements or to be eaten by scavenging.  animals, especially carrion birds.

So are people still doing this kind of funeral practice?
And what is meaning of it?

Though the body is decomposed and exposed to the elements, this isn't seem a respectful way to do.

Upasaka Swapnil, interested,

It's a still practiced way in the high cold mountains, with also practical aspects, since such as fire-wood for burning is raw and soil might be frozen. Next to that it serves good for Asubha-meditation for yogies and monks.

Nothing generally wrong with such and not inhuman but not beloved by those attached to body as the Self and Subha.

Good to watch for everyone to get more detached to rupa: Sky Burial: Tibetan Burial Ritual (video on YouTube)

(Note that it has not been given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to use it skillful as means out of this wheel)


Object-based Meditation Versus Objectless Meditation I notice I have practised meditation in a very biased way, in the sense that I contemplate my experience in a neither focused, neither supported way. Here, by support, I mean a contemplation supported by an object.

So, basically, I am aware of my consciousness and the interaction of thoughts and impressions within it, although without a specific support.

To me, a focused meditation would imply moments of consciousness unified by some specific centring focus.

Similarly, supported meditation implies sensory, perceptual focuses rather than experiences which are bound to alter and vary.

An actual object, whether material as a physical object or perceptual as the breath, would fulfill both these aspects.

QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?

QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

QUESTION 1: What is the effect/consequence of meditating in such a vague way? Of simply attending to consciousness without an ongoing object of focus?

Consequences might be that unity of mind cannot happen since there is no object to focus attention on, meaning e.g. Vitakka and Vichara, cannot happen.

Insight-meditationally speaking, without an object to attend to, I don't see how insights could arise.

  QUESTION 2: Would such a way of contemplating actually decrease focus and energy (virya) in some cases?

It might block the (seven) Enlighenment Factors from arising.


Buddhism Thervada Tattoos I'd watched show Tattoo Hunter of Dr. Lars Krutak on Discovery channel. And he had Buddhist tattoo by Thervada monks. There was an Elephant, Tiger and Crocodile tattoos. And who had those tattoos they have power of these animals. So I want to know more about meaning of that art and techniques and may I think those powers are because of techniques and meditation. Is this art and techniques discovered by Buddha?

It has nothing to do with Buddha and his teachings, although sometimes parts of Suttas (Pali) are used in the text. Mostly the texts recites Brahmanic-verses (Sanskrit), sometimes mixed.

The script here is mostly - like here in your samples - Khmer (Cambodian), which was used also in Thailand till a Thai King invented own script.

This so called "yoan"s "yantras" are protective charms, also used for flags which are placed on the roof cross-beams of a house.

Usually soldier hire "monks" to do these, especially those active in war. Many monks in SEA have been soldier.

In regard to tattoos being "done by monks": The Buddha called that a "livelihood of animals". It is not allowed and is a second-heaviest violation of the Vinaya (rules of monks).

You may understand that my person will not put effort into translating it.

Just a general notes, regarding tattoos: beautification of the body is not something conducive for one's real protection and practice. Not to speak of harming the body unnecessarily.

Today there are many monks making livelihood with such, even paint themselves. Most (not all) can be considered as outside of the Buddha's disciples. Today's monks doing such usually have also not even an idea of meditation, which one ever.

It you wish to translate it, here a list of the script's letters. You could in this way write Pali in Roman letters, and then either ask Pali/Sanskrit scholars or search dictionaries. Since the script is different to modern, my person attached a picture including the older script.

(Since my person just came across again: Santidhammo Bhikkhu, eager in discovering Tantric Theravada, wrote some articles about yantras: Yantra in Cambodian Buddhism - Boran and Yantra Tattoo and Tantric Theravada traditions

Some details about the meanings can be found in links given by Rahul at freesangha.com: Samatha Journal, soravij.com)


Right way to teaching Dhamma Buddha said that there is a specific way to teach the dhamma. That for example, if I remember correctly, among other things, it's important to mention the cause and effect in one's teaching. I can't find this anywhere, can someone give me a source for this?

Also, what if I teach the dhamma in a wrong way? Is this causing demerit/bad merit/bad karma? What if I mean to teach it in a right way, but it comes out wrong or even causes the listener to have a strong aversion to buddhism/listening to the dhamma?

One should teach the dhamma for the sake of revulsion, of dispassion, of cessation, regarding:

decay-and-death,
Birth,
Existence,
Clinging,
Craving,
Feeling,
Contact,
The 6 sense-bases,
Name-and-form,
Consciousness,
Decay of Formations,
Ignorance

(Nibbidā) Dhamma,kathika Sutta

The above included:

the 3 good truths (saddhamma);
the 12 links of dependent arising (paṭicca,samuppāda); and
the “revulsion” (nibbidā) formula.

See introduction (Nibbidā) Dhamma,kathika Sutta by Piya Tan

Also the teacher should:

talk on the progressive teaching
teach understanding the context
teach the Dharma out of compassion
teach the Dharma not for the sake of material gain
teach the Dharma without hurting myself or others

(Dhamma,desaka) Udāyī Sutta

  what if I teach the dhamma in a wrong way? Is this causing demerit/bad merit/bad karma?

Yes it would.

  What if I mean to teach it in a right way, but it comes out wrong or even causes the listener to have a strong aversion to buddhism/listening to the dhamma?

As long as you have been diligent and taught the right way and tries to correct misunderstanding then what can you do? It is not your fault.

Make sure you do not contribute to the disappearance of the Dhamma. See: Sugata Vinaya Sutta, Candûpama Sutta and others which deal with decline of the Dhamma and impure ways to teach.


Difference between "perception" and "view"? What is the difference between view (as in "right view" in the Noble Eightfold Path) and perception (as in the 3rd of the five Skandha's)?

Grateful for help! Peace, Tord

Perception is making memory.

Everytime we are making memory. One is touching (construction), feeling (feeling), and making memory (perception), while seeing (consciousness) a color at same moment.

Perception must arises everytime, except asannasatta-brahma and sannavedayitanirodhasamapatti, with a wholesome aggregate, unwholesome and neither wholesome nor unwholesome.

View is understanding of relations.

Right view is understanding in the relations of aggregates in the dependention origination cycle.

It is a kind of construction aggregates, sankhara. It can arise only with wholesome and neither wholesome nor unwholesome.

Wrong view is misunderstanding in  the relations of aggregates in the dependention origination cycle. It is a kind of construction aggregates, sankhara as well. It can arise only with unwholesome.

See the path of purification chapters: aggregates,  and dependent origination.


Shouldn't we take Lord Buddha's word above the all others? I have seen many answers to questions referring teachings of modern teacher in this SE.

But as i have learned

Lord Buddha's understanding is above any other,even above an arahant.

Dhamma/Dharma itself is timeless and therefore does not need modifications or updates.

So what is the need of the term "Modern practice / Modern Buddhism"?

Shouldn't we take Lord Buddha's word above the rest and use any other resource later on for further clarification if there is such a need?

Why there is a trend of drifting away from original teachings, does the followers now believe that Lord Buddha's words are outdated?

It is correct, that the Dhamma is both universal and timeless.

The Dhamma is described as being an ancient path, that fully enlightened Buddhas discover by themselves and then teach it to other beings.

The words from a fully enlightened Buddha need not to be renewed or changed.

One needs only to practice insight meditation to find out if these words are true or not.

So there is no need for renewal of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is complete as it is. The Dhamma does not change.

Don't worry about the shifting away from the Dhamma. That is bound to happen. That is why there will arrive a future Buddha. The next fully enlightened Buddha to be, is Maitreya, whom arrives when the Dhamma has been completely forgotten. That is just the nature of a world system.


In the wheel of life, how can death be a condition for ignorance? Considering the 12 nidanas as represented on the Tibetan wheel of life.

I can understand how the previous links cause (or condition) the subsequent ones for instance sensation is a condition for craving. However as the wheel turns it does

birth -> conditions -> death -> conditions -> ignorance

In what way is death a condition for ignorance? I can't see a casual link there.

Bhava-chakra, the wheel of life, or, as I would translate it, "the wheel of individuation" is a relatively late depiction of the 12 Nidanas. In the suttas of Pali Canon, the nidanas are usually presented as a list, that is reviewed both in forward as well as in reverse direction -- but never (to my knowledge!) as an infinite loop.

If you read the wheel clock-wise, the 12 nidanas are:

avidya -> samskara -> vijnana -> nama-rupa -> six ayatana -> phassa -> vedana -> tanha -> upadana -> bhava -> jati -> jaramarana & dukkha

Although the interpretation of the wheel as depicting the cycle of death-and-rebirth is accepted by most schools, according to Triyana framework it represents the basic/literal ("hinayana") level of understanding.

Instead, some instructors, including Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, taught twelve nidanas as a process of gradual individuation, or emerging and hardening of the illusory ego.

In this line of thinking, avidya is the innate ignorance, samskaras are the arbitrary imprints of sensory stimulation, vijnana is inductive intelligence born from the imprints, nama-rupa are inductively postulated external objects, six ayatanas are the implied "windows" onto the world, phassa is a subjective experience of contact with the postulated objects, vedana is a sensation attributed to the contact, tanha is an obsessive replay of the contact and sensation, upadana is feeding the obsession by making its object one's goal, bhava is becoming the "this" of here-and-now, dependently-co-arisen with the twofold "that" of space-and-time, jati is identifying with a living organism, and jaramarana is experiencing the organism's perspective culminating in death.

(Because the list shows subjective experience, not an objective physical process, the physical birth is not shown, but if it were, it would fit right before Ignorance. The Birth that is shown, is not a physical birth, but conceptual (subjective) assumption that one is an individual living organism.)

Although 12 nidanas explained this way describe subjective experience of one sentient being, which begins with physical birth and ends with death, we could say that after death the cycle logically "restarts" from scratch, again starting from ignorance, progressing through individuation, and culminating in death of another "being" and so forth indefinitely.

To be sure, objectively there is no cycle, beings arise and cease asynchronously, but in some sense we could say that death of a (unenlightened) being is a return to innate ignorance.

@ChrisW found a tremendously elegant quote in Wikipedia:

  When the cessation of the continuity of experience occurs, we speak of death. It is the total breakdown and dissolution of experience and experiencer. The process of disintegration, destructuring, and entropic scattering yields a nexus of vibratory murkiness which is the condition of avidyā, the first motif. Thus the entire structure of patterning feeds back on itself.


Nagarjuna and the Schools I am confused by the variety of views within Buddhism. It appears to me that Nagarjuna provides a complete philosophical justification and explanation for the Buddha's teachings and that this is accepted by many Buddhists. But not all. I'd like to ask:

Which sects or schools reject Nagarjuna's metaphysics?
On what grounds do they do so?
How do they deal with the difficulty that Nagarjuna proves all theories of Reality except his own are logically indefensible?

There are three issues here: there is N's proof of the absurdity of all positive metaphysical positions (in Fundamental Wisdom); his 'theory of Emptiness'; the doctrine of 'Two Truths'.

I wonder whether some Buddhists cherry-pick from these -- or do those who reject or accept one of them tend to reject or accept all three?

I can tell you why the Theravada school does not pay attention to Nagarjuna's works:

Parable of the Poisoned Arrow
Parable of the Simsapa Leaves
The Discourse on the Unconjecturables
The statement by the Buddha that he did not hide anything in a closed fist.
Discourse on The All

Basically, this means that from the perspective of the Theravada school, everything that the Buddha had taught in the Pali Canon is sufficient. Nothing more is needed. Anything else is simply icing on the cake.

Personally, I have tried to understand Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka emptiness and tried to link it back to Theravada emptiness in this question. I appreciate the concept of Madhyamaka emptiness.

I don't think Nagarjuna is in conflict with the Buddha's original teachings (in the Pali suttas and Mahayana Agamas). But at the same, I don't think he introduced something new to improve the Buddha's original teachings.

One important contribution of Nagarjuna is the use of methodical philosophical analysis to defend Buddhism against attacks by Hindu and other non-Buddhist Indian philosophers. See this answer.


Question on Divisive Speech Buddha said the following are unskillful verbal action :

  He engages in divisive speech. What he has heard here he tells there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he tells here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus breaking apart those who are united and stirring up strife between those who have broken apart, he loves factionalism, delights in factionalism, enjoys factionalism, speaks things that create factionalism. He engages in abusive speech. He speaks words that are harsh, cutting, bitter to others, abusive of others, provoking anger and destroying concentration. He engages in idle chatter. He speaks out of season, speaks what isn’t factual, what isn’t in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya, words that are not worth treasuring.

I have a question about this. When someone has wronged us or others, it is very helpful psychologically to speak about it to someone to "let off" steam. For example : if going through a divorce a woman speaks about why she is getting divorced and the wrongs her husband has done her to her best friend. This helps her work through it and offload some steam. Does this sort of comfort seeking with someone qualify  as " unskillful verbal action"

Perhaps, according to Buddhism and modern psychology, it isn't helpful to "speak about it to someone to let off steam".
If you are in some abusive relationship, then doing something about it (something other that what you have been doing previously) may be healthy; and so, talking enough to understand what's happening, and to make new plans, may be healthy; but "letting off steam" doesn't sound right.
To pick just one example from Google, here's a quote from Psychology Today: You Can't Punch Your Way Out of Anger --
You can’t let off steam with violence.
Posted Sep 24, 2009
As for Buddhism I think there's an obvious quote at the start of the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those harbouring such thoughts cannot be appeased.

"He abused me, he ill-treated me, he got the better of me, he stole my belongings;"... the enmity of those not harbouring such thoughts can be appeased.

What's "skillful" might depend on how you talk about it and who with; but I at least want to challenge the premise that it "lets off steam" and that that's helpful. Instead of letting off steam it might keep the fire (of anger etc.) burning ... "fanning the flames" if you want a metaphor.


The hidden cycle: dying, death, rebirth I am looking for an explanation for my wife about what happens during the dying-death-rebirth cycle according to Buddhist teachings as well as any background readings we can locate.

I was explaining the mourning period after the death of a loved one being based on the average time before rebirth (49 days in Vietnamese tradition), and she had made reference to some reading she had been doing that mentioned the phases that must be passed before a rebirth takes place.

I also recall a teaching by Thich Nguyen Tang that explained the 6 possible states in which a person can be reborn (heaven, human life, asura, hungry ghost, animal, hell).

Is there a unified explanation that exists between the various traditions?

In the Theravada tradition, when one dies, he/she is reborn immediately. There's no gap between death and birth. I think this confusion comes becauses of the stories about people floating around, looking for a suitable womb, after death. But those beings who float around can still see and hear. That means they have a body with functional senses. So they are born already into a new existence.


Is there a Buddhist school / tradition wich recognizes the endless cycle of rebirth but doesn't teach that we should get liberated from it? And even more, that we should embrace it and accept it (while at the same time avoiding the sufferings) ?

Many Mahayana Buddhist traditions believe that liberation is specifically freedom from suffering rather than freedom from being present in the universe.

But suffering is not to be avoided. It is to be prevented. The avoidance of suffering is what binds us to it.  Recognising it's root causes and eliminating them is the journey to enlightenment.

This is why 'Right View' is so important within Buddhism. When we are able to see that the root cause of our misery is the mistaken view that sees permanence where there is none, sees joy where there is none, and sees self-existence where there is none, then our new view engages in a transvaluation of our experiences.  Because of this transvaluation, our attitude towards some things will invariably change.  For instance, we may look at a new car in a showroom - and just see it as a source of new trouble rather than as a source of joy.

So accepting and embracing the continuum of rebirth is to be encouraged; But to accept and embrace the unmodified, ignorant view of the transitory, empty, miserable shit-hole of the unenlightened state, and holding onto the idea that there is joy to be found in it - that's not a buddhist thing.