What's the ordering of 6 realms of rebirth? I've just started learning Buddhism, and currently investigating 6 realms of rebirth. What confuses me is that it seems different sources give inconsistent ordering of the realms.
For example, in the book Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction the 6 realms of rebirth is ordered (from highest to lowest) as follows:

Gods
Humans
Titans
Ghosts
Animals
Hell

However, in wikipedia article of Saṃsāra it presents the following order:

Gods
Human
Demi-god
Animal
Hungry ghost
Hell

I also checked wikipedia for 六道 and some other Chinese online articles (since I can read Chinese). It seems they prefer to order demi-god realm above human realm.
So in summary, there seems to be inconsistency of relative ordering of two pairs of realms among various sources, namely the relative ordering between human realm and demi-god realm, and between animal realm and ghost realm.
I'm wondering which is right? Is there a definitive ordering? Maybe different branches of Buddhism define them differently?

The Pali scriptures say:

Mendicants, there are five destinations. What five? Hell, the animal
realm, the ghost realm, humanity and the gods. Nirayo, tiracchānayoni,
pettivisayo, manussā, devā—
AN 9.68
And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced
in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma
to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
AN 6.63

Other examples of the above ordering are here.
Therefore, the ordering of the five realms in descending order is:

Gods
Humans
Ghosts
Animals
Hell

However, it appears one sutta, from thousands, namely, Iti 93, includes a separate asura realm and places asura below hungry ghosts.

Being unaware of these three fires, humankind (pajā = people) delights in personal
existence.
Unfree from the bonds of Māra They swell the ranks of hell, existence
in the animal realm, asura-demons and the sphere of ghosts.
Iti 93

Therefore, based on Iti 93, the descending order is:

Deva gods
Humans
Hungry ghosts
Asura gods
Animals
Hell


Is buddhism nondualistic? Buddhism learns that everything is in constant change and in constant interaction; that nothing is steady and separated from the other things. Does that mean that buddhism is nondualistic?

Original Pali Buddhism does not teach about 'non-dualism'. Instead, it teaches about 'voidness' (selflessness; sunnata).

  The world is empty...In what respect is it said that the world is empty? Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a
  self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty.

  SN 35.85

In a number of places, it states there are internal & external phenomena.

  The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known.

  MN 148

  Owing to a dyad (pair), monks, consciousness comes into being. And how, monks, does consciousness come into being owing to a dyad?

  "Owing to the eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Forms are impermanent,
  changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Thus this dyad is fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing and 'becoming-otherwise.' That cause,
  that condition, that gives rise to eye-consciousness — that also is
  impermanent, changing, becoming-otherwise.' And how, monks, could eye
  consciousness, having arisen dependent on an impermanent condition,
  become permanent? Now the coming-together, the falling together, the
  meeting-together, of these three things: this, monk, is called
  'eye-contact.' Eye-contact, too, is impermanent, changing,
  'becoming-otherwise.' And how, monks, could eye-contact, having arisen
  dependent on an impermanent condition, become permanent? Contacted,
  monks, one feels. Contacted, one intends. Contacted, one perceives.
  Thus these states also are fleeting and transient; impermanent,
  changing, 'becoming-otherwise.'

  SN 35.93

MN 1 lists the perception of 'oneness' ('ekatta') as not Nirvana & as one a many possible experiences.

  He perceives earth as earth...He perceives water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind ... beings as beings... gods as
  gods...Pajapati as Pajapati...Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as
  luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent
  glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit...
  the Conqueror as the Conqueror ... the dimension of the infinitude of
  space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of
  the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of
  consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of
  nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
  as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception[3] ... the
  seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the
  sensed... the cognized as the cognized ... singleness as singleness (ekatta)...
  multiplicity as multiplicity ... the All as the All ... Nirvana as
  Nirvana...

This essay may help: Dhamma and Non-duality.


What is the difference between "Bhāva" and "Ātman" in Pali I have read in Buddhist text, Buddhism is about "Bhāva" and not "Ātman".

What is the difference between "Bhāva" and "Ātman"?

Both have their places in Buddhist thought/practice.

First, the definitions:

bhāva: condition; nature; becoming
atta (ātman is the Sanskrit form): self; ego; soul

Here are a couple of relevant quotes:

  In Buddhist thought, bhāva denotes the continuity of life and death, including reincarnation, and the maturation arising therefrom. (source)

So, bhāva could be described as the "seamlessness of existence".

  Although the Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "self" can be found, some Buddhist schools, sutras and tantras present the notion of an atman or permanent "Self", although mostly referring to an Absolute and not to a personal self. (source)

And atta is about the person in the moment; though as mentioned above, it's really more about a higher level conceptual "self".

In Buddhist thought, the opposite of atta (anatta) is a generally more significant concept:

  In Buddhism, the term anattā refers to the perception of "not-self", recommended as one of the seven beneficial perceptions, which along with the perception of dukkha and impermanence is also formally classified among the three marks of existence. (source)

I hope this helps!


Is there any skillful use of using 'we' in addressing certain opinion? As possible also observed, when teaching, the address of ones position by 'we' is hardly found in the teaching of the Buddha and his disciples.
It seems that this often used way of using 'we' in argumentation, is purely a tool to demonstrate power and backhold, used also for winning anothers favor, in cases when 'we' includes the listener or could, if he takes on it.
In most cases it seems to be actually an often deliberated lie, as for how could one speak for another, possible even disregard those one might incl. in one 'we'.
So what do you think, is there any case, or in which case, can position 'we' be used skilfull, in which cases does it not point on ones attachments, greed, desires: unwise after gain and identification. In which case is it not clear to be seen as an outcome of sakkāyadiṭṭhi (on-group-holding/group-identification-view) of even gross outwardly sort?
Is it a word a non-worldling woul make use of, and if, in which circumstances?
Maybe one like also sacrifices samples found under the leading teachers of past and present, as addition to ones gift of sharing ones reflections here.
Would the use of 'we' be a good warn-signal, if tracing such in others speech?
`ironical' What do we think? What would we answer here?
[Note that this isn't given for exchange, stacks, and what ever world-binding similar trade but for escape from this wheel]

In MN8, the word "we" is used extensively to cover forty-four ethical considerations. Here is one such:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Such ethical considerations would apply to all on the Noble Eightfold Path.
Others will ignore them. We will study them.


What is SGI? And the Lotus sutra? How many types of Buddhism are there? Someone told me about SGI, Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo. How that is derived from the Buddha. but mostly on the lotus sutra.

Can we read the lotus sutra in English online?

The main schools of Buddhism today are Theravada and Mahayana. Vajrayana or Tantric Buddhism is a part of Mahayana.

Theravada Buddhism is mostly practised in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand, but also in other countries.

Mahayana Buddhism today has the main divisions of East Asian Mahayana (including Pureland, Zen etc.) and Vajrayana (including various Tibetan sub-schools).

The article "A Comparative Study of the Schools" and the question "What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?" can help you with regards to comparison between the schools.

Nichiren Buddhism, which is the type of Buddhism propagated by Sokka Gakkai International (SGI) is considered to be a part of Mahayana Buddhism under the Japanese Buddhism or East Asian Mahayana Buddhism branch. It was founded by Japanese Buddhist priest Nichiren (1222–1282). Details on his life can be found here. His followers believed him to be either a Bodhisattva or Buddha. The chanting of "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" was a unique teaching and practice of this school. A brief description of Nichiren Buddhism can be found here.

These questions may also be helpful:

How is Nichiren Buddhism different from other branches of Buddhism?
What “technically” happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?
How to chant the mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?

You can find the online English translation of the Lotus Sutra according to SGI here. Another online English translation can be found here.

The relationship between the Lotus Sutra and the Buddha's original teachings is discussed in the question "What is the basis of Lotus Sutta with respect to original Tipitaka?"


What does Robert M. Pirsig's "Quality" correspond to in Buddhism? The concept of "Quality" relates to the direct experience of the moment, as described in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I was wondering if this has a parallel in Buddhism? To me, the idea of Quality seems to be like Sunyata turned inside-out.
Here is a quote from the book:

  Quality ... you know what it is, yet you don't know what it is. But
  that's self-contradictory. But some things are better than others,
  that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the
  quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof!
  There's nothing to talk about. But if you can't say what Quality is,
  how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If
  no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn't
  exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist.

What would we call this idea?

I'm not sure but I guess it's an expression of "feeling" or Vedanā -- e.g. the feeling that, "This is pleasant" versus "This is not pleasant".

I say that because the book starts with discussing whether you should maintain your motorcycle, based on whether your doing so leads to your having a good time when you're riding (I think there's a passage with an analogy about riding on a sunny day on a well-tuned machine versus riding in the rain on a machine that's breaking down). The word "feeling" shows up frequently in the first chapter,

Another memorable passage, near the climax, is when he explains the Greek idea of arete -- I think that the example which he gives, i.e. "And
may they say, as he returns from war, ‘He is far better than his father.’" appears to be an example of pride or conceit.

I'm not sure whether all that is what Buddhists would call "the direct experience of the moment". I couldn't tell you about Zen but the practice of "guarding the sense door" might (I'm not sure) involve being aware of what you sense (e.g. aware of contact: contact between light plus eye plus consciousness-of-seeing, and so on for all six senses), without becoming over-involved in how you may feel about that, in the feelings which you develop as a consequence of that sensory contact.

On the other hand part of what I think is good about the book is when he decides that the question "What is good?" is a more important or fundamental question than "What is true?" (i.e. when he contrasts the Sophists with Aristotle). I think the question of "What is good?" (i.e. Quality) corresponds not only to "feelings" but also "virtue" (right behaviour, righteousness, morality) ... and not only "virtue" but also the question of whether things are "beneficial" or "skillful" instead of harmful. And I think that corresponds to Buddhist concepts -- one of which is sila, which isn't just elemental but fundamental to Buddhism-as-it's-taught -- and another is the Buddhist term "ariya", which is translated "noble" or right, and is used when naming, "the noble truths", "the noble eight-fold path", "the noble sangha".


Does every Buddha have knowledge of the past, present and future? I quote from the “King of Samādhi” Sutra. First Buddha says “What is the samādhi called the revealed equality of the nature of all phenomena?” Then a bit further down the text he says “It is knowledge of the past. It is knowledge of the future. It is knowledge of the present.”

Is every Buddha omniscient according to this sutra?

Questions about omniscience often arise, but the answers point us to a different knowledge:

MN90:17.4: “Sir, I asked you about omniscience, and you answered.

The Buddha taught us to not get trapped in the net of views worrying about omniscience. The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, which apply to the past, present and future for all sentient beings.

DN1:3.72.3: In the same way, all of these ascetics and brahmins who theorize about the past or the future are trapped in the net of these sixty-two grounds, so that wherever they emerge they are caught and trapped in this very net.  The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off.  As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.

The Buddha taught us how to escape that net to end suffering. And when pressed on particular points of omniscience, he would teach about the path:

MN90:10.1: “Sir, I am not asking you about the present life, but about the life to come.”
MN90:10.6: “Great king, there are these five factors that support meditation.

And in that teaching, the teaching of the universal knowledge of the Four Noble Truths, the teaching of the knowledge of the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to the end of suffering, we have:

DN28:19.16: “The perfected ones, fully awakened Buddhas of the past and the future are equal to myself when it comes to awakening.”


The Abhidamma Pitaka Can anyone help me with finding The Abhidamma Pitaka or some of the 7 books from it?

I seem not to be able to find anything when searching on google. Maybe im just not skilled enough to find books/pdf's about it. I can find only descriptions of what The Abhidhamma Pitaka is and what it contains.

I would like to find it in english since i cannot read other languages.

I really want to begin studying this Pitaka. Help would be much appreciated.

May all beings be happy, peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.

Harshani

--Update--

I just found this: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhaultsci.pdf
I think its a condensation of the most essential teachings from The Abhidhamma Pitaka. Can anyone confirm this?

Apologies for a nearly identical post to another question, but:

You can get a hard copy text of the Pali Text Society edition from:

The Pali Text Society: http://palitext.com
(they also have sets of the translations) Become a member and receive a nice discount.

You can find an on-line version of the BJT text at:
Metta Net Lanka:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html

You can get a searchable CD from the Vipassana Research Institute:
http://www.vridhamma.org/Chattha-Sangayana-CD-ROM-Update

These have the Abhidhamma texts.

EDIT: In response to your revised question. I have the Abhidhamma texts. The books are:
Abhidhamma Pitaka

Dhammasangani: Buddhist Psychological Ethics
Vibhanga: The Book of Analysis
Dhatukath¤: Discourse on Elements
Puggalapannatti: A Designation of Human Types
Kathavatthu: Points of Controversy
Yamaka: —
Tikapatthana: Conditional Relations
Dukapatthana: —

I believe the book you have linked to is a new work constructed along the lines of the Abhidhamma. There may be others that can inform you better about that.


List of book recommendations For the reasons explained here, can you recommend one or more books about Buddhism?

I suggest a format like,

  Title of Book by Name of Author

  A summary of what's in the book, recommended for these reasons.

One book per answer (but multiple answers, a different book for each answer, is welcome)
Books -- but not videos -- i.e. readable; published in print, and/or online
I think it's more important to mention why you recommend a book, and less important to summarise what's in it

Unlike most other topics on this site, this topic is Community Wiki.

If it's a good introductory book then post it here instead -- Introductory books to Buddhism -- and use this topic for other (non-Introductory) books about any more-specific topics.

"In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. The PDF version of it can be downloaded here.

It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali Canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who finds the Sutta Pitaka too huge and difficult to traverse. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one of the foremost translators and scholars of the Pali Canon. He also created this 512-page anthology arranged in a systematic manner, for the benefit of Pali Canon students everywhere.

I quote from the Preface:

  In an ongoing series of lectures I began giving at Bodhi Monastery in
  New Jersey in January 2003, I devised a scheme of my own to organize
  the contents of the Majjhima Nikaya. This scheme unfolds the Buddha's
  message progressively, from the simple to the difficult, from the
  elementary to the profound. Upon reflection, I saw that this scheme
  could be applied not only to the Majjhima Nikaya, but to the four
  Nikayas as a whole. The present book organizes suttas selected from
  all four Nikayas within this thematic and progressive framework.

  This book is intended for two types of readers. The first are those
  not yet acquainted with the Buddha's discourses who feel the need for
  a systematic introduction. For such readers, any of the Nikayas is
  bound to appear opaque. All four of them, viewed at once, may seem
  like a jungle—entangling and bewildering, full of unknown beasts—or
  like the great ocean—vast, tumultuous, and forbidding. I hope that
  this book will serve as a map to help them wend their way through the
  jungle of the suttas or as a sturdy ship to carry them across the
  ocean of the Dhamma.

  The second type of readers  for whom this book is meant are those,
  already acquainted with the suttas, who still cannot see how they fit
  together into an intelligible whole. For such readers, individual
  suttas may be comprehensible in themselves, but the  texts in their
  totality appear like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered across a
  table. Once one understands the scheme in this book, one should come
  away with a clear idea of the architecture of the teaching. Then, with
  a little reflection,  one should be able to determine the place any
  sutta occupies in the edifice of the Dhamma, whether or not it has
  been included in this anthology.


Maithri Bodhisatvas Ata pirikara I recently got to know that the Ata Pirikara that is to be given to Maithree Bodhisatva at the time of the renunciation by the Maha Brahma has already been created and ready.

Is there anything related to this sort of dharma in the tripitaka?

I have not heard of a ‘Atapirikara’ from Maha Brahma, but the legend says: “When Maitreya Buddha appears in the world, he will come to Kukkuta-padagiri (the Cook's-foot Mountain) – presently known as ‘Gurpa’, awaken Maha Kassapa, receive the Buddha’s robes from him, and then begin to announce the new dispensation.
Maha Kassapa had been praised by the Buddha as being equal to him in many respects. He had been the only monk with whom the Buddha had exchanged robes.

Then both Master and disciple walked towards Rajagaha. On the way, the Buddha wanted to rest and went off the road to the root of a tree. Maha Kassapa then folded his double-robe fourfold and requested the Master to sit on it as this would bring him, Kassapa, much benefit for a long time. The Buddha sat down on Kassapa's robe and said: "Soft is your robe of patched cloth, Kassapa." Hearing this, Kassapa replied: "May the Blessed One, O Lord, accept this robe of patched cloth out of compassion for me!" — "But, Kassapa, can you wear these hempen, worn-out rag-robes of mine?" Full of joy, Kassapa said: "Certainly, Lord, I can wear the Blessed One's rough and worn-out rag-robes."
This exchange of robes can be regarded as a great distinction bestowed on Kassapa, an honor which was not shared by any other disciple. By that exchange of robes the Buddha may have intended to motivate Kassapa to observe some other "austere practices" (dhutanga) as for instance, wearing only the triple set of robes, going for alms and not omitting any houses on the almsround. This would be a mode of conduct in conformity with wearing the Buddha's patched rag-robes. Thus the commentator says. However, the Buddha's offer may have been a quite spontaneous act in response to his being offered Kassapa's robe.

It is this very same rough and worn-out rag-robe that the Blessed One first wore and then given to Maha Kassapa, and in turn he too wore till his Pari-Nibbhana, that Maitreya Buddha will come to accept. Some say that Maha Kassapa didn’t attain Pari-Nibbhana. Instead, he took Samadhi within the rock - that Maha Kassapa will offer the robes of the Gautama Buddha to the future Buddha when Maitryea Buddha descends to this realm in order to share the next basket of teachings with the world. Others say it is an “Adhisthana” (by the power of his will to make such an event happen) that he made at the time he attained Pari-Nibbhana.


What is the view of Buddhism in correcting others' view in spite of their willingness to accept it? I have these questions:

If an enlightened mind sees that helping someone is beneficial to them, then would they do it even when the helped doesn't proactively ask?
If they are hated by the helped, then would that hate be irrelevant to the intention? Is it perfectly fine to continue the help despite of the rejection?
How is that different to converting them?

My self-answer is that of course it is fine to do that, given that the helper is truly sure that their help will bring benefit in the long term. There are many such stories about the ones sacrificing themselves to rescue those who try to kill them, Buddhists or not. However, from the perspective of the receiving end, it is still unsolicited help. They only see that action as unsolicited, or even stalking. They may even see the helper is having a big attachment/mental problem. Although this is just a misunderstanding, I think the helped has the right to challenge that intention.

How does Buddhism address that?

For the question that how the helper knows what is beneficial to the helped, read Does following logic necessarily require one to conclude that they are objective and have no bias?

If an enlightened mind sees that helping someone is beneficial to them, then would they do it even when the helped doesn't proactively
  ask?

Yes. They would help without being asked, as the Buddha did. However, the Buddha did this relatively rarely and only to those he knew he could help. The difficult issue is actually knowing intervening when not asked will benefit the person. For example, often I would like to help some people but sense I cannot actually help them; given they are difficult to change.

  If the enlightened one is hated by the helped, then would that hate be irrelevant to the intention? Is it perfectly fine to continue the
  help despite of the rejection?

An Enlightened One, that knows the mind of others (due to psychic power) would not try to help another who would reject them. As I said, the difficult issue is truly knowing we can help another.

  How does that be different to converting them?

The Buddha converted many individuals however only because he knew it was the best thing for them; due to their inherent disposition. As the saying goes: "When the student is ready; the teacher appears".

  My self-answer is that of course it is fine to do that, given that the helper is truly sure that their help will bring benefit in the
  long term.

Yes. We agree.

  There are many such stories about the ones sacrificing themselves to rescue those who try to kill them, Buddhists or not.

Angulimala Sutta.

  However, from the perspective of the receiving end, it is still unsolicited help. They only see that action as unsolicited, or even
  stalking. They may even see the helper is having a big
  attachment/mental problem. Although this is just a misunderstanding, I
  think one has a right to challenge that intention.

Someone who can be helped will be grateful. I think there would be nothing worse than learning that someone who could truly actually help you decided not to help you. It is best to follow the example of the Buddha. While the Buddha did not attempt to help everyone, the Buddha did intervene unsolicited to help those who he was absolutely certain he could help.

Note: Since we do not have psychic powers, it is rare we can be certain we can help another, unsolicited.


What is meaning of Buddha and how he called Buddha? By marathi language "Buddhi" means intellectual so what is meaning of "Buddha" or is same as Buddhi? Does people started call him Buddha ?

Definition of Buddha based on Pali Dictionary is here:

Buddha Skt., Pali, lit., “awakened one.”

The Wikipedia entry is here:

The word Buddha means "awakened one" or "the enlightened one".
Hypothetical root budh "perceive" 1. Pali buddha – "understood, enlightened", masculine "the Buddha"; Aśokan (the language of the Inscriptions of Aśoka) Budhe nominative singular; Prakrit buddha – ‘ known, awakened ’; Waigalī būdāī, "truth"; Bashkarīk budh "he heard"; Tōrwālī būdo preterite of bū, "to see, know" from bṓdhati; Phalūṛa búddo preterite of buǰǰ , "to understand" from búdhyatē; Shina Gilgitī dialect budo, "awake"; Gurēsī dialect budyōnṷ intransitive "to wake"; Kashmiri bọ̆du, "quick of understanding (especially of a child)"; Sindhī ḇudho, past participle (passive) of ḇujhaṇu, "to understand" from búdhyatē, West Pahāṛī buddhā, preterite of bujṇā, "to know"; Sinhalese buj (j written for d), budu, bud, but, "the Buddha".

Buddha means one who understood or awakened. This understanding / awakening is based on intelligence gained.


How is the Pali Phase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." Interpreted as per Different Linage? What is the interpretation of the Pali phrase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." this seems to be interpreted differently by different lineages. What are the different interpretations? What is the rationale behind the interpretation?

How is the word Sabbakayapatisamvedi interpreted by the tradition, and what is the rationale behind it? How is it interpreted in the context of different meditation types (Kamatahan)? Is it connected to any stage of Insight Knowledge as per the interpretation?

With regard to one among many of the numerous occurrences of this phrase, the canonical text summarizing the 16 steps of Anapanasati meditation has the following passage:

  [1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long';
  or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.'
  [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short';
  or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.'
  [3] He trains himself, 'I will breath in sensitive to the whole body.'
  ---> (sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati)
  He trains himself, 'I will breath out sensitive to the whole body.'
  ---> (sabbakāyapaṭisaṃvedī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;)
  [4] He trains himself, 'I will breath in calming bodily fabrication.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breath out calming bodily fabrication.'
  ...

Again this is only one occurrence among many, hence do not bias or limit the answer to the context of Anapanasati.

Nanamoli/Bodhi in their Majjhima Nikaya translation (4th ed) writes the following note associated with "experiencing the whole body" as present in the Sathipattana Sutta:

The Majjhima Nikaya Atthakatha explains "experiencing the whole body" (sabbakaya patisamvedi) as signifying that the meditator becomes aware of each in-breath and out-breath through its three phases of beginning, middle and end. In the first edition I followed this explanation and added in brackets "of breath" after "whole body". In retrospect, however, this interpretation seems forced, and I now prefer to take the phrase quite literaly. It is also difficult to see how patisamvedi could mean "is aware of", as it is based on a verb "to experience".

Here is what Thanissaro Bihkkhu wrote on a footnote for the Anapanasati Sutta:

The commentaries insist that "body" here means the breath, but this is unlikely in this context, for the next step — without further explanation — refers to the breath as "bodily fabrication." If the Buddha were using two different terms to refer to the breath in such close proximity, he would have been careful to signal that he was redefining his terms (as he does below, when explaining that the first four steps in breath meditation correspond to the practice of focusing on the body in and of itself as a frame of reference). The step of breathing in and out sensitive to the entire body relates to the many similes in the suttas depicting jhana as a state of whole-body awareness (see MN 119).

In The Experience of Samadhi, Richard Shankman interviews Ajaan Thanissaro:

RS: In the Satipatthana Sutta, the anapanasati Sutta and the Kayagatasati Sutta, one is instructed to breath in and out, experiencing the whole body. Some interpret that it is talking about experiencing the whole physical body breathing, while others say it means staying with the whole duration of the breath but the focus can be at any point.
AT: It's the whole body.
RS: Does it matter?
AT: One of the drawbacks of concentration that's too one-pointed is that you're blocking out many areas of your experience which means that a lot of things can hide away in the areas you're blocking out. If, however, you develop more of a 360-degree awareness of the body, you're more likely to be conscious of more peripheral events in the mind. Also, if awareness is a whole-body awareness, it's a lot easier to maintain the state of concentration as you open your eyes and move around. [...]. If you only have one point that you are totally focused on, then as soon as you move from that point, your concentration is destroyed. But if you've got the whole body as your framework and you're constantly mindful of this framework, events can come through and go out, leaving the framework undisturbed.

Bhante Gunaratana, on his interview:

The Buddha has said that breath alone is one of the bodies. What do we have in a body? We have four elements: earth, air, water, fire. This is what we find in the breath. And therefore, the breath alone is fully qualified to be called a body, the breath body.
Therefore, if one practices the first tetrad, that individual has practiced mindfulness of the body just by practicing mindfulness of the breath. Some people ignore this particular sentence where the Buddha says the breath is a body, and they give their own interpretation.

Ajhan Brahmavamso, on his interview:

The word kaya  in Pali is well translated by the English word "body". We have a physical body, but also have a body of evidence, a body of experience, and these are all immaterial "bodies". We use the word "physical body" just to make sure we  know what body we are talking about. kaya, just like the word "body", means an accumulation of things, a conglomerate, a group of things.
Pervading the "kaya" with the jhana factors means that the experence of bliss pervades the whole "mental body" throughout the jhana. It does not mean experiencing the jhana with the physical body. That is a misunderstanding of the use of the word kaya in Pali. It is quite clear that in jhanas you cannot feel anything to do with the body (*).

In the same book, Richard Shankman devotes an appendix titled "Does it matter where you watch the breath?", making further considerations.
Also, Shaila Catherine, in her Focused and Fearless, seems to teach that step as focusing on the breath "as an object", rather than focusing on the specific sensation of in and out breath. Its hard to say from what lineage she got this, as she trained with monks from many different schools (maybe Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw?).
Ajahn Brahm, also wrote on this matter:

The third step is called in Pali sabba-kaya-patisamvedi, experiencing the whole process of breathing. A minority of teachers mistake the Pali term kaya to mean your physical body and so wrongly assume that now you are meant to direct your attention onto all the sensations in the whole of your physical body. This is an error. The Buddha clearly stated in the Anapanasati Sutta that he regarded  the process of breathing as "a certain body (kaya) among the bodies". Moreover, the direction of the first twelve steps of anapanasati is toward simplifying the object of awareness, not making it more complex. thus, this third step is where your mindfulness increases its agility sufficient to observe every sensation involved in the process of breathing.
-- Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond - A meditator's handbook

On a related issue, Joseph Goldstein notes in his book:

At this point in the sutta, there is an interesting change of language. As Analayo points out, in the first two exercises, the Buddha uses the verb "to know": breathing in, one knows one is breathing in, etc. But in the next two exercises of mindfulness of the breath, the Buddha uses the verb "to train". [...] This shift of language [...] suggests an increasing level of intentionality in our practice as we broaden our awareness from the breath to the whole body.
-- Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening

And then he goes on to summarize  the conflicting views of "whole body", but doesn't really take any position, just sees them as useful alternatives.
Finally, Analayo writes on his PhD-thesis-turned-book on the Satipatthana sutta:

The third and fourth steps of mindfulness of breathing, alike in both the Anapanasati Sutta and the Satipatthana Sutta, are concerned with experiencing the "whole body" (sabbakaya) and with calming the "bodily formation" (kayasaukhara). In the present context, the "whole body" can be taken literally to refer to the whole physical body. Understood in this way, the instruction points to a broadening of awareness, a shift from the breath alone to its effect on the en tire body. According to the commentaries, however, the "whole body" should be understood to refer, more figuratively, to the "body" of the breath. By understanding the "whole body" as the whole breath-body the  instruction then indicates full awareness of the beginning, middle, and end stages of each breath. This interpretation can claim support from the same Anapanasati Sutta, since the Buddha here identified the breath as a "body" (kaya) among bodies. An argument against this interpretation, however, could be that the cultivation of full awareness of the length of the breath was the task of the previous two steps, knowing a long or a short breath, which already required the meditator to be aware of each breath from beginning to end. One would therefore expect this next step in the progression to introduce a distinctly new feature for contemplation, such as, for example, a shift of awareness to include the whole physical body.
-- Satipaṭṭhāna, the Direct Path to Realization

(*) Other interviews present conflicting declarations with that assertion made by Ajhan Brahmavamso.

Edit: included texts by Ajahan Braham, Shaila Catherine and Joseph Goldstein


Does Buddhism have an answer to disturbing sexual fantasies? I have extreme sexual fantasies that hurt me (submission, candaulism, etc.).
Because of the internet and pornography many young people have increasingly extreme fantasies, and when they are attached to submitting to the partner, many suffer from it and would like to become dominant, strong, or at least normal men again.

Does Buddhism have a solution to cure these sexual disorders?

Regards.

Ways of Denourishing of Sensual Desire.

Asubha reflextion, refextion on the ugly of the body behind skin, hair, nails, reflecting the backwards of sensuality.

Watching the dogs on the street...

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]


can meditation and dharma alone take us to higher levels of consciousness? I have been practising dharma and meditation now for more than 2 years and i feel a good progress within me. Does these 2 tools dharma and meditation alone can take us through to different levels of consciousness ?

The Dharma alone is the true medicine and it alone can cure us of the unsatisfactoriness of samsara. The Buddhas and Sangha are like the best doctors and nurses in the world and can help guide us in the best way to take the medicine - the Dharma - but it is the medicine alone which actually heals!

Theoretically, if we just take the medicine at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount... we do not need doctors and nurses... the medicine is enough.

Practically, we almost always need good doctors and nurses to help us prescribe and apply the medicine and thus we need to take refuge in the Buddhas and Sangha as well.

This is how it has been explained to me.


Jainism vs Buddhism: did Buddhism borrow from Jainism? I've come across Jainism through looking for texts on Buddhism and I've found there seems a considerable amount of overlap. Did Siddhartha Gautama encounter or study under any Jainist teachers? It seems Jainism predates Buddhism by a lot so were these concepts also predating Siddhartha too?
Jainism: The ultimate goal of Jainism is the liberation of the self (jiva) from rebirth, which is attained through the elimination of accumulated karma (the consequences of previous actions). This occurs through both the disciplined cultivation of knowledge and control of bodily passions. When the passions have been utterly conquered and all karma has been removed, one becomes a Jina ("conqueror"), and is no longer subject to rebirth.
These principles include non-violence in all parts of life (verbal, physical, and mental), speaking truth, sexual monogamy, and the detachment from material things. As part of the disciplined and non-violent lifestyle, Jains typically are strict vegetarians and often adhere to a quite arduous practice of non-violence, which restricts the sorts of occupations they may follow (no farming, for instance, since insects are inadvertently harmed in plowing). Jainism's ethical system is based on the idea that right faith, knowledge, and conduct must be cultivated simultaneously.
Like comparing rules of monks and even the five precepts are identical from what I found.
The five precepts and five vows are identical from what I saw.
This is a list of comparisons and contrasts.
Sounds a whole lot like Buddhism to me! Does anyone know about the Jainism/Buddhism comparison?

There are very strong similarities between Buddhism and Jainism but there are also a number of major differences as well.

It is very true that Buddhism and Jainism use a lot of very similar terminology, but these are mostly terms that were floating around among the Shramanas (ascetics) for some time. Karma, rebirth, the goal as escape from rebirth. etc... were ideas that were not unique to either Buddhism or Jainism but were held by many different groups of ascetics. For example, the Ajivaka school taught very similar things on these points as well. The general terminology of rebirth and karma was a general part of the Indian ascetic tradition as a whole, rather than just Jainism.

However, when you look at how these concepts are actually understood in Jainism and Buddhism you find there are major differences. It seems that the Buddha borrowed existing terminology but gave it radically new meanings. The best example I can think of is in the Buddha's understanding of Karma compared with the Jain understanding of Karma.

The Jains (according to my knowledge) think of Karma as being some sort of subtle substance that sticks to one's Jiva, or soul. The Jiva is bound to a physical body, and as a result becomes loaded up with Karma, which weights it down and interferes with one's spiritual understanding. When one dies the kind of Karma stuck to your Jiva determines your rebirth. Through ethical living you can stop more karma from being accumulated and through ascetic practice you can 'burn up' the karma stuck to your soul, and if you can get rid of all of it, you become enlightened, and will then be reborn into a special heaven without a physical body where you will be just a Jiva and will stay that way forever.

The Buddha rejected the idea that Karma is any sort of substance and rejected any kind of soul or self as well. To the Buddha, Karma refers to an action with mental intention. The Buddha said this in many places, saying "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." and in several Suttas the Buddha spoke out against the Nigantha's (that's what the Jains were called at that time) understanding of Karma.


Buddhism view on idol worship? I would like to make a little temple in my home. Something that has my little singing bowl and its' pillow and a container for incense and maybe a little Buddha in a pagoda. Like a desktop thing. I'd use it for meditation.

Is this frowned upon or allowed or even addressed? I see little temples at businesses and I didnt know how that all worked. Honestly I dont really care about a reputation or anything like that. I just need a tenable, defendable position about it if asked and you people are smarter than I.

According to the Pali suttas, the Buddha seemed to praise honoring him & his virtues, i.e., for the right purpose (such as did not occur in the case of Vakkali, who was rebuked).

If a Buddha pagoda helps you practise better, be more mindful, virtuous & wise, it is generally held to be praiseworthy.


What happens if no beings choose to act on one's bad karma? What happens if no beings choose to act on one's bad karma?

Does one then hallucinate one's bad karma?  ( By this I mean i.e. is there experiencing of hallucinations (or illusions) alongside things such as real pain? ).

E.g. What would have happened to Moggallāna if no being chose to attack him?

You can find the answer for your question from a Jataka called "Matakabhatta-Jātaka". Herewith I've quoted the section of the Jātaka which may answer your question.

"In times past, brahman," the goat began, "I was a brahman who taught the Vedas like you. I, too, sacrificed a goat as an offering for a Feast for the Dead. Because of killing that single goat, I have had my head cut off 499 times. I laughed aloud when I realized that this is my last birth as an animal to be sacrificed. Today I will be freed from my misery. On the other hand, I cried when I realized that, because of killing me, you, too, may be doomed to lose your head five hundred times. It was out of pity for you that I cried."
"Well, goat," said the brahman, "in that case, I am not going to kill you."
"Brahman!" exclaimed the goat. "Whether or not you kill me, I cannot escape death today."
"Don't worry," the brahman assured the goat. "I will guard you."
"You don't understand," the goat told him. "Your protection is weak. The force of my evil deed is very strong."
The brahman untied the goat and said to his students, "Don't allow anyone to harm this goat." They obediently followed the animal to protect it.
After the goat was freed, it began to graze. It stretched out its neck to reach the leaves on a bush growing near the top of a large rock. At that very instant a lightning bolt hit the rock, breaking off a sharp piece of stone which flew through the air and neatly cut off the goat's head. A crowd of people gathered around the dead goat and began to talk excitedly about the amazing accident.

Quoted from: Matakabhatta-Jātaka (Jātaka, Khuddaka Nikaya, Sutta Pitaka, Tipitaka)
The subject of Kamma is very deep and hard to understand. Only a Tatagatha Samma Samubuddha can understand.
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.


Can you gain stream entry by focusing on the clinging and stress going on at the five clinging aggregates? If I see the clinging and the stress going on at the five clinging aggregates can that propel me into stream entry?

Like say I see that clinging is going on at the five clinging aggregates and I see that it's causing stress can that take me to enlightenment or is another method needed like seeing the rise and fall of the aggregates, or practicing the silavant: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.122.than.html sutta.

Is it just a good overall practice anyway?

Yes. Meditating on the five aggregates and seeing the three characteristics of impermanence, stress, and non-self, leads all the way to Arahatship. In the words of the Anattalakhana Sutta:

  "What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"

  "Inconstant, lord."

  "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

  "Stressful, lord."

  "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
  change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

  "No, lord."

  (Similarly with the other aggregates)

  "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
  disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the
  knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
  holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
  world.'"
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html


Killing and planing to kill As to Buddhism killing is wrong and planning such things is also wrong.
So what is the difference between the Karma of a person who killed someone and a person who only planned but never killed.

Je Tsongkhapa differentiates between (1) karma that is done (2) and karma that is accumulated. Between the two, there are four possibilities.

1. Done, but not accumulated. Tsongkhapa states:

  Killing that is karma which you have done but not accumulated is seen
  in the following cases: that done unknowingly, that done in a dream,
  that not done intentionally, that which another person forced you to
  do against your will, that done only once and then regretted, [and so forth]

2. Accumulated, but not done. Tsongkhapa writes:

  Killing that is karma that you have accumulated but have not done is
  seen in the following case: you investigate and analyze for a long
  time in order to kill a living being, but you do not kill it.

3. Done and accumulated. Tsongkhapa writes:

  Killing that is karma that you have done and accumulated is seen in
  all the killing not included in the previous two permutations.

4. Killing that is karma that you have neither done nor accumulated is whatever is not included in the above three. Tsongkhapa does not give example.

He further explains that karma that is not done and accumulated (the third) is karma whose result you will not definitely experience.

The Levels of Yogic Deeds (Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra):

  Karma whose result you will definitely experience is that consciously
  done and accumulated. Karma whose result you are not certain to
  experience is that consciously done but not accumulated.

Further debates settles on the meaning and reason of such a statement: karma that is done and not accumulated, for instance, is not as heavy as that which is done and accumulated. The weight of karma is one of the five factors that determines the time and the likelihood of its ripening.


self esteem and the need to feel proud of ourselves When I see my direction of motivation towards working or relationships or for that matter even meditation is the want to feel proud of myself. Why do we need to feel proud of ourselves? Can we overcome that need?

Also want to know if this is related to emotional insecurity

The motivation behind the need to feel proud of yourself has it's roots in a lack of self-worth and confidence.

  Lack of self-confidence can be made up of several different aspects like: guilt, anger turned inward, unrealistic expectations of perfection, false sense of humility, fear of change or making mistakes, depression etc. Depression can actually also be a result of a lack of self-confidence. '

The damage can actually be found in your ego. The ego is an identity fabricated in the mind by past events. For example your birth name, skin color, nationality, sex, or anything that deals with past experiences which reaffirms the identity of who you are. In Buddhism, there are terms such as "antidotes" which are used to cure delusions associated with general or specific sufferings. For example, anger can be cured with patience and love. Anxiety can be cured with acceptance and wisdom. Self-worth can be cured by loving-kindness and wisdom.

Loving-kindness, also known as Metta, is a practice to accept and love others and ourselves unconditionally. Typically Metta is practiced through a meditation which usually uses a mantra such as,

  May you be happy. May you be well. May you be safe. May you be peaceful and at ease.

Other methods may include visualizations such as a radiating red or white auras from the heart symbolizing love. Meditation is important but more importantly is service. It takes the attention off yourself and puts it onto others. This is the quickest way for developing Metta in yourself while putting it into practice.

Next, you need to develop wisdom. Studying sutras, listening to Dharma talks, and reading books on the subject is a fantastic way to gain knowledge. Knowledge will help you systematically but it won't necessarily develop wisdom. By doing meditations such as "Zazen", you will gradually see through the ego the same way you would see through a desert mirage. Eventually by seeing through the ego it will wither away completely leaving you at peace.


How is the Cognitive Process described according to Buddhism? How does it relate to modern Cognitive Psychology? How is the mind matter process described and explained according to the Buddhist teachings? How does it related to Cognitive Psychology? How is the next moment created from the current? What is the mechanism behind it? How does this process sustain its self? What are the variation with regard to this if any?

As for your second question, the relation between the Buddhist teaching and cognitive psychology is a topic researched by Robert Wright and presented in this course: https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism


Distinguishing Between Past Lives and The Active Imagination How could anyone recognize the difference between experiencing a past life recall and simply experiencing a vivid imagining of the mind? While meditating I often slip into states that take me outside my current sense of self and into another experience. Though I don’t believe this to be a past life recall, I often wonder if I experienced this 2000 years ago in Indian society, would I have consider this a past life? Just like past lives can be consider endlessly varied so can these vivid experiences.

It’s seems a typical answer to this question is, either, 1. Your not meditating good enough... or 2.There is no self and hence no past lives. I feel these are insufficient answers.

In regards to 1, I think maybe people misunderstand my interpretation of imagining. I do not mean an intentionally based conjuring of thoughts or day dreaming. It is in deep stillness that these conditions arise, taking on the appearance of life experiences, and they appear  distinct from my current life situations.

In regards to 2, I take non-self or the emptiness of self and things to mean the impermanence of states of being or existing. We are confined to bodies, that is to say, the neurons in my brain control the movement of my thumb typing this. Of course we are socially, biologically, and environmentally interconnected and none of our actions goes uninfluenced by the actions of others as a hole. Yet at the end of the day my bank account number belongs to me and I am legally responsible for my actions within society.

According to the sutta below, one has to have a bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, steady and imperturbable mind immersed in concentration that can be directed towards the recollection of past lives. A mind full of imagination does not fulfill this criteria.

From MN 4:

  When my mind had become immersed in samādhi (concentration) like this  —purified,
  bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, workable, steady, and
  imperturbable — I extended it toward recollection of past lives. I
  recollected many kinds of past lives.

  That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty,
  fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths; many eons
  of the world contracting, many eons of the world evolving, many eons
  of the world contracting and evolving. I remembered: ‘There, I was
  named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my
  food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life
  ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else.
  There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this,
  and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that
  was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn
  here.’ And so I recollected my many kinds of past lives, with features
  and details.

According to SN 22.79, the purpose of recollecting past lives is simply to become disenchanted with the change in the five aggregates, and the suffering associated with it, in the past and the future. It does not matter what is the content of the recollection. This can also be found in this answer.

If you wondering whether this refers to literal physical rebirth or metaphorical thought rebirth, perhaps this quote from the same sutta can help you:

  When my mind had become immersed in samādhi (concentration) like this — purified,
  bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, workable, steady, and
  imperturbable — I extended it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth
  of sentient beings.

  With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient
  beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful
  and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient
  beings are reborn according to their deeds: ‘These dear beings did bad
  things by way of body, speech, and mind. They spoke ill of the noble
  ones; they had wrong view; and they chose to act out of that wrong
  view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a
  place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. These dear beings,
  however, did good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They never
  spoke ill of the noble ones; they had right view; and they chose to
  act out of that right view. When their body breaks up, after death,
  they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ And so, with
  clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient beings
  passing away and being reborn — inferior and superior, beautiful and
  ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient beings
  are reborn according to their deeds.


Stephen Batchelor's current meditation practice I recently saw a remark that implied that Stephen Batchelor no longer meditates or at least not very regularly.

If true, this seems important. Batchelor is prominent, even central, in the contemporary, so-called Secular Buddhism movement. He has a long history of different phases of belief and practice, from Tibetan, to Zen, to a form of agnostic/secular "Buddhism" that he has almost come to define on his own.

Can anyone supply a pointer to that assertion or related material? I did not capture it at the time.

Found it! (Admins -- should I delete this now superfluous question?)

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/does-buddhism-give-us-answers-or-questions/

  Batchelor said [in 2003] he no longer meditated every day. "I am a meditation
  teacher who doesn’t meditate any more," he said, smiling sheepishly.
  Although he once found meditation "extraordinarily valuable," over
  time it came to seem like "a kind of evasion, really. It was a cutting
  off from experience, rather than a full-blooded engagement with all of
  its ambiguities and messiness." He tried to cultivate his existential
  awareness through writing now more than through meditation. "I write
  and think and struggle with questions. That’s my practice.


Buddha meditation under the bodhi tree Buddha meditated for days under the bodhi tree. Does it mean he sat and did not move for days? Or does it mean he did normal things (like drinking water, urinating etc), but in a total meditative state?

There's a line in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta which I think implies he "did normal things" as well as meditating:
Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

"In search of what might be skillful, seeking the unexcelled state of
sublime peace, I wandered by stages in the Magadhan country and came
to the military town of Uruvela. There I saw some delightful
countryside, with an inspiring forest grove, a clear-flowing river
with fine, delightful banks, and villages for alms-going on all sides.
The thought occurred to me: 'How delightful is this countryside, with
its inspiring forest grove, clear-flowing river with fine, delightful
banks, and villages for alms-going on all sides. This is just right
for the exertion of a clansman intent on exertion.' So I sat down
right there, thinking, 'This is just right for exertion.'
"Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of
birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I
reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being
subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement,
seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow...
defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless,
sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the
aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from
the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my
release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

So, doesn't that imply meditation, but also alms-going etc.?
The Buddha was human and was by that time practicing the Middle Way: therefore, I think, no asceticism.

But there are other suttas which imply otherwise, for example:
Bodhi Sutta: Awakening

I have heard that on one occasion, the Blessed One was staying at Uruvelā on the bank of the Nerañjarā River at the root of the Bodhi tree — the tree of awakening — newly awakened. And on that occasion he sat at the root of the Bodhi tree for seven days in one session, sensitive to the bliss of release. Then, with the passing of seven days etc.

Bhikkhu Bodhi narrates it as follows:
The Buddha and His Dhamma

Now he was alone, and complete solitude allowed him to pursue his quest undisturbed. One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, making a firm resolution that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended he entered into deeper and deeper stages of meditation until his mind was perfectly calm and composed. Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.
For several weeks the newly awakened Buddha remained in the vicinity of the Bodhi Tree contemplating from different angles the Dhamma, the truth he had discovered. Then he came to a new crossroad in his spiritual career: Was he to teach, to try to share his realization with others, or should he instead remain quietly in the forest, enjoying the bliss of liberation alone?

In the above, the first paragraph describes meditation in which the Buddha resolved not to move at all, and reached enlightenment after one night. After he is enlightened, the next paragraph describes him remaining "in the vicinity of" (which means "near") the Bodhi Tree for several weeks.


Balancing the Five Powers I have a while ago seen a diagram or explanation on this forum. It was about the way in which the five powers interact in meditation. After reading a comment by ven. Yuttadhammo, I gathered there's such a thing as too much concentration (and in the case mentioned not enough effort). Can anyone explain the interactions of these five powers in daily life and meditation?

Thank you.

I think it is more accurate to refer to "wrong concentration" rather than "too much concentration" because right concentration is a factor of the path. Wrong concentration is pushing the mind with too much effort/craving. Where as right concentration is lead by right understanding (per MN 117).

Is like have some rocks near a cliff that need to be disposed of. Wrong concentration & wrong effort are taking a hammer & smashing up the rocks. Its hard work. Where as right effort is simply pushing the rocks off the cliff and right concentration is watching the rocks fall off the cliff.

Right effort is the effort to let go, which arises from right understanding of & faith in the four noble truths, which explain letting go is the way to end suffering. Right concentration is the clear stable aware mind arising from letting go. Of course, there must be the constant mindfulness (non-forgetfulness) to engage this path of letting go.

This is how the five faculties interact in noble path meditation. SN 48.10 states:

  The noble practitioner develops concentration & attains jhana by making letting go (vossagga) the meditation object.


What is the difference between panna vimutti and ceto vimutti? I wonder if the difference has something to do with the permanent destruction (through vipassana bhavana) vs. the temporary destruction (through samatha bhavana) of the kilesas?

I wonder if the difference has something to do with the permanent destruction (through vipassana bhavana) vs. the temporary destruction (through samatha bhavana) of the kilesas?

Per the Pali dictionary, CetoVimutti and PannaVimutti carry different meanings depending on context (restricted sense versus highest sense). In the highest sense, both are on the same level for they both signify the fruition of Arahantship. They're just different in regards to the specific pathway as a result of the practitioner's dominant faculty on either concentration or insight.


Panic arising during contemplation about 4 elements This is not a general question about how to deal with overwhelming fear, but a question about an specific experience.

I contemplated about the 4 elements and how my body is made up of it (for the first time ever you could say). I was not having a formal sitting with closed eyes, but I was rather looking at my body like 'here I can see the solid bones of my hand (through the skin)', 'when I press with my fingers at this spot of my arm it moves, so there must be fluid under the skin' ...

And while doing this I had a feeling as if I was  some scientist who examines the body of an unknown species and my body looked so strange to me, that great fear (of the body I think) suddenly arose. I was so shocked and overwhelmed, that I had to stop there immediately.

My question is: What happened there?

Most of the time people live most of their lives without changing contexts too much. For the mind, living in the same context gives a sense of security. It also makes us dumb and highly vulnerable. Once we believe in a context and objectify it, it becomes reality for us. At the end of the day, this is why we die.

When you start playing with your context by adopting a different perspective (mode) of seeing things, you are getting into an unknown territory - unknown for your mind anyway. Naturally, there is a sense of panic.

What Buddhism teaches us is freedom from any context. Doing what you did is a first step. It's not necessarily valuable in and off itself - but it gives you a glimpse at how your mind reacts to its attachments being challenged.


What is the difference between right thinking and right view? They seem to be both elements that promote a healthy perception about things in life. I have a hard time differentiating between one and the other.

Samma Sankappa (right thinking) is the result of right view (Samma Ditthi).
If you have the wrong view your thinking will be wrong thinking. (Mittcha Sankappa)
Generally, right view is the forerunner for the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path.
For example seeing things as impermanent is the right view and seeing things as permanent is the wrong view. With the first, you have the thoughts of renunciation and with the second you have the thought of accumulation.

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right thinking comes into being. In one of right thinking, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right liberation comes into being.
MN 117


Text request--Abhidhamma I am looking for a legal, online version of the Abhidhamma in English. Can anyone point me towards some good online sources, especially for the major books of the Abhidhamma?

The "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" is an excellent translation of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha with extensive explanation / charts by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It can be legally downloaded from:

CMA

There are scanned copies of some of the Abhidhamma Pitaka available at:

Dhammasangani Pali English

Vibhanga Pali English

The Pali versions appear to be legal, the legality of the English versions is questionable.

My strong advice to you is to start with the CMA. Only once you have truly mastered this text should you even consider looking at the original Abhidhamma Pitaka texts.


Is Buddhism in a worldwide decline? I was listening to a podcast a while ago and it stated that Buddhism worldwide is in decline. I found that surprising. Is that true? Does anyone have any references or better still statistics to prove or disprove that.

I found several interesting Wiki pages:

This one gives a basic idea about the growth as a comparison between 1910 and 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

This is the List of religious population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

This one gives the population groth rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth_rate

By briefly analysing all of the above, I feel like Buddhism is decline according to the statistics.

Further found this article which gives a projections for the Next 200 Years :
http://www.wnrf.org/cms/print_next200.shtml

According to it from 1900 to 2025 Buddhist world wide % changed ( and will be change) from 7.8% to 5.7%.

Although it sound like depressing, please think as a Buddhists this is quite expected and all align with Buddhist teaching. Going forward, It is quite clear that world is not going be a better place than today. As people moving more towards to materialism, consumerism they tends to distract from the reality. So be mindful and practice the Dhamma.


How to do the Koan study? I want to work on the Koan,'What was your original face before you were born' and 'Who am I',How do I go about it.

Should I constantly ask myself this question? Should I write it down?

How is the Koan practise done?

Koans break the intellectual mind and require deeper investment.

  SN41.6:1.4: “Householder, there are three processes. Physical, verbal, and mental processes.”

Practice a koan physically, verbally and mentally. For example, walk with it, speak it and feel it.

This sounds mysterious, but is actually practical. To walk with a koan, one might attend to "left foot original face", followed by "right foot original face". When meditating, one could silently speak the koan. To feel it one could look at anything that appears as "this tree original original face feels tall", "this car original face feels fast". And so forth. In other words, tie the koan into everything seamlessly.

In this way one discovers "original face" and can answer the Roshi by presenting the original face. It takes much practice because most of us are distracted by other stuff day-to-day and moment-by-moment.

My koan was Joshu's Mu. Everything was Mu. Same practice, however.


SN 41:3,4 Where do these monks vanish to? I was reading these two suttas and at the the end of both the monks seem to leave although Citta has offered to care for them. Is this a rejection of his Dana? Did Ven. Mahaka do something wrong by his display of concentration?

It should be not understood as "rejection" or disprove if offered isn't made use of, good householder, can have many reasons, often Vinaya. Ones act of merits (if meritorious intended) within such giving still presist and not touched by the receivers circumstances, deeds on it.
Noble Ones (as well those understanding Vinaya an following it) do not receive gift in return of having given Dhamma, their assistance, good householder. They avoid feeding ideas of interests in nourishment for relations. And they act in ways so that one hardly could say that they assist for a livelihood, good householder (especially the psychic power case would easy lead to bad reputation if accepting rewards, yet, because other dangers forbidden to provide such at all. Easy to be called "making favors (even for gain)" ). So it's general good and importand to make gifts in advance if wishing to do such.
Receiving a meal, for excample, after having taught the Dhamma, would be a transgression of the monk's rules. But the matter goes of course even deeper.
That's by the way the reason why common consumer hardly ever would perform high Dana with great fruit.
A giver who is actually not free from corruption gives to bind, if he gives in advance, suggest things to be "free" and the fools get trapped, of course not unwilling and innocent at all, as the pig searches for it's holder, disire for birth feeds death.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


Are there Theravada practitioners that aspire to be Buddhas? As far as I know, most Theravada followers practice according to the Pali Canon even though they accept the Bodhisattva vehicle as well. So, the main focus is to attain Arahantship for most people. My question is: How common is it for Theravada practitioners to aspire to be Buddhas?

There are many who aspire to be Buddhas even in the Theravada community. But it is not something that is usually encouraged. It is left up to the individual choice.

Those who make such aspirations out of ego and lack of understanding of the enormity of the task are discouraged and adviced to give it up. Those who  have mastered the Tipitaka at the highest level and proven their worthiness to the community are given blessings. Even then it's not sure until they actually get the blessings of another Sammasambuddha. And it's not certain if they ever get the chance to meet another Buddha, let alone getting the blessing. Those who never get that blessing end up being Pacceka-Buddhas after a long time, if they don't give up the pursuit.


Is Huayan, Chan, and Pure Land Buddhism the only sects that teach about multiverses? The Avataṃsaka Sūtra describes a cosmos of infinite universes upon universes, mutually containing one another. I know this scripture is taught in Huayan, Chan, and Pure Land sects, but are there any other Buddhist sects that teach this?
The Avatamsaka Sutra and these sects teach that infinite universes are connected to a jeweled flower garland or net, and universes reflect each other.

Theravada teacher 31 planes of existence. Then there are many other (millions) similar planes.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html


What is the origin and purpose of the alms bowl used by monastics? How did this practice originate and what is the meaning/purpose for it's use?

(Disclaimer: I'm going to answer this pragmatically and straightforwardly without any reference since I think it doesn't require any. There may be memorable stories about the bowl but I don't think they are really necessary to explain it. Feel free to discard the answer.)

The alms-bowl serves the purpose of helping one carry the food & prevent spoiling it with external dirt. If you went on alms-round with your hands it wouldn't be helpful for yourself or for the lay people as it would create hygiene problems. It also helps one measure the amount of food to accept, whether it's only for himself or also for others with whom he shares the food.

(As the comments below show, the next paragraph is not applicable, since monks should hide their bowls under their robes until they know someone intends to give.)
Additionally, it helps other people identify readily what the person with the bowl wants, food. In other words, if one carries a bowl around, instead of a hat or any kind of cloth, it is more straightforward what he wants. If one carries a hat or any kind of cloth, it is easier to perceive that he wants money or something else apart from food.

As for it's origin, if I wanted food I would also use a bowl. Why would I use anything else? With this I mean that the origin is not necessarily something special or traditional, it's just a pragmatic tool that anyone who wants food would use.


What are the benefits of solitary practice? I have heard about buddhist monks who undertake strictly solitary practice for 6 months where they practice entirely by themselves. They have no human contact and some of the other monks will come and bring them their food. The other monks will leave the food at the entrance and only when they leave the solitary monk will come out to take the food.

I'm very interested in this way of practicing and would like to know what the benefits of such concentrated practice is and the fact that there is no human contact or contact with the outside world.

If one has the maturity, will and energy, this can be very good. Unfortunately, most lack that kind of will until they have progressed a good distance already. Bodhidharma, the Zen patriarch practiced this way for nine years.

Isolated practice can only cut us off from humans, when concentration deepens, it can often lead to encounters with non-humans :-) It's never possible to cut us off from all sentient existence.

There are dangers and rewards with everything. Reintegration with society can be difficult, if we are not mature and stable enough, some experiences in solitary meditation can be very scary and disturbing, especially if we choose to practice in places with spirits, like graveyards.

It's like free climbing without a rope, not for beginners.

p.s. if you have not already, read the biography of Ajahn Mun Bhuridatto Thera


If I download illegal material for my education and if the material is not in my reach in my country, is it still bad karma? I downloaded a lot of things for 16 years I guess.I now understood this is a form of stealing.And i decided to delete my downloaded content.But some material is not found in my country,or if i order them it takes too much hassle to get here or the material is for educational or self improvement purposes.And i never intended to steal.But still it was not respecting other people's work.With those intentions is it still bad karma?Is it still wrong if it is really really essential?

It's actually about the NEED to the material.Like i want to learn speaking english and i need a book or a listening material which is not found in my country.And i really need it.And if I learn english or other things it will be beneficial to me and my environment
 EDIT : Look what I found. Totally coincidence. Synchronisity ☺. https://youtu.be/xMj_P_6H69g

Legally, unlawful downloads would probably be more akin to trespassing than stealing, as nothing was taken, but the legal rights to control property was infringed upon.

Considering the precepts, however, the issue isn't really about theft but about "undertaking the training to avoid taking things not given". Thus, it's a little more broad than theft. Instead, one should avoid even the perception of theft. Think of it like in a store where the "free samples" box is behind the counter and not easy to reach. To follow the precept, one should ask first and take if allowed.


What is the reason for attributing Lord Buddha's statues to days the of week? Image courtesy of ThaiSmile.jp

Visiting Buddhist temples, I often notice several statues of Lord Buddha. As far as I understand, they represent different Boddhisattvas. However, these statues are often attributed to different days of the week.

I tried to ask Buddhist people why this is so, and they have answered me that this is because each Boddhisattva has had some important event in their life (and in Lord Buddha's life as well), and that event has occurred on a corresponding day of week. But I still can not figure out why these events have never clashed and occurred precisely on different days of week.

How can it be? In other words, why have two or more events not happened on the same day of the week? Can it be that such attribution only has metaphoric sense?

Bytebuster, as a fellow Bangkokian I’m happy to try to answer this question!
This arrangement of images in various postures according to the days of the week is a Thai Buddhist practice, and it doesn’t seem to be very old, dating from the early Bangkok Period (post 1780s).
Let’s consider them from an artistic perspective first.  According to Jean Boisselier:

The gestures and attitudes of a Buddha image permit identification of a particular moment in the Buddha’s career, even when there is no other narrative context for the figure.  They are fully intelligible only to Buddhist worshippers or to those with adequate knowledge of the main events in the Buddha’s life. [...] It should be emphasized here that the frequently employed term mudrā has no real meaning except in the context of Mahāyāna, where each mudrā is, in the strictest sense, the mark of a particular Jina and thus a means of differentiating the Buddhas who, by nature, are all alike.  The mudrās do not suffice to represent all the great miracles, and in the Theravāda – especially in the iconography of Thailand – the term mudrā is not used.

So each posture is meant to show an event in the historical Buddha’s lifetime, they do not identify different bodhisattvas.  Rāma III, a king who ruled from roughly 1825 to 1850, had a list of 40 postures compiled which became the standard for Thai art.  Artists during earlier dynasties sometimes innovated new postures, an example being the graceful “walking Buddhas” of the Sukhothai period (13-15th centuries).  Besides a posture for each day, there are postures assigned to the twelve months and the twelve years under the Thai calendar (a cycle similar to the Chinese year of the horse, tiger etc.)  While these monthly and yearly postures are not as well known, you might find them represented in temple art if you looked.
Here’s a list of the days and postures:

Sunday – Gazing at the bodhi tree (standing, with hands crossed over the thighs)
Monday – Restraining the kinsmen (standing, left hand down and right hand raised, palm open as if repelling something)
Tuesday – Reclining (on right side with head on hand).  This is also interpreted as “asking Rahu to return the sun and moon which he has swallowed” – maybe a more astrological reading?
Wednesday morning – Carrying the alms bowl (standing, holding the bowl with both hands)
Wednesday afternoon – In the Pālileyyaka Forest (sitting as if on a chair, with hands on knees, right hand palm upward).  Here a monkey and an elephant are offering food, the Buddha having retreated to the forest to escape a quarrel among his followers.
Thursday – Meditating (seated with folded legs, both hands in lap with palms upward)
Friday – Reflecting (standing, with hands crossed over the breast)
Saturday – Meditating, sheltered by the nāga Mucalinda.  The Palelai Forest Buddha may appear on this day rather than Wednesday, it seems.

Note that some very common and meaningful postures, like the abhayamudra or subduing Māra, seated with right hand touching the ground, are not part of this set.
It’s true that these day-images are mainly for laypeople, and it may be frowned upon for monks to occupy themselves with something you might regard as superstition.  Often when the images are arranged in a row with candles in front, people pay respect to each one in turn by pouring oil on the candles, rather than focusing on their day only.  There are always more prominent images (and murals) in the assembly hall in any case.  More generally, we shouldn’t be tempted to think of Thai Buddhists as solely concerned with protective magic and astrology.  King Mongkut, who succeeded Rāma III, had been a monk for over 20 years.  As king, he founded the Thammayut order partly because he wanted the sangha to concentrate on textual study rather than magical practices.
Finally, let me point out that Burma has something similar to this. The Buddha images at each day’s station (arrayed around the central stupa) don’t vary, but there are different animals for each (a tiger for Monday and so on).  Take a look at the wiki page for the Shwedagon Pagoda for details, as well as a picture of Barack Obama “pouring water over the shoulder of the Friday Buddha”!  For the Burmese, the day of your birth also can influence the name you are given, one example being the 1950s prime minister U Nu, whose memoir was entitled “Saturday’s Son”.
Note:  The quote here is from Jean Boisselier, The Heritage of Thai Sculpture (Asia Books 1975) p. 202.  For information in Thai, look for titles like พระพุทธรูปปางต่างๆ.  ปาง (paang) is the Thai word for posture here.  In English there is K. Matics, Gestures of the Buddha.


Questions about cetasikas 1) How are cetasikas expressed? Could they be expressed as how the mind is orientated, thus influencing how, when, and what cittas arise?

2) Do cetasikas therefore play any indirect role in the patticasamuppada process (dependent origination, did I spell the Pali right), say, for example, by governing what vēdana arises in response to contact?

I have personally never studied 'cetasikas' but have studied Paticcasamuppada in detail.

Paticcasamuppada explains the 12 conditions (paccaya) rather than causes (hetu) that condition the origination or generation of psychological suffering (sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair).

Therefore, it is important to distinguish between 'generic vedana' arising at contact (such as vedana experienced by a fully enlightened arahant that has attained Nibbana) and 'ignorant vedana' arising in paticcasamuppada, which occurs due to ignorance.

Since 'contact' is a 'cetasika' (per Wikipedia), all vedana is a response to the citasika of contact.

However, in paticcasamuppada, every one of the 12 conditions (and their sub-constituents, which total at least 54) arise due to the cetasika of ignorance/wrong-view/delusion, as described in the quote below:

  To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by feeling that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication of 'self'
  is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated,
  dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact...
  That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

  Parileyyaka Sutta


Did Gautama Buddha believe in God? I hear the Buddha rejected the cultural gods when he achieved enlightenment and made statements that seem to reject gods, is this true? If not, what kind of God did the Buddha believe in?

As mentioned in another thread by @catpnosis, in MN 100: Sangarava Sutta:

  “kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, atthi devā”ti?

  "How is it then, good Gotama; are there divine beings?"

  “ṭhānaso metaṃ, bhāradvāja, viditaṃ yadidaṃ — adhidevā”ti.

  "With reason it is known by me, Bhāradvāja, that there are higher divinities."

The question is, what do you mean by belief? If you mean believe to have existed certain beings who were believed to be divine, omnipotent, eternal, etc., then yes, it is quite clear the Buddha not only believed in such beings but, according to the texts, had direct experience interacting with them.

If you mean actually believing that such beings were omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, etc., then no he clearly had no such belief in regards to said beings. Reading the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1) should be enough to dispel that idea. He does give a nice explanation as to where such belief comes from:

  39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

  40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

  41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

  42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'

  "And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'

  43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.

  44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'

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

The Jataka commentary also has a nice passage about god and the godly:

  These greedy liars propagate deceit,
  And fools believe the fictions they repeat;

  He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
  Why does not God set his creatures right?

  If his wide power no limits can restrain,
  Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

  Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
  Why does he not to all give happiness?

  Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
  Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?

  I count your God one th’ injust among,
  Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.

  Jāt. 543


Is suffering always present? I'm reading Thich Nhat Hanh's "The heart of the Buddhist teaching". When discussing the three dharma seals he talks about misconceptions of suffering. He says that teachings where suffering is considered a basic element of reality are wrong:

  But sometimes only Two Dharma Seals are taught - suffering and
  nirvana. .... But suffering is not a basic element of existence. It is
  a feeling. When we insist on something that is impermanent and without
  self being permanent and having a self, we suffer. The Buddha taught
  that when suffering is present, we have to identify it and take the
  necessary steps to transform it. He did not teach that suffering is
  always present.

This makes sense to me intuitively How do the different schools, i.e. TNH as well as those opposing, justify their position? What do they use as their reference?

I have read this Q/A here however I am more interested in the references and how the different ideas are defended. The Q/A linked seems to be more opinion based, which is fine of course.

I think that the second noble truth says that suffering co-arises with craving -- and the third noble truth says that cessation (of craving and suffering) happens.

It's being called "pervasive", I think, comes from the tilakkhaṇa -- i.e.:

  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
  sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
  sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

Note that it's "sabbe saṅkhārā" i.e. "all conditioned things" -- not "all dhammas" -- that are unsatsifactory.

Also note that "dukkhā" there is translated "unsatisfactory" not "suffering" -- i.e. the things themselves are unsatisfactory and impermanent.

Whereas "suffering" (with is another translation of "dukkhā", a context in which "dukkhā" is used) might be slightly different -- i.e. an aspect of consciousness which co-arises with craving and attachment -- i.e. craving and attaching to sankharas which are unsatisfactory and impermanent.


To what extent can Ānāpānasati be related to Vipassanā? I've read that the two can somehow be used in Unison, with benefit. Can anyone expand on this?

Anapanasati is divided into 4 tetrads which correspond to the 4 Satipatthana hence the pratice of Anapanasati is actually a forms of Satipatthana / Vipassana. A thorough introduction to Anapanasati and how to develop this into Vipassana is difficult in this format hence it might be worthwhile to read a more elaborate book on it: Anapanasati: Mindfulness of Breathing by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. You can complement this book with: Right Mindfulness: Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path by Thanissaro Bhikkhu


Does the lifespan get shorter or longer ? Maybe i misread this but i read again now that in buddhist view life span will become shorter and shorter until 10 year life span

did i misunderstand somehthing ?  it seems that the lifespan is getting bigger and not shorter

In Buddha's time the life span is said to have been 100 years and there were several theras who touched even 120 years e.g. Ananda and Maha Kassapa. In fact Bakkula thera is said to have lived 160 years, he had ordained when he was 80. But we rarely hear anyone passing 100 at present.

A well-respected monk in Sri Lanka (late Ven. Nauyane Ariyadhamma) has mentioned that the life span reduces by 10 years in each millennium. Judging from that, the 10 year period should occur roughly in 7500 years from now. Who knows what can happen within this period.

The causes of illnesses and therefore, the reduction in life span according to Buddhism is mentioned in Cakkavatthi sutta.

  Thus, brethren, from goods not being bestowed on the destitute poverty grew rife; from poverty growing rife stealing increased, from the spread of stealing violence grew apace, from the growth of violence the destruction of life became common, from the frequency of murder lying grew common, from lying growing common, evil speaking grew abundant, from evil speaking growing abundant, adultery grew common, from adultery growing common abusive and idle talk grew common, from abusive and idle talk growing common, covetousness and ill-will grew common, from covetousness and ill-will growing common, false opinions grew common, from false opinions growing common, incest, wanton greed and perverted lust grew common, finally from incest, wanton greed and perverted lust growing common lack of filial and religious piety and lack of regard for the head of the clan grew great.

  From these things growing, the life-span of those beings and the
  comeliness of them wasted, so that, of humans whose span of life was
  two and a half centuries, the sons lived but one century.
  DN 26

The essence of this is that for the life span to increase, human qualities also have to improve, advances in medication and increase in the standard of living alone will not be enough.


Focus on the object or nimitta? Once I reach a nimitta during jhana meditation, do I then move focus to it or keep in the object? Do I ignore the nimitta, or is it one of those things that is very hard to ignore?

I presume that your object is the breath, crossing the anapana spot (under the nostrils, on the upper lip).

You must be careful since wanting the Nimitta to appear will actually prevent it from appearing. As long as you desire such things, to experience Nimitta or Jhana, it will simply never happen.

Let go of such expectations, completely. Also, by wanting Nimitta to appear, there is a very high chance of it being the product of your imagination.

You must let it be, do not give it any attention. Nimitta will strengthen, stabilize, and merge with the object on its own. Always remain with the object.