Statement from visuddhimagga regarding mental and material body I found this statement in the Visuddhimagga;

  They cannot come to be by their own strength,
  Or yet maintain themselves by their own strength;
  Relying for support on other states,
  Weak in themselves, and formed, they come to be; [597]
  They come to be with others as condition.
  They are aroused by others as their objects,
  They are produced by object and condition,
  And each by something other than itself.
  And just as men depend upon
  A boat for traversing the sea.
  So does the mental body need
  The matter-body for occurrence.
  And as the boat depends upon
  The men for traversing the sea.
  So does the matter-body need
  The mental body for occurrence.
  Depending each upon the other
  The boat and men go on the sea.
  And so do mind and matter both
  Depend the one upon the other.

The above statement seems to confirm that mind doesn't have occurrence without material body, and vise versa. Both factors are interdependent and seemingly co-exists.

But, once, I heard that one's mind does't end at death of material body: how can that match with the above statement in the Visuddhimagga?

You said: The above statement seems to confirm that mind doesn't have occurrence without material body, and vise versa. Both factors are interdependent and seemingly co-exist.

Correct. In my (personal) understanding of Buddhist teaching, speaking in modern terms, Mind is Information. Information needs Media to carry it. And Media is Energy that takes certain Form due to the shaping influence of Causes and Conditions carrying Information. So Energy, Matter, and Information are aspects of the same underlying "ground of all".

"But, once, I heard that one's mind does't end at death of material body: how can that match with the above statement"?

In my (personal) understanding of Buddhist teaching, there is no such thing as "one's mind" - it's a mistake to think that way. Mind is not an entity, it's an aspect. Mind is like wind that goes in and out, like breath. Mind is information that is all around us, moving like wind.

I know this sounds like Materialism but it's not. With this interpretation we are not declaring the primacy of Matter. What I am saying is that "regular" Information and Energy is what the ancients called "spirit". This is what animates Matter. As a matter of fact, Matter, if you look at it very closely (at the level of electrons), is empty. It is only a shape that Energy takes.

This may also sound like Pantheism, as in, we are declaring that Mind is a global aspect of everything and that it is God. To this I respond that sure Mind is a global aspect of everything - but so is Energy, so is Space/Time - but we do not pray to Space/Time and declare it our God? Why should we identify Mind as God?

This may also sound like Nondualism, as in "I am this global Mind, and this global Mind is speaking through me now" and "The highest realization is to awake to unity with this global Mind" - but that would be conceit and self-identification, wouldn't it? Instead, as Buddha taught, the highest realization is to be free from conceit, free from such thoughts, and free from self-identification.

My Zen Master said: "operate mind, don't let mind operate you" and "you bless god, not 'god bless you'". This means we must understand how Information works, how Universe works, and how Mind works. Once we understand how it works, we should master it. When we master Mind, we can pick our interpretation of reality. When we can pick our interpretation of reality, we can shape our reality. When we can shape our reality, we are free.


What was the time gap between the previous Buddha and Gautama Buddha? We all know our last Lord Buddha Was Gautama Buddha. My question is, before him who was the Buddha? And what was the time gap between that previous Buddha and Gautama Buddha?

It is difficult to give the exact time gap between the previous Buddha and Gautama Buddha. Both Buddhas came to pass in this great aeon.  This is a Special Kalpa – a Maha-Bhadra-Kalpa - largest time unit in Buddhism - unlike the previous ones, where five Buddhas in all will come to pass. Buddha says it's not suitable to count the exact length of the maha-kalpa in number of years. In the Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara. In Samyutta ii, Chapter XV, the Buddha used the parables of the hill and mustard-seed for comparison:

Suppose there was a solid mass, of rock or hill, one yojana (eight miles) wide, one yojana across and one yojana high and every hundred years, a man was to stroke it once with a piece of silk. That mass of rock would be worn away and ended sooner than would an aeon.
Suppose there was a city of iron walls, one yojana in length, one yojana (eight miles)  in width, one yojana high and filled with mustard-seeds to the brim. There-from a man was to take out every hundred years a mustard-seed. That great pile of mustard-seed would be emptied and ended sooner than would an aeon.

In the Digha Nikaya in Mahāpadāna sutta, the Discourse of the biography of the Buddha it is said that:

"In the time of the Lord Buddha Vipassi the life-span was eighty-thousand years; in the time of the Lord Buddha Sikhi seventy thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Vessabhu sixty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Kakusandha forty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Konagamana thirty thousand; in the time of the Lord Buddha Kassapa it was twenty thousand. In my time the lifespan is short, limited, and quick to pass: it is seldom that anybody lives to be one hundred.”
At the time of the next Buddha, the average lifespan of a human is going to be eighty thousand years. (In the present day it is around 60 -80 years).


How can I talk to my mother (who idle-chatters) without getting angry? Specifically with my mother. I talk with her on the phone and when we have already talked for a while, say half an hour, she keeps talking and bringing new pointless futile topics and expanding on them, which annoys me and sometimes I end up getting angry, and sometimes I manifest that anger getting "cutting" or being a little rude. She can talk for an hour or more until she has something to do. I don't tell her to stop because I'm this way and I expect her to realize we have already talked about the main topics and important stuff and a little bit more but she doesn't and keeps going for what I perceive to be too long.
I always feel really bad afterwards because of my unreasonable anger and irritation and the inability to deal with this, and when I get too rude most of the times I call her again and apologize.
It frustrates me even more because most of the time I'm not really doing anything better than talking with her, but I can't help but get annoyed when she starts to talk for too long about basically nothing, something that we will both probably forget in a short time.
And it's not like we talk once a month, we usually talk multiple times a week. We never talk so much even in person.
I love my mother, she is not perfect, but I really don't want to get angry with her but I can't avoid it sometimes and I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to ask her to not to talk too much to me because I think that would sound like an entitled kid, and if I cut her random talk I would feel like I'm not being patient enough with her, but I end up getting angry doing that.
And now that I think about it I think I have a tendency of getting angry with her like a stupid brat, I'm not sure why.
I would really appreciate any advice on how I can talk to my mother without getting angry?

When we want to deal with someone, we need to first understand that someone. The more information or knowledge we have of that someone, the easier it gets.
Now in the case of your mother, isn't it obvious that she desires to stay on the phone as long as possible with you? She doesn't do the same when you're physically with her, because she's happy enough that you're already there. So what do you think is happening here?
As I see it, she wants you to be present. Talking to you on the phone allows her to feel that you are present. And what does she get with that? No much actually, except for short periods of relief, I guess, from loneliness. And why talk about unnecessary things? Why not? The subject obviously doesn't matter. Even if it's a repetition, whatever comes to her mind is a way to keep you with her, to keep her from feeling lonely.
You, as her child, wish to please her, and so you keep listening. While wanting to be nice, you listen with anger. Even if there's not much of that in the beginning, it builds up in you. And when you can't hold it anymore, you explode.
Frustrating, isn't it?
You might think that by listening quietly she might eventually recognize that you want to end the conversation and that solves your problem. Hasn't work so far, huh?
When we let someone with lots of desire lead a conversation, then it's to be expected that the conversation becomes dominated by desire. Since between you and her, you have a clearer head (i.e. more wisdom), and you want the conversion to be more meaningful, then you are the one who has to take the lead.
Stop trying to be nice, and start being kind instead, and courageous.
Help her. Help yourself. Lead the conversation. Choose the time to call her. Tell her how much time you have with her on the phone. Ask her about her day, her feelings. Don't let her defilements lead. Let your wisdom and love lead. Let her feel your presence, your love for her.
All the best to you.


Psychic Powers and the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11) In the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11), the Buddha seems to categorize "Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one" as a psychic power, which is later seems to denounce "..I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic power."

Yet, later in the sutta the Buddha classifies the same psychic powers (appearing as many) as miracles of instruction which are praised.

Can someone please help me understand this?

Many thanks.

There are 2 things here.

developing supernormal powers
displaying supernormal powers

Developing supernormal powers as side benefit of meditation is welcome and long as they are used to teach and further the understanding of the Dhamma. E.g. Meditation master using though reading to see if the partitioner has understood the instructions. Also when meditating you goal should not be to be after these powers but just to realise the Dhamma but have them developed as a side benefit.

Displaying the powers for vanity is what is not encouraged.


What are the prescribed objects for the development of jhāna? Can i have a list "If there is one" of the different objects for building up the first jhana?

Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta mentions the Jhana can be developed through:

4 Satipatthana
4 Brahmavihara

Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta mentioned that Jhana contemplation of the body. Though not explicitly mentioned Anapanasati Sutta, breath meditation also can be used.

Do develop Jhana you have to have Vitakka & Vicara. That is you 1st bring your attention an object and retain the object by reapplying you attention. E.g in the case of breath meditation you continuously try to feel the breath going in and out. In case of body contemplation you try to feel any sensation in the body continuously and try to keep you attention on the body.

This is too short to be practical meditation instruction just a pointer. In the case of Kasina you look at the device. Say you are practicing on fire. Offer a lamp to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Look at the flame for a little while and shut you eyes. Try to recreate this image. When you think about it the image will pop up an linger for a while. When the image disappears rethink about it again. If you cannot remember the details look at the flame again. As you practice the image will linger for a little longer. Adjust the rhythm of thinking about the frame to roughly to the level that you mental image of the flame looks continuous. Similarly for any other Kasina device. Beyond this point best seek advice of a teacher.

I think Jhana developed through 4 Satipatthana in combination with 4 Brahmavihara would be the best approach. But having said this any of the 40 Kammatthana can be used. If you use anything other than 4 Satipatthana make use you contemplate the 3 characteristics of the Jhana otherwise you will just develop Samadhi but not Panna, hence will not be wholesome.

Finally, developing Jhana without proper guidance can be dangerous. Therefore, try finding a teacher who can guide you.

Currently one of the famous Jhana teachers is Pa Auk Sayadaw with many students in the west. You can try making some inquiries.


Where can I find an English translation of the Buddhavatamasaka Sutra? I just finished re-watching this lecture by Jan Nattier, an academic expert in Mahayhana Buddhism. She mentioned that the 10 Bhumis in the 26th chapter of the Avatamsaka had a predecessor called the Buddavatamasaka which had a more coherent enumeration of 10 Bhumis and had steps that mere mortals could follow.

I can't find it it anywhere. Wikipedia does mention the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, but that appears to be the free standing later version of the 10 Bhumis.

The Cleary translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is the later version of the 10 Bhumis that is mostly opaque literary bombast, describes the results of the steps but not the steps and other than bodhicitta, doesn't describe any steps that mere mortals can engage in in this life.

To the best of my knowledge there is no other translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra.

As far as text called Buddhāvataṃsaka - there is nothing in the Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon; nor in GRETIL - Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages.

This suggests that no Sanskrit manuscript survives. Searching for a Sanskrit name in the Chinese Canon is not quite impossible, but very very difficult.

Responding to the comment:

Taisho Edition of the Chinese Tripiṭaka (with links to the online CBETA version):

T280 佛說兜沙經; Scripture on the Original Deeds of the Bodhisattva as Explained by the Buddha (Ch 7 & 8 of Avataṃsaka)
T282 佛說菩薩求佛本業經; Original Deeds of Bodhisattvas Seeking Buddhahood. (Ch 11)
T282 菩薩十住行道品; Book on Bodhisattvas’ Ten Abodes in the Practice of the Way (Ch 15)

But these are not all attributed to Lokakṣema. The last looks most promising, but is attributed to Dharmarakṣa in some sources. However see Nattier: A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han and Three Kingdoms Periods. This article questions the traditional attributions and assigns T280, T282 and T283 to Lokakṣema. The last looks most promising as a source for the Daśabhūmi or 10 Levels, but I cannot see any English translations online. Unfortunately very little of the Chinese Tripiṭaka is yet available in English. Though there is a Numata Foundation project under way to translate it all, it will take decades.


What is the process for cleansing a very negative action? Several years ago I did something that was totally legal, but very much against my upbringing, my world-view, and my ethics. It was a spur of the moment thing and I have regretted it massively ever since. However, it has haunted me mentally (and to an extent physically, due to tension) ever since.

I might add, this event didn't hurt anyone else.

What can I do from a Buddhist perspective, to completely cancel out this action and its resultant negative thought-stream once and for all?

Nyom Eugene,

it's most needed to speak with an "admirable" friend", a teacher (one who actually knows), at least not only to know if it was a fault and which kind of. As your words here give much doubt in regard of whether it even wars or if "you world-view" has something to do with what is right or wrong, and since it is not a proper enviroment here, it's good when Nyom seeks for refuge at proper place.

All my person can offer are proper places here. Amends & confession or Uposatha/Sila ceremonies.

The pattern to come out of a fault is simple: recognize it clear as fault, be ashamed and express it, firm resolving not to ever engage into such again. That's it. Clean. Yet of course does not make deeds undone, but when effects ripe later, easy to bear and one can after cleaning move on, having been lifted out of the hole.


Whether knower disappears automatically after doer disappeared? Did   meditation; when concentration  on the  breath at the tip of the  nose  suddenly  controller has disappeared and cittarupa came without  control.Is it a stage  that knower  and doer disappeared?after the experience  feel like no self at that time.

Did meditation; when concentration on the breath at the tip of the nose suddenly controller has disappeared and cittarupa came without
  control.

Cittarupa always functions by itself. The idea of a "controller" is an illusion created by delusion, ignorance, clinging & craving.

  Is it a stage that knower and doer disappeared? after the experience feel like no self at that time.

Yes. When the sense of knower & doer disappear, this is insight into anatta (not-self) of the five aggregates. The five aggregates operate on their own, without a self controlling them.


The actualization of Anatta Having attempted to understand the actualization of Anatta, i am at a complete loss. The more i endeavor to understand the meaning, the more confusing it seems.

I have read;

What is the best translation of Anatta into English?
What is the precise meaning of anatta?
No-self Not self

My understanding to date is that it not-self is to detach from the 5 aggregates. So to use an example. If i express anger or sadness, i should look to detach or disassociate myself from such emotions. This may be through meditation or mindfulness.

Is my understanding correct? If incorrect, please use lay person examples that will allow me to relate or understand.
Are meditation and mindfulness the only methods of actualization?

i express anger or sadness, i should look to detach or disassociate
  myself from such emotions.

Not! Stop hypothesizing and simply observe the events/experience at their unsullied form.
When you say "I express anger", it's already sullied. You have assumed the existence of an 'I'. Anger is anger. So simply notice it as anger. Not 'I'! Same with sadness and other emotions. Don't look to do anything with them. Just observe and see if they qualify as an 'I' or 'self'.

  Are meditation and mindfulness the only methods of actualization?

There's no actualization required. Anatta is already actual. It's similar to saying "how do I make the world round?". It's already round, you just need to realize it.
Satipattana meditation is the only way to purify the mind. Buddha called it the "Ekayano Maggo".The one and only way.


Is the Mind (Citta) the Self? If not, what is it? It's been discussed in all perspectives that the Buddha was teaching about not-Self (Anatta) in this forum. However, it taught that one should empty the Mind (Citta) to realize Anatta, or Sunyata, in Dhyana (Jhana). If this mind is already not-Self, why it needs to be emptied and what is to be emptied? If this mind is also not-Self, how does it have the autonomy/independence to realize/discern Emptiness? If this mind is Self, how can it realize not-Self? If this mind is not-Self, who controls/owns the Five Aggregations and intellect? Who/what is this mind?

1. If this mind is already not-Self, why it needs to be emptied and what is to be emptied?

The mind is only 'not-self' from the viewpoint of enlightenment & truth. But for the unenlightened mind, the mind is 'self' because of ignorance ('blindness').

The mind is ideally 'emptied' so it can see clearly, similar to cleaning a window or mirror. It is emptied of the pollutants that obscure clear seeing, similar to a window or mirror cleaned from dust.

The Pali scriptures describe this in the Sangaravo Sutta.

  Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the
  reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it
  really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart
  possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... then he cannot know or
  see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of
  others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long
  studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not
  studied. Sangaravo Sutta

  2. If this mind is also not-Self, how does it have the autonomy/independence to realize/discern Emptiness?

The mind has a wisdom faculty to discern emptiness. It is not possible to explain how or why this can occur. The Pali suttas simply say:

  Discernment (wisdom/panna) & consciousness are conjoined, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the
  other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one
  discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
  Mahavedalla Sutta

Jesus Christ said:

  If the flesh came into being because of spirit (consciousness), that is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, that is the wonder of
  wonders. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in
  this poverty.

  Gospel of Thomas

  3. If this mind is Self, how can it realize not-Self?

The citta is not a self. It is impermanent. It is not-self. To quote:

  "All things are not-self". Dhammapada 279.

  It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind (citta),' 'intellect (mano)' or 'consciousness' (vinanna) by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Assutavā Sutta

  4. If this mind is not-Self, who controls/owns the Five Aggregations and intellect? Who/what is this mind?

Nothing owns or ultimately controls the five aggregates, as was explained at the start of the Buddha's 2nd sermon. However, the mind itself, via enlightenment, can control its mental formations (sankhara) while the mind is alive.

SN 12.12 states there is no "who" that is conscious. The idea of "who" arises later at clinging & "becoming":

  "Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

  "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.'...the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?'
  And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a
  condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition
  of feeling.'"

  "Who, O Lord, feels?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One....the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?'
  And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition
  of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

  "Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.'...the correct way to ask the question will be 'What
  is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is:
  'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of
  clinging.'"

  "Who, O Lord, clings?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
  origin of this entire mass of suffering.

As previously said, the mental faculties are named according to their functions:

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus,therefore it is called perception.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it formation/construct? ‘They construct the constructions,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called
  formations.

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.

  SN 22.79


Thoughtforms in Buddhism I've recently discovered the concept of Tulpa or "thoughtforms", and I have some questions.

Are thoughtforms a common phenomena in Buddhist teaching - that is, do many practitioners (monks or otherwise) have experience in creating thoughtforms?

Is it something that a layperson could do, and if so, is it recommended to do so without any other training (for lack of a better word) in Buddhism?

From what I have read so far, Buddhist texts state that these thoughtforms are illusions created by our own minds - but an actual sentient being that can be conversed with is a very powerful illusion. Do Buddhists believe that thoughtforms are a manifestation of the subconscious mind, and therefore a gateway to our own inner workings? If so, is that dangerous?

For those with personal experience with thoughtforms:

Are your thoughtforms permanent?

Knowing that they are illusions, how "real" do they feel? Are their voices different to that of your mind's voice? Do all of your interactions with the thoughform take place in the mind, or have you experienced them in a physical way?

Have you ever felt attached to a thoughtform, and has being a host for one ever cause you emotional strain?

Does your thoughtform take on a physical shape or image, and if so, was this a conscious decision by you, or did the Tulpa decide it's own form?

This book whose title is,

BUDDHISM
Critical Concepts in Religious Studies
Edited by Paul Williams
Volume III
The Origins and Nature of Mahayana Buddhism;
Some Mahayana Religious Topics

says on page 365,

  That an adept can employ an advanced meditation technique to create a body made by his or her own mind is an opinion found in ancient Buddhist scripture and elaborated in later treatises. This is a pan-Buddhist notion. The power to transform ones own body into another form and the power to create bodies "made of mind" are two among the ṛddhi, or supernormal powers, explained in the Visuddhimagga.

  Few can achieve vikurvana-rddhi; it is a difficult attainment. But Buddhas,
  Pratyeka-Buddhas and chief disciples are said to attain it automatically when
  they become Arhats, that is, when they attain liberation from the cycle of
  rebirth.

You can use the hyperlink above to read more from those pages of that book, or here is a copy as a PDF.

So, to answer your questions:

Are thoughtforms a common phenomena in Buddhist teaching - that is, do many practitioners (monks or otherwise) have experience in creating thoughtforms?
Is it something that a layperson could do, and if so, is it recommended to do so without any other training (for lack of a better word) in Buddhism?

No, apparently not: it's a "difficult attainment".
From what I have read so far, Buddhist texts state that these thoughtforms are illusions created by our own minds - but an actual sentient being that can be conversed with is a very powerful illusion. Do Buddhists believe that thoughtforms are a manifestation of the subconscious mind, and therefore a gateway to our own inner workings? If so, is that dangerous?

They're not something you create in order to have an imaginary friend, which you can talk with and which acts a gateway to your own subconscious. Instead they're something which a Bodhisatva might create as a tool to help liberate someone else:

  The Bodhisattva cultivates
  rddhi-Abhijñā in order to advance a great many beings toward liberation;
  without it, relatively few beings can be matured. For this purpose, a Bodhisattva
  can make for him- or herself the body of a cakravartin, a Sakra, a Buddha, or
  whatever is required to effect someone's liberation. Such transformations
  (nirmita) are true and not false, for no dharma has a fixed characteristic

They're created consciously, not subconsciously:

  Having
  entered dhyiina, using one or another meditation-object, one should arise from
  the meditation and contemplate oneself having the form of-for example-a
  boy. Having done this one should re-enter dhyiina and resolve, "May I be such
  and such a boy." With resolve, one becomes so. Similarly, in order to exercise
  manomayii-rddhi, the power of creating a body by mental powers, arising from
  dhyiina and contemplating the body one should resolve "Let the body be a
  hollow." The body becomes a hollow, one contemplates another body within
  one's own, resolves again and there is another body within oneself. One
  removes it, as a reed from its sheath, and the two are distinct but one is the
  duplicate of the other. Thus, one uses a progressive visualization exercise, in
  either case, and the end result is said to be the production of a new body, visible
  to others.

Beware that I'm reading this from a book: I don't know Tibetan Buddhism (and Wikipedia's article on Tibetan Buddhism suggests that it requires a teacher, an "authentic lineage of transmission" from "a lama who is fully qualified to give it"). The footnotes (on page 379) reference the Visuddhimagga.


What is a belief as per the buddhism? What I believe is what I look up to, everyday. Every belief originates me. Then am I a phenomena in itself?

What I believe is what I look up to, everyday.

What you believe in may just be your perception and not reality. Whatever you should be able to verify at the experiential level then you should look up to it. Since you know it from experience no external person needs to convince you of it.

  Every belief originates me.

Many thoughts gives arise to self notion which intern aversion or craving based on your evaluation. [Tanhā Jālinī Sutta] To be more precise you crave to the sensations based on your evaluation. This conditions your future.

  Then am I a phenomena in itself?

You are sum total of past conditioning including that of your past conditioning ue to yourself notion.


Can I call myself Buddhist? Is Buddhism a religion? There are differences of opinion on the question of whether or not Buddhism should be considered a religion. Many sources commonly refer to Buddhism as a religion.

If yes then in which region? Can I call myself Buddhist? If I believe in Buddha and his philosophy?

But it is still confusing! Need precise answer if possible!

Buddhism has the idea of the three jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.
You said "I believe in Buddha and his philosophy" so that's two of them, i.e. Buddha, and Dharma.
There are parts e.g. in the Dhammapada which suggest it's better to be alone than with a fool:

If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

But Buddhism might also support (or encourage or recommend) friendship. For example, the Upaddha Sutta says,

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.
"And how does etc.
Note: As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good qualities.


What should one meditate upon as a beginner? I am planning to start meditation.

As a beginner , what things I should meditate upon from the Buddha's perspective?

That's like asking "what should I eat".

If liking to taste, here are the 40 meals, or better working places: Kammaṭṭhāna

For which one might be good for your tendency it would be best to look after a skilled meditation teacher but generally the ten recollections, best starting from below (and develope proper perception for them) are fine for one living at home, as well as the Brahma-viharas, later on.

What ever might be pleasing for the mind to go with it best possible without much laps.

  I am just a beginner...Just give me high priority 4-5 things to meditate upon.

First three recollections are of the virtues of the Three Jewels:

(1) Buddha
(2) Dharma
(3) Sangha

Next three are recollections of the virtues of:

(4) morality (Śīla)
(5) liberality (cāga)

Suttas in regard of them: Recollections

It would be good to ask first and likewise for Refuge and for the precepts first, taking them, best from a Monk or Nun, Dheeraj Verma.

(If having no access, but serious and having patient, one might be always welcome for such online.)

Mudita & Anumodana

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other gains in the world]


Materiality not materiality but mentality In our world the belief is that matter is only made of materiality not mentality. What I heard from a Buddhit monk is that materiality is actually mental. Can I hear both the Thervada view and the Mahayana view on this topic. Is it true that both of the paths say that there is only our experience nothing outside it exist.

The Pali scriptures refer to materiality (rupa). While materiality can only be known/experienced with mentality; this does not make materiality something mental.

  Whatever, Rāhula, is hard, solid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: the hair of the
  head, the hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones,
  marrow of the bones, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs,
  intestines, mesentery, stomach, excrement, or whatever other thing is
  hard, solid, is internal, referable to an individual and derived
  therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal element of extension.
  Whatever is an internal element of extension and whatever is an
  external element of extension, just these are the element of
  extension (earth).

  And what, Rāhula, is the liquid element? The liquid element may be
  internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal liquid
  element? Whatever is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, that is to say: bile, phlegm, pus,
  blood, sweat, fat, tears, serum, saliva, mucus, synovial fluid, urine
  or whatever other thing is liquid, fluid, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal
  liquid element. Whatever is an internal liquid element and whatever is
  an external liquid element, just these are the liquid element.

  And what, Rāhula, is the element of heat? The heat element may be
  internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal heat
  element? Whatever is heat, warmth, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, such as by whatever one is
  vitalised, by whatever one is consumed, by whatever one is burnt up,
  and by whatever one has munched, drunk, eaten and tasted that is
  properly transformed (in digestion), or whatever other thing is heat,
  warmth, is internal, referable to an individual and derived therefrom,
  this, Rāhula, is called the internal heat element. Whatever is an
  internal element of heat and whatever is an external element of heat,
  just these are the element of heat.

  And what, Rāhula, is the element of motion? The element of motion may
  be internal, it may be external. And what, Rāhula, is the internal
  element of motion? Whatever is motion, wind, is internal, referable to
  an individual and derived therefrom, such as winds going upwards,
  winds going downwards, winds in the abdomen, winds in the belly, winds
  that shoot across the several limbs, in-breathing, out-breathing, or
  whatever other thing is motion, wind, is internal, referable to an
  individual and derived therefrom, this, Rāhula, is called the internal
  element of motion. Whatever is an internal element of motion and
  whatever is an external element of motion, just these are the element
  of motion.

  Mahārāhulovāda Sutta

Suttas AN 3.136 and SN 12.20 say Dhamma Law exists outside of experience of it. Therefore, Buddhism does not say the only things that exist are those things that are experienced.

If only things in mental experience existed then, based on the experience of the puthujjana (unenlightened person), Nibbana/Nirvana would not exist.

Udana 1.1 says:

  When things [previously unexperienced] become manifest to the ardent meditating brahman; all his
  doubts then vanish since he understands each thing along with its
  cause.

Since enlightenment is knowing/experiencing things that were previously unknown/unexperienced, it is illogical to say Buddhism only says what is experienced is what exists. If Buddhism actually said this then Buddhism would be giving priority to the existence of unenlightened experiences, which is obviously not the case. Since Buddhism gives priority to teaching about things, such as jhana & Nirvana, which are not experienced by most people, then Buddhism is obviously teaching mostly about things that do not exist in the experience of most people.


Vinaya Rule which prohibits on engaging in political activities There are many monks who are engaging in many political activities such as riots and other types of embarrassing activities in certain countries.

What are the Vinaya Rules on these? It would be great if sources are provided.

Bikkhu can advise laymen about  politics, for the example, see "Conditions of a Nation's Welfare" in mahāparinibbānasutta.

And saṅgha means "group of bikkhu".

Another, all virtual (sīla), keeping-sīla (ethic) and avoiding-sīla (precept), are politic because of "10 purposes of monastic legislation:for the lastingness of the true doctrine", so all advising about physical action & speech are politic, too.

However, bikkhu maybe offense vinaya, if the advising or action is wrong, conflicted with vinaya, such as ordering to kill or ordering to stole, etc.


Keeping a pet cat, without training or encouraging it to kill rats Let's say a lay Buddhist has a rat infestation problem in his or her house.
Catching rats using traps and killing them is clearly breaking the first precept of not taking a life.
What about keeping a pet cat that is sufficiently well fed and taken care of, in the house, without training or encouraging it to catch rats, but nevertheless accepting the possibility that the cat may or may not choose to catch and kill rats, on its own volition, that it may find in the house?
If the pet cat does catch and kill rats, does this break the first precept?
Also, introducing a pet cat, may cause the rats to flee the house on their own, as they may find that it has become an unsuitable place to live in.

If there is a rat infestation the best action is to take necessary measures so the environment is not suitable for rats. It is not possible to eradicate rat infestation by killing them.


How to be mindful while doing routine activites like walking on a street known for years? I started observing nature as I walked by the street which I take daily to get out of colony.
Problem is that I have already observed it throughly. There isn't anything that I haven't observed. Brain gets in auto pilot mode in such situations.

I tried to keep my attention on my shoes and thus counting my steps. This has a danger of me getting hit by something because I was looking down.

Where am I supposed to look and what am I supposed to think while doing mundane routine activities like sitting in an auto and moving on an already known default path? There is no stimulus for brain to do anything new.

I still have to be on my guards though. I don't want to reach in dreamland where I am totally unaware of what's happening around me.

I tried to focus on "Waiting for my thoughts to appear so that I can acknowledge them". This reduced anxiety and made me happy but this way I had forgotten that I was walking since the brain was on auto-pilot mode.

There isn't anything that I haven't observed...

My person doubts, even outwardly there is nothing not changing, not different, now it's even more of value to look at the frames of references for mindfulness.

When walking, look where you put the next step, step by step, know, lifting, pushing, setting down, take care not to step on someone, get slowly a "An All-Around Eye".

Giving way, while walking (dana, generosity), not to step on someone, no short cuts, no violation of rules (sila, virtue), walking straight, aware of body posture, like a king/queen, straight, not like a cowboy or a pig, awareness of the body and correct it. When willing to look on the side, stop, turn, then look and watch out the greed that normaly drives one to try to do all at one time. One of the frame of references (meditation), then watch out thoughts, feelings, arising, moods, if the first is already managed good.

Put the sense under control, not letting the eye, ear, nose... follow contact of objects.

One practicing, one being mindful, is never bored and later gifted with right gained ease and re(a)l-ease. And, as a side effect of step by step, one reaches his place faster as any vehicle could provide it.

Start be simply train your body posture, putting your steps straight | not / or \ one after another, not bending more than the head, not walking like a duck or a rooster. Don't swing your arms, don't twist the body while walking. One movement consciously after the other. Simply that training will be maybe very hard for a good time, but give one real good results.

Direct relations are found also in your parallel questions in this answer

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


How long to leave a body undisturbed after death? When someone dies (is pronounced dead, e.g. no heart-beat) then hospital staff will want to move the body to a refrigerated morgue.

If you are next-of-kin, then when (after how long) is it right to give them permission to do that? Is it alright to do that nearly immediately, or, should you ask them to delay doing that, and if so for how long?

This reference says,

  Different Buddhist cultures (Western, Tibetan, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Sri Lankan etc. have different lengths of time that they don't move the body and keep vigil and do prayers).

How long is an appropriate length of time to ask for, for example in a Western hospital or hospice?

How much time/delay, if any, does the dying person need?

Should you wait for a certain length of time (number of hours after the recorded time of death)? Or wait for some specific, measurable/observable physical symptom, for example the (internal body and/or external skin) temperature cooling to some specific temperature?

The same page says,

  The Clear Light State can last for few minutes (where there is much disease or in accidents) or 3 days (recommended waiting time) or longer in accomplished meditators.

I imagine that leaving the body undisturbed for three days might be unacceptable in a Western hospital.

The conclusion to Buddhism and organ donation suggests that organ donation is compatible with Buddhism. If that's true, how is that compatible/reconciled with the view that the body should not be disturbed/touched after death?

The site urbandharma.org mentions that the body should be kept for about 3 days.

  Immediately following signs of physical death, Buddhists believe that it is best to keep the body in a peaceful state. Traditionally, the body is taken to the home and for a period of 3 days or so, the body is not touched and extensive prayers are said. This facilitates the process of the person’s consciousness letting go of its prior body and life and all of its attachments and more easily moving to the next.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma8/health.html

The exact number of days may vary from tradition to tradition.


Journaling for Buddhist laypeople I've been working on creating a (digital) diary application for Buddhist laypeople and would like to ask this community for ideas about what can be written about in a journal like this which would be valuable for improving well-being and spiritual growth

Here some ideas that I've gathered so far (not written in stone, including here just to show the general idea that i have):

Meditation journal --- type of meditation (metta, anapanasati, etc), hindrances during meditation
Daily practice journal (mindful walking to and from the parking lot, etc)
Gratitude journal
Successes --- maybe in the areas of faith, virtue (five precepts), generosity, wisdom

I've done some research by reading books about early Buddhism and practices for laypeople (for example "The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity" and "The Buddha's Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony") but am having a hard time "translating" the information that I've gathered into something that would fit well inside a diary application

Grateful for help with this!

Kind Regards, Tord

With the intention of increasing Sati some monks advise to recall daily events. Maintaining a Journal or Diary will help towards this. The number, clarity and detail of what you recall is not so perfect proxy to your Sathi practice. Also it increases memory to study and remember the Dhamma.

Also there is a concept of Pin Potha, which is a journal of all good deeds done. This can include all the categories which you mention and more. Also maybe elements of study.


Rebirth as cycle of consciousness? Wikipedia's article on Rebirth (Buddhism) says,

  Buddhist meditation teachers suggest that observation reveals consciousness as a sequence of conscious moments rather than a continuum of awareness[citation needed]. Each moment is an experience of an individual mind-state such as a thought, a memory, a feeling or a perception. A mind-state arises, exists and, being impermanent, ceases, following which the next mind-state arises. Thus the consciousness of a sentient being can be seen as a continuous series of birth and death of these mind-states. Rebirth is the persistence of this process.

Two questions:

The first question is about this definition/description/explanation of 'rebirth'
The second question is about this definition/description of 'consciousness and awareness'

So:

Can you give any citations for this explanation of 'rebirth'? Which tradition[s] of Buddhism is this from? Is it described in any canonical suttas, and/or does this idea have any specific names/nouns (e.g. in Pali, Tibetan, and/or Chinese) associated with it?
Is consciousness inevitably always a sequence of moments, not a continuum of awareness? Is this also true during meditation?

In Theravada, these questions are considered abhidhamma material. The goto reference is the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, which says in regards to your second question:

2. Is consciousness inevitably always a sequence of moments, not a continuum of awareness? Is this also true during meditation?

  A second distinguishing feature of the Abhidhamma is the dissection of the apparently continuous stream of consciousness into a succession of discrete evanescent cognitive events called cittas, each a complex unity involving consciousness itself, as the basic awareness of an object, and a constellation of mental factors (cetasika) exercising more specialized tasks in the act of cognition.

In the Theravada, reality is reality, whether you are meditating or not.

As to the first set of questions:

Can you give any citations for this explanation of 'rebirth'?

Mahasi Sayadaw says:

  Before death the stream of consciousness depends on the physical body and is continuous with one unit following the other uninterruptedly. After death, the body disintegrates and the stream of consciousness shifts to the physical process in another abode. This may be likened to the continuous appearance of light in an electric bulb through the ceaseless generation of electricity. When the bulb is burnt up, the light goes out but the potential electric energy keeps on coming. Light reappears when the old bulb is replaced with a new one. Here, the bulb, energy and light are all changing physical processes and we should be mindful of their impermanent character.

  (source)

Which tradition[s] of Buddhism is this from?

Maybe better to ask which it is compatible with... it is compatible with Theravada, and probably most other orthodox schools.

Is it described in any canonical suttas

As with many doctrines, the concept of rebirth as a continuation of a momentary string of consciousness is not explicitly spelled out in the Suttas. The way rebirth works is implicit, for example:

  “Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

  -- SN 12.38 (Bodhi, trans)

  “Bhikkhus, though someone might say: ‘Apart from form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from volitional formations, I will make known the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and rebirth, its growth, increase, and expansion’—that is impossible.

  3“Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.

  If he has abandoned lust for the feeling element … for the perception element … for the volitional formations element … for the consciousness element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.

  -- SN 22.53 (Bodhi, trans)

  “Sisters, suppose an oil-lamp is burning: its oil is impermanent and subject to change, its wick is impermanent and subject to change, its flame is impermanent and subject to change, and its radiance is impermanent and subject to change. Now would anyone be speaking rightly who spoke thus: ‘While this oil-lamp is burning, its oil, wick, and flame are impermanent and subject to change, but its radiance is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change’?”

  “No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because, venerable sir, while that oil-lamp is burning, its oil, wick, and flame are impermanent and subject to change, so its radiance must be impermanent and subject to change.”

  “So too, sisters, would anyone be speaking rightly who spoke thus: ‘These six internal bases are impermanent and subject to change, but the pleasant, painful, or neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling that one experiences in dependence upon the six internal bases is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change’?”

  “No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because each feeling arises in dependence upon its corresponding condition, and with the cessation of its corresponding condition, the feeling ceases.”

  “Good, good, sisters! So it is with a noble disciple who sees this as it actually is with proper wisdom.

  -- MN 146 (Bodhi, trans)

  5“Master Gotama, when a flame is flung by the wind and goes some distance, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”

  6“When, Vaccha, a flame is flung by the wind and goes some distance, I declare that it is fuelled by the wind. For on that occasion the wind is its fuel.”

  7“And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”

  8“When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.”

  -- SN 44.9 (Bodhi, trans)

  When this was said, the Venerable Moḷiyaphagguna said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, who consumes the nutriment consciousness?”

  3“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One consumes.’ If I should say, ‘One consumes,’ in that case this would be a valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who consumes?’ But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, for what is the nutriment consciousness [a condition]?’ this would be a valid question. To this the valid answer is: ‘The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the production of future renewed existence.

  When that which has come into being exists, the six sense bases [come to be]; with the six sense bases as condition, contact.’”

  -- SN 12.12 (Bodhi, trans)

and/or does this idea have any specific names/nouns (e.g. in Pali, Tibetan, and/or Chinese) associated with it?

The term for the stream of consciousness is viññāṇa-sota:

  Again, having done this and gone further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next. That is the third attainment. Again, having done this and gone still further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness that is not established either in this world or in the next.

  -- DN 28 (Bodhi, trans)

The term for the consciousness that links back to a new rebirth is paṭisandhi-viññāṇa.

The term for the process of the mind is citta-vīthi.


Is there a value for a single moment of mindfulness (without others) ? what is the value of a single moment of mindfulness- and is it worth anything if not combined with other moments

when i do a good action to help others even a small one it has its benefit to the other without even looking at its affect on the practice even

even if i do one deed like washing the dishes of the family than i dont do nothing for 4 months its worth something

if i meditate for 30 minutes or  be mindful while doing some action for 30 minutes   and than i dont do meditation or even be mindful  for 4 months   -  is it worth something ?  why you say so ?

(there are so many teachers talking about the importance of consistent practice which makes me think that its not worth anything)

This is a continuation of a precius question i ask which is very similar but not exactly the same :

Is there a point for a not continues practice?

Value, let's face it, is an idea - not to diminish the question. Value can be attributable to all and everything that occurs, whether once and forgotten, or consistently applied.

All that can be found is mindfulness, whether realized or ignored. No moment, or what appears in it, can possibly have a beneficial or detrimental effect on some other moment, though a clean sink is bliss itself.

If one's present course of practice is intermittent, it is beautiful. If one's present course of practice is consistent, it is beautiful. If we tie our quality of practice to some preferential outcome, there is binding.

If we fail to see or appreciate the fulfillment of things as they are, our very commitment to practice can reinforce the myth that we are somehow less than enlightenment. Presence is awake, this is irrefutable.

Warmly, NightSkySanghaGuy


Why does SN 12.66 say aging-and-death has acquisition as its source? SN 12.66 says:

  The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source,
  acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition.
  When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is
  no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.

Why does SN 12.66 say aging-and-death has acquisition (upadhi) as its source? Why doesn't SN 22.66 say aging-and-death has cancer or heart disease as its source?

This, of course, refers to Dependent Origination, with upadhi used synonymously with upādāna.

Pali Text Society's dictionary equates it with taṇhā:

  Upadhi, (fr. upa + dhā, cp. upadahati & BSk. upadhi Divy 50, 224, 534) 1. putting down or under, foundation, basis, ground, substratum (of rebirth) S. I, 117, 124, 134, 186; A. II, 24 (°saṅkhaya); III, 382 (id.); IV, 150 (°kkhaya); It. 21, 69; Sn. 364, 728 (upadhī-nidānā dukkha = vaṭṭa-dukkhaṃ SnA 505), 789, 992; Nd1 27, 141; Nd2 157; Vbh. 338; Nett 29; DhA. IV, 33.—(2) clinging to rebirth (as impeding spiritual progress), attachment (almost syn. with kilesa or taṇhā, cp. nirupadhi & anupadhi); S A. = pañcakkhandhā, S. II, 108. At M I 162 (cp. Sn. 33 = S. I, 6 = I. 107) wife and children, flocks and herds, silver and gold are called upadhayo. upadhi is the root of sorrow ib. 454; S. II, 108; Sn. 728 = 1051 = Th. I, 152 and the rejection of all upadhis is Nibbāna D. II, 36. (cp. S. I, 136; III, 133; V, 226; A. I, 80; M. I, 107 = II. 93; Vin. I, 5, 36 = J. I, 83 = Mvst II. 444; It. 46, 62); D. III, 112 calls that which has upadhi ignoble (= non-Aryan). At S. I, 117 = Divy 224 upadhi is called a bond (saṃgo). Cp. opadhika.—The upadhis were later systematized into a set of 10, which are given at Nd2 157 as follows: 5 taṇh’upadhis (taṇhā, diṭṭhi, kilesa, kamma, duccarita), āhār-upadhi, paṭigh°, catasso upādinnā dhātuyo u. (viz. kāma, diṭṭhi, sīlabbata, attavāda; see D. III, 230), cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni u. , cha viññāṇa-kāyā u. Another modified classification see at Brethren p. 398. (Page 142)

In my understanding, the idea here is that the pursuit of acquisitions has a semiotic effect of cementing the notion of self as an agent of action and enjoyer of its results. And so craving for an object, setting one's mind onto the object, making the object one's target, pursuing the object, acquiring the object, and then enjoying the contact with the object is exactly the semiotic sequence that leads to bhava - becoming (=identifying self as) a sentient being.

While experience of "contact" with an "object" marks the point when the spatial sense of self has fully matured, it is pursuit and acquisition is what helps the temporal sense of self to come to fruition.

Once self-identification as sentient being has fully matured both spatially and temporally, the self imputed  onto the aggregates becomes subject to change of the aggregates, hence "aging-and-death".


Do geshe degrees change over time? I have read several different conflicting pieces of information about geshe degrees.  I assumed geshe is a rank given at the end of study.  But, according to Wikipedia:

  At the conclusion [of their studies] the abbot assigns each candidate to a category of geshe according to his ability. There are four such categories, Dorampa, Lingtse, Tsorampa and Lharampa, Lharampa being the highest. After this, in order to qualify, the geshe candidates are not allowed to miss even one of the three daily debate sessions during the subsequent eight months.

Does this mean that one can first get a dorampa and then a lingtse later, similar to how lay people earn a bachelors and then a masters?

The difference between the geshe degrees is comparable to the grade you get on an exam.

From TibetCulture.net:

  Geshe Lharampa is the highest degree of the Geshe system, equivalent to the doctorate degree in Buddhist studies. The other three lower-level degrees, namely Dorampa, Lingtse and Tsorampa, will also be conferred according to candidates' performance in the dialectical debate.

And:

  Such a challenge as it is, it usually takes decades for a few distinguished lamas to succeed.


Is Buddhism a reduced version of Samkhya philosophy? I have read a couple of articles written mostly in passing by western translators on the influence of Sage Kapila (i.e Samkhya) on the Buddha, but I'm yet to find a detailed inquiry on a similarity of these systems.
We read that Alara Kalama one of the teachers of the Gautama Buddha was a follower of the ancient Samkhya philosophy. it is also written that the Bodhisattva Gautama eventually equaled his teacher Alara, and went on inquiring further until he was fully awakened, Buddha. And after awakening, the first person he wished to teach was his former teacher Alara.
I'm only mentioning that above to highlight why I venture to inquire in this direction, my question is mainly on the similarity of the two systems /thought. I will list some:

For both systems, the main goal is to 'End Suffering' by removing ignorance.
Contrary to most religious thought in India, both systems, although they accept heavenly beings, they reject the idea of a creator God. The gods they accept  are just like humans bound within the cycle of suffering. Samkhya satirically declares 'No one no-where Is happy'. The idea of 'Brahman' is also rejected.
Again both say that there is no-self on forms, sensations, perceptions, and all mental activities including the mind's reason [Buddhi].

Now, there is a 'Self' in the Samkhya system, but on critical reading, it's beyond any of the non-self listed in the Buddist thought. It's not a self that transmigrates and pile-up karma it's unbound ever free self. What is Bound and what is freed is the mind, not the Self.
Similarly, there are primordial matters in the Samkhya system. But Buddhism doesn't discuss or is not interested at the beginning of the matter, etc...
There is a lot to list here but in short, when one compares the two systems it seems that Buddhism is a reduced version of Samkhya with some of the ideas removed as non-essential. Was the Buddha a reformer?
Many Thanks

According to the wikipedia page on Samkhya:

The earliest surviving authoritative text on classical Samkhya
philosophy is the Samkhya Karika (c. 200 CE or 350–450 CE) of
Īśvarakṛṣṇa. There were probably other texts in early centuries CE,
however none of them are available today. Iśvarakṛṣṇa in his Kārikā
describes a succession of the disciples from Kapila, through Āsuri and
Pañcaśikha to himself.

So, Samkhya philosophy as known today, came almost 700 years after the Buddha (c. 563-483 BCE) based on the date of Samkhya Karika. But as stated above, it is attributed by Iśvarakṛṣṇa to Sage Kapila, who obviously predated the Buddha.
It is possible that the Samkhya Karika had experienced influence from Buddhism.
What about Alara Kalama?
Apparently, the only source stating Alara Kalama as following Samkhya is the Buddhacarita, composed in the second century CE by Aśvaghoṣa. This too was written at least 500 years after the Buddha.
There is no mention of the Samkhya philosophy by name in the Pali Canon. The Pali Canon also never explicitly attributed any teachings to Sage Kapila. The only mention of Kapila is in the Jataka Tales, dated at least a century after the Buddha.
In any case, whatever doctrine or teachings that was taught by Alara Kalama to the Buddha, did not bring him enlightenment, as we see in MN 26:

"In this way did Alara Kalama, my teacher, place me, his pupil, on the
same level with himself and pay me great honor. But the thought
occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to
dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to
Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension
of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.

So, the question is - did the Buddha copy and reduce Samkhya, or did the Samkhya Karika copy the teachings of the Buddha and tried to reconcile Buddhism with the teachings of the Vedas and the Upanishads?
Based on the dates of the writings, I would say the latter is more likely. So, you've got it in reverse.
But did the Buddha copy Sage Kapila? Well, this is impossible to say, because we don't have any authenticated pre-Buddhist writings of Sage Kapila remaining, in which he taught Samkhya.

Based on the following statements from the Samkhya Karika, the definition of Spirit (Purusha) is in violation of sabbe dhamma anatta (all phenomena is not self). There is no single Self or Spirit that is the pure witness or controller in Buddhism.

The Spirit exists because (a) the aggregate is for another's sake; (b)
of the absence of three guṇas and other properties; (c) there must be
some controller; (d) there must be some experiencer; and (e) of the
tendency of activities towards final beatitude. - Samkhya Karika
17
The multiplicity of the Spirit is verily established (1) from the
individual allotment of birth, death and the instruments, (2) from the
non-simultaneity of activities, and (3) from the diverse modifications
due to the three guṇas. - Samkhya Karika 18
And from that contrast it is established that the Spirit is the pure
witness. He is solitary, neutral, spectator, and non-agent. - Samkhya
Karika 19


Help me with my panic attack during meditation Today when i was doing "space between breathing" meditation i experienced something strange which caused me to panic.
When i got deep enough in meditation, gradually space between my breaths expanded and my breaths became very shallow. I could no longer feel my breathing. Also i lost sensation of my body and awareness of environment. I entered a silent dark space which was very tight.
I felt like a vibrating round mass. The vibration gradually increased and also i felt a really hot sensation in my body. As heat increased i felt as if the space became tighter. Then i had the panic attack. My heart start beating very forcefully and fast. I couldn’t feel and move my body. I couldn’t find my breathing. It took me so long to find my breath and get back to awareness. I am so scared i cannot meditatie again.
I was wondering what was this sensation. is this feeling  normal. How can i avoide the panic i experienced

I would recommend learning & practising meditation in a group, that has a competent teacher or monk, so you can learn to become fluent in the basics of meditation.

As for your panic attack, it sounds like your mind was focusing more & more on the space, thus lengthening the gap of the space & shorting the duration of the breathing.

Therefore, not only did your mind lose a soothing, comforting & calming sense object (the breathing) but also found itself in a state of 'emptiness' ('diminishing ego') that it could not cope with; thus fear or panic arose; which is similar to a fear of 'death' people commonly feel.

Ultimately, correctly practised Buddhism meditation should 1st develop a strong foundation of calm, which gives the mind refuge & strength to develop more profound insights.

Where as "space between breathing" (emptiness) meditation is taught by ambitious teachers who foolishly believe they will enlighten students more quickly.

The real Buddhist meditation path is something gradual & natural and based on giving up desire (craving) & positive & negative judgments (rather than based on exercises designed to eliminate the 'ego' or 'self' prematurely; when the mind is not yet ready or spiritually mature enough).


What does this quote from the Lotus Sutra mean? You, the richest person in the world, have been laboring and struggling endlessly, not understanding that you already possess all that you seek.

I saw this quote on Instagram and the caption accompanying this quote says it's from the Lotus Sutra. However, I couldn't find any analysis of it online. I had interpreted it as the person in question not knowing that he had already achieved nirvana, and is laboring and struggling endlessly to achieve it, but that didn't sit right with me. I also thought that it might've meant that he was working towards material goals, despite having all he needed to find happiness, but that seemed very hedonistic and contrary to Buddhist views to me.
What does this quote mean?

I suggest caution when analyzing quotes like this before seeing nirvana for the first time. It is extremely easy to be misled and fall into a "trap" when you hear any quote that says something along the lines of "you already possess all that you seek." If you have not awakened yet, do not read my interpretation of the quote as a call for you to stop your practice or stop seeking the truth. That being said, this is my interpretation.

  You, the richest person in the world,

The first time "You" is being used in this sentence, it is referring to the illusory self. The human being we all believe we are when we first begin experiencing this world. This you is referring to a small part of your experience, the concept that you currently identify as what makes up your identity.

  have been laboring and struggling endlessly,

This is referring to the struggle of Samara. Laboring is referring to the endless cycle of wanting something putting in effort to try to obtain it. Struggling is referring to the difficulties we encounter, as well as the suffering we feel when we do not get the things we want.

  not understanding that you

Now this part of the sentence is where things get confusing, because the speaker is no longer using the word "you" to refer to the illusory self. The speaker has now (in a very confusing way in an attempt to be poetic) switched the meaning of the word "you" to refer to the inexplicable. Although it is incorrect for me to say, the clearest explanation I can give of the "you" that is being referred to in this context is the "you" that is "one with everything". Understanding that, things become a little more clear.

  already possess all that you seek.

To fully explain this, a small explanation of desire and the process of forgetting is needed. This all comes from my personal experience, so take what I say with the normal amount of skepticism. Don't believe what I say, for unverified statements are what keep us trapped in the cycle of Samsara. Verify what I say in your own experience. It is through observing my own experience without belief that I was able to be whole.

It is impossible for one not to be themselves. I have been my true self forever and always, but there was a time where I forgot who I was. When one believes they are a human being, they are blinded by that belief. What happens is, a being who is infinite and eternal, suddenly believes that it is small and mortal. This process of forgetting can be said to be a process of exclusion. At first you are everything. Then, we begin to say, "I am not this, I am not that," etc. until we have come to the conclusion that we are not most things, but are something very small and insignificant in comparison to the universe. We know, deep in the core of our being, that we are not meant to be small and mortal. This instinct, the feeling of lack that permeates our experience, is what gives rise to desire. We only desire what we lack. We think, "I am not this, in order to be whole, I must attain this. Once I get this I will be fulfilled." But because we are everything, and it is impossible for a human being to attain everything in their lifetime, we are stuck in the endless cycle of Samsara.

So to quickly summarize: We only desire because we feel like something is missing. We feel like something is missing because we believe we are a limited number of things. We feel like we are a limited number of things because we have forgotten what we truly are, which is "one with everything".

Now, to finally explain the last part of the sentence: It is not saying "you the human being already possess everything you need in your life." It is saying that "you", the ultimate you, are everything that you seek. The speaker is talking past the illusory self, the human, and saying "You, the real you that is there, you are everything in the universe. Everything this human desires, is simply a part of your identity. The human does not understand that it, and the object of its desire, are both you."

It is attempting to describe the amazing plight of being human. It is like a wave in the ocean, chasing another wave. The wave says, I need to reach the other wave! I want to merge with that wave and become an even bigger wave, and then I will be whole! When the irony of the situation is, the wave is already the entire ocean.

I hope my words have been helpful to you in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.


if deities are merely creations of mind,how can there be purelands? relying on Guru Rinpoche is nothing but a skillful means for realizing and empowering ourselves with the phenomena of our own pure, joyful, and powerful perceptions and experiences, which arise from our own peaceful and open Buddha nature that we all have inherited. If we believe, then Guru Rinpoche will always be with us. He is not an individual person of a particular time or place. He is (or represents) the Buddha, the Buddha nature and its expression. In other words, he is the true nature of the universe and the pure character or expression of that universe. Whenever we allow our mind to connect with our inner truth, that truth will always be there to be reached, and then the manifestations or expressions arisen from that truth will always arise as pure and divine manifestations or appearances. If we let ourselves be inspired and see that very ultimate peace and truth, which we all have, through the support of and/or as Guru Rinpoche, we will realize and become Guru Rinpoche and his qualities and expressions.
Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche wrote:
In the case of deity meditation, it is the mind consciousness that creates the body of the deity. It is thus a mentally created body, and thus, so to speak, unreal. When, however, the karmic imprints of this visualization get stored in the all-base and become more clear and more stable, it is actually possible to meet the deity one day, or Guru Rinpoche, for example, face to face! This is the result of deity meditation with in-front visualization. [From Everyday Consciousness and Primordial Awareness, p. 39]
Kunga Rinpoche, wrote in "Drinking the Mountain Stream": The deities of the tantric vehicle's extensive pantheon, the male and female personifications of psychic processes as "herukas" and "dakinis", are **"produced" by the yogin through the practice of controlled visualization until their reality overshadows that of the superficial apparent world.**When the yogin is able to visualize his own personal deity to the point where the visualization seems to have a life of its own, and when he's able to see the his environment as divine, he then practices the "divine pride" of direct identification of his own body and mind with those of his personal deity.
all these quotations from masters indicate that dakinis,herukas and even guru rinpoche are not existant in the sence of having a mindstream and cognition and actually existing in some heaven.Rather they are appearances or creations of the individual's(Yogi or yidam practicioner) mind.
but obviousely there are purelands as many people have visions of amitabha etc picking them up to go there etc Dawa Drolma had visitation to the pureland of avalokiteshvara guided by Tara.are these then just appearances of her own mind?like Nimittas?

Deities are not completely creations of one meditator's mind. Meditator receives instructions from his/her teacher about how the deity looks, based on traditional description - so in some sense the deity exists in those descriptions and in the minds and stories of meditators passing the idea of the deity on, from generation to generation. So in a certain sense the deity exists over the lifetimes of many meditators who carry it on. And in some sense the character of the deity, the mood or style of the deity (as it's described and is then visualized) is an active force that conditions the meditator's mind.
So in a certain sense the deity actually has independent existence and plays an active role. It's not just meditator's imagination. Once you get seriously in touch with a traditional deity cultivated by thousands of meditator's over the course of many centuries you may realize that this imaginary entity nevertheless has power far beyond your own.
Now, to get to the purelands. The reality we perceive - the world we find ourselves in - is a result of our interpretation. Our reference point, our imprints, our selective attention, our associations, and our mental cycling - are the ingredients our world is assembled from. Correspondingly there are infinitely many worlds we can find ourselves in, some drastically different from a world of an average human.
These worlds can be dark&troublesome or high&pure, depending on the mind of a sentient being assembling that world. Sentient beings sharing a common mindset create a common world they can share.
Purelands exist as a continuum of worlds in the total range of assemblable worlds. So I see nothing strange in the fact that experienced meditators of the past visited other worlds, or were guided by deities helping them visit their world.
Perceiving our world as the only reality, and assuming that our own existence is more substantial than existence of deities is only a habit we are unwittingly cycling in.


Forgoing Enlightenment On what basis can a person who chooses to forgo enlightenment (arahant status) for any reason (for the supposed benefit of others, for example) be considered a Buddhist? If there is such a basis, can a person who intentionally retains a wrong view (seeing the body as self, for example) also be considered a Buddhist when they won't renounce such a view once corrected? Or a person who intentionally retains wrong action (stealing), saying that such action benefits others? I am mostly referring to the choice some people make to be a "bodhisattva" when they see that choice as intentionally putting off the efforts and strivings necessary to become enlightened because they would rather work "selflessly" for others' benefit. Where is the support for such a choice found within the Buddha's teachings?

It's a dangerous question, because it invites potential arguments between supporters of particular sects, but I will try to answer in good faith anyway.

The goal of Buddhism is attainment of Nirvana. For simplicity, let's characterize Nirvana as "unconditional peace". As per the Noble Truth such unconditional peace is only possible when there is absolutely no craving. Now, what is craving? Craving is an obsessive desire for something other than what is present here and now. The absence of craving then is 100% satisfaction in the here and now. Such satisfaction can only be unconditional if craving is absent regardless of circumstances. In other words, unconditional peace is the absence of craving for the circumstances to be different than they are now.

Achieving this level of absence of craving and thus mastering the unconditional Peace is the culmination of the Noble Eightfold Path. Now, if someone has attained this Peace, would they have an inner reason to stay away from society? If we think logically, the answer must be a firm and resounding "no!". For one, because in the absence of craving there can't be aversion to society. Second, unconditional peace is, by definition, imperturbable. Finally, staying in society creates possibilities for teaching Dharma, which helps reduce global level of suffering†, something a true self-less Buddhist would be happy to facilitate.

So, as it turns out, an already Enlightened mind would absolutely choose to stay in society to keep helping others.

Now, if an Enlightened mind (~"a Buddha") would lead such lifestyle, why wouldn't we, his students, model after our teacher and lead the same lifestyle even now, before we are fully enlightened? Especially if working on our own Enlightenment, it turns out, is not in conflict with "staying behind"! In fact, upon a closer examination, dropping our aversion to society and our craving for a trascendental escape, is exactly the kind of "letting go" that is required for attaining the unconditional peace of no-craving.

So if we can drop our aversion to society, accept everything in its imperfection, and help other sentient beings reduce the level of dukkha, by abandoning craving - turns out we are de-facto living the state of Buddha that we have supposedly forgone! But if we abandon society and work on our own Liberation, it turns out we in fact are acting out of our selfish aversion and selfish craving! So the path of a Bodhisattva is logically consistent with Dharma while the path of an arahant hides a logical contradiction. Or perhaps the path of an arahant may be a valid provisional training, but at the advanced stages if one were to truly abandon craving, the switch over to Mahayana would happen anyway.

And this is roughly the line of reasoning that led to emergence of Mahayana's ideal of Bodhisattva. I may have made some minor mistakes in connecting the chain of ideas, but the overall argument is more or less valid, I think.

I can't speak for edge cases though. There's obviously a possibility that someone would use this logic to cover up their laziness and complacency. They may even have false views regarding the self, and engage in dukkha-creating activities such as stealing. This is not out of question. But this does not negate the core idea of Mahayana, which is based on the valid understanding of The Goal, The Second and Third Noble Truths, and their real-life implications.

__
†note how this says "global level of suffering" without mentioning any "sentient beings" - although suffering (dukkha) is, of course, a subjective phenomenon.

P.S.

As for the Right Intent (defined as intent directed away from Three Poisons and toward dispassion) and Right Effort (defined as effort to stop mindstates conducive to dukkha, and cultivate those conducive to Enlightenment & Peace) - I don't think they are in any conflict with the Bodhisattva's vow. You can perfectly practice both while living in society, and the subject of your practice doesn't even have to be limited to yourself. You can perfectly cultivate dispassion and wholesome mindstates in everyone, without artificially separating other people from yourself.


Looking for a reference about the significance of The Buddha being a teacher I'm looking for some help in finding a reference. It's from a contemporary writer -- probably in the last ten years -- not from anything ancient or canonical. The context is as follows.
The word “Buddha” -- i.e. the title-cased version -- is typically used to refer to The Buddha, Siddartha Gautama. Also, but less frequently, it can refer to a relatively small bunch of others, such as Maitreya; any of the Saptatathāgata; and the like.
By contrast, and contrary to popular opinion (although familiar to most of us here), the lower-cased version of the word, “buddha" actually applies to anyone who has attained a particular degree of awakening. Please excuse that very imprecise definition on my part, but for the purposes of my question the operative word there is simply the “anyone”.
In other words, while only a few are acknowledged as being a Buddha, in theory anyone can (and perhaps gazillions already have) become a buddha.
So to my reference. The writer was offering an explanation as to the difference between the two; i.e. what distinguishes the rare, named Buddhas from the relatively common, (lower-cased) buddhas. And he (I'm pretty sure it was a dude) said that one difference was the place of the Buddha as a major teacher of humanity.
But in fact, the writer was more emphatic than that. If I'm remembering right, he was arguing that being a teacher of extreme significance was The defining characteristic that distinguishes a major Buddha from a mere buddha.
One more clue. I have a strong hunch that the writer was Shinzen Young, but I have not been able to track down what I'm after. And, knowing how I've encountered most of Shinzen's stuff, that might be because I heard him say it, in a video presentation, rather than read it.
Is this ringing any bells to anyone?
A follow-up question. I don't know the extent to which Shinzen (or whomever it was) was expounding his own theory, versus merely explaining what is a well-established view. If it sounds like it was the latter, then just as useful to me would be a reference to any reliable source, ancient and canonical would then be ideal, that makes the same point; i.e. the point that The key characteristic distinguishing a buddha from a Buddha is that the latter teaches the world how to become the former.

No idea who the author you are talking about is, but what he/she's referring to is a samyaksambuddha.  It's canonical at least from a Mahayana perspective.  A samyaksambuddha is a once in a kalpa being.  He (and it's always been a "he" in this world system) is a Buddha without karmic remainder.  He is fully awakened in terms of his own existential obstacles and his investigation into reality.  He's also perfected all of the paramitas, mastered all of the dhyanas, and so on and so forth.  And yes, like you indicate his ability to teach is of paramount importance.
All being a lowercase "buddha" means is someone who has awakened.  If you want to bring the Theravada into this, a buddha is anyone from a sotapanna to an arhat.  The title capital B Buddha explicitly refers to someone who is a perfected Bodhisattva who has mastered all aspects of the path.  He is the person who restarts the sasana after it has been lost.


What is the difference between nama-rupa and the five skandhas? As I understood it from the abhidharma, nama-rupa is just another way of looking at the five skandhas, a different scheme for the same thing, along with others (e.g. the dhatus).

But, as far as I can tell, this is never quite explicitly stated.

Why?

And are they identical ways of saying the same thing?

Nama-rupa & the five aggregates are taught for different purposes.

The five aggregates are objects of insight.

  'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is
  perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are
  fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is
  consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' ...AN 4.41

Nama-rupa is a condition in Dependent Origination, where it serves as the 'control centre' for meditation. Either nama-rupa is overcome by ignorance or nama-rupa is controlled to end ignorance.

  He sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body [rupa] erect and setting mindfulness [nama] to the fore....MN 118

  He lives with attention to body [rupa] established, with an immeasurable mind [nama]...MN 38

Nama-rupa is 'mentality-materiality' & excludes consciousness (although includes internal contact, which includes consciousness one of three constituents but predominantly the mind/mano as a sense organ).

  What is mentality-materiality (nama-rupa)? Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements
  and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are
  called materiality.

  What is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness.

  SN 12.2 & MN 9

Nama = mentality. It also includes another mental functions, such as mindfulness, zeal, energy, persistence, decision, etc (as listed in MN 111).

Why consciousness is kept separate is because consciousness is mere sense awareness, like a mirror. It is essentially 'passive' in nature.

Where as 'nama' is like 'intelligence'. It is a grouping of those functions of mind that discern, develop wisdom & makes decisions. Otherwise, if nama does not develop wisdom, it is controlled by ignorance (avicca paccaya...nama-rupa).

'Nama-rupa' is used as a word-compound to show nama & rupa are inseparably interrelated. For example, when nama becomes agitated, rupa simultaneously becomes agitated.

  His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental
  distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental
  stress.
  MN 149

Where as consciousness is just awareness or objectivity. Consciousness does not produce suffering where as an ignorant 'nama' produces & is afflicted by suffering; which also afflicts the physical body.

~~~

'Nama-rupa' is also a pre-Buddhist-Brahmanistic term that the Buddha adopted, redefined & thus debunked.

Brahmanism was concerned with 'creationism', of how the mind names forms. In Brahmanism, nama-rupa is 'name-form'. Where as the Buddha said 'nama-rupa' is 'mind-body' (mentality-materiality), which should be observed in meditation so to understand how suffering afflicts the mind-body & also can cease in the mind-body.

  Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the world/suffering, the
  origination of the world/suffering, the cessation of the
  world/suffering and the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  the world/suffering... AN 4.45

There are many scriptures where the Buddha talks to Brahmans and the word 'nama-rupa' retains its Brahmanistic meaning as 'name-form'. This causes confusion to most Buddhists & scholars, who incorrectly translate nama-rupa as 'name-form' in all contexts.

When the Buddha teaches Buddhists, the translation is 'mentality-materiality'. When the Buddha teaches Brahmans, the translation is 'name-form'.

  The brahman Jata Bharadvaja went to the Blessed One and said: Gotama, I ask you this: who can untangle this tangle?

  Where name-&-form,   along with perception   of impingement & form, totally stop without trace:  that's where the tangle         is cut.

  When this was said, the brahman Jata Bharadvaja said to the Blessed One, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent!

  SN 7.6


Are "Saya Asadharana Nana" part of Nibbana? Buddha's knowledge or Wisdom which cannot be achieved by his disciples comprises six kinds. They  are called the Saya Asadharana Nana. Did the Buddha attain them at the same moment he attained Nibbana? If so, are they part of Nibbana and are they considered as Asankara as well?

Yes, the Buddha attained each of these knowledges at the moment of enlightenment.

No, the knowledges are mundane, and thus sankhata (formed). They are a by-product of the Buddha's specific enlightenment, not qualities of nibbana itself, which has only three qualities, viz. voidness, signlessness, and desirelessness.


What is the difference between love and infatuation? What is the difference between the two or are they the same?

I reckon if you marry someone because you want to keep them, that's like infatuation.

And if they're dying, and you neither want them to remain in suffering, nor want to push them away, that's more like love.

More generally any form of unwise or selfish misbehaviour might be diagnosed as caused by an "infatuation", whereas ethical and generous might be described in more positive terms like "love". Buddhism might distinguish different types/kinds (manifestations) of the better kind of love -- see the "brahmaviharas" which are translated e.g. "compassion" and "loving-kindness" and so on.

There's another consideration, I think "ethical" might imply that nobody regrets it, it's not action (or intention) from which any suffering or dissatisfaction arises -- so it "benefits both, self, and others", and see e.g. "and is a small taste of Nibbana".

If you want specific advice about binding yourself to (or simply choosing) a lay partner, see e.g. Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose? -- see also e.g. DN 31 for very generic advice about friendships in lay life.


Mindfulness With Breathing & Ear Pain Whenever I do mindfulness with breathing I get ear pains whenever I do longer breaths. The breath is also hearable.

Wherein lies the problem?

Could be because you are performing forced breaths.

Otherwise, there could possibly be some type of physical problem or blockage, such as this I found on the internet.

If the later, I would research the internet, ask a doctor or ask a highly skilled acupuncturist.


Is begging for alms acceptable for lay persons? Receiving alms is definitely part of the monastic life.
Is begging for alms acceptable for lay persons?
Is begging for alms considered Right Livelihood for lay persons?
Is begging for alms considered skillful for lay persons, compared to earning their livelihood in accordance with the five precepts, principles of Right Livelihood and teachings of the Pali Canon (or other scriptures)? Or is it considered laziness?

I dont know how the word 'begging' came into Buddhism. BHIKSHA is a sanskrit word which translates nearly to Begging in Modern Indian social sense. But the word is rooted into Pali as the donation to Bhikku. This 'alms'(please dont consider the modern English meaning ) is not the result of begging. In the early era of Buddhism, the bhikkus/bhikkunis were Teachers/Gurus to the common men, and in return to their teaching / services to the Society ; their daily needs as Food / cloths were given as the form of donation. These kind of donations are utilized for the management of Dhamma Sanghas.
Later only, the Bhiksha word became derogatory due to the social religious changes in India. Donation is a main source of resources in major religions, Xianity for example, they run churches by donation. But in Buddhism, it not about begging / taking for granted. The Bhiksha we give to Bhikkus/Bhikkunis are the reward we offer to the teachers.
thank you


Personal practices of meditation During practice of meditation when notice thoughts disappear . experience peace and happy . innerconversation has lost. what is this state?

The state described is basic samadhi ('concentration'; 'collectedness'), which ideally is to be maintained & developed when meditating. MN 19 describes about how the Buddha-To-Be developed samadhi, in the following manner:

I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it...So that my mind was not strained. Tireless energy was aroused in me and unremitting mindfulness was established, my body was tranquil and untroubled, my mind concentrated and unified. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained mind, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
MN 19


Can we still reach loved ones with guidence after they have passed through the bardo into a rebirth? The question I pose is the same as the title of this post. Any experience or further reading of how to practice this reaching of a loved one to support and guide them after they have passed through the bardo into rebirth.

Thank you

What I mean by reaching....is, I suppose after reading the post below by bhumishu; to send a blessing. Is this received? Now even another question....I have read that there are 49 days in the bardo and the first day is equal to four days which in total will be 52. All of which are merely symbolic. Can someone or you please expound on this? Also, I do have a copy of The Tibetan Book of the Dead which will need to be opened and read again and refereed to again for retained wisdom. Any and all acceptance that can be given that I was unable to be there to guide my Grandmother within the 49 or 52 day time frame according to the practices given in the teachings. This is why I deeply want to assist or send blessings to her that are received by her in whatever or wherever she may be now. Thank you so much!

"Can we still reach loved ones with guidence after they have passed through the bardo into a rebirth?"

If "guidance" you refer to what the book "Tibetan Book of The Death" instructed, then it would be "no". That person is in a new life form, all the possibilities during the bardo stage is conclusive now. In general saying, the bardo lasts max. 49 days. However, you may send blessings to the loved ones any time.


Three Marks of Existence in Mahayana What is the equivalent to the 3 Marks of Existence in Vajrayana or Mahayana Buddhism? I heard a version of the Buddha's enlightenment¹, where the Buddha  didn't realize impermanence, dukkha and no-self but in place of that he realized the past, the present and the future. That sounded a bit odd to me, is that a popular Vajrayana version of the Buddha's enlightenment?

¹ Here is how the Buddha's enlightenment is narrated in the movie "Kundun":

  "Then, at the time of midnight,
  the Bodhisattva saw a clear light. Then he saw in a single instant
  the three states of existence,

  the past,
   the present,
   and the future

  purified by the clear light.
  Then, sitting at the Tree of Enlightenment, he conquered
  all the devils."

Most of the time in Mahayana (both Vajrayana and Zen) I hear of Four Marks of Existence: Transience, Unsatisfactoriness, Corelessness, and Nirvana. All four are subsumed under Shunyata (Emptiness) which is equated with Pratitya-Samutpada (Dependent Co-Arising).

Not sure about past, present and future. Anyone?


What is the Karmic Effect of Harsh Speech? What are the karmic fruits/consequences of speaking harshly to others?

The mind & body is disturbed, with agitation & stress ('hell').

Friends may be lost or social status (such as a job) may be lost, which results in deficiency & need ('hungry ghost').

Shame & regret will eventually arise internally  (if the mind returns to a normal or 'human' state).

  Pharusā, bhikkhave, vācā āsevitā bhāvitā bahulīkatā nirayasaṃvattanikā tiracchānayonisaṃvattanikā
  pettivisayasaṃvattanikā. Yo sabbalahuso pharusāya vācāya vipāko,
  manussabhūtassa amanāpasaddasaṃvattaniko hoti

  Harsh speech — when indulged in, developed & pursued — is something that leads to (saṃvattanika) hell (niraya), leads to the animal birth (tiracchānayoni), leads to the
  realm (visaya) of the hungry shades (petti). The slightest of all the results coming
  from harsh speech is that, when one becomes human (manussa), it leads to
  unappealing (amanāpa) sounds.

  AN 8.40 Vipaka Sutta