cycling through the 16 nanas all day? After finishing a mahasi retreat and asking a second teacher told me that everyone is going through the nanas always

Can people here explain on this issue please ...

Does it mean everyone is advancing on the path.?  Or its just helpful in case you are aware of the nanas meaning you are mindful to them

Thanks in advance this issue just got me very confused .. So any clarification is helpful

1 - Namarupa Pariccheda Gnāna

If we are to take “nama-rupa-pariccheda-ñana” to mean, “rupa” are according “nama” - one’s body is according to one’s thinking, then it means that our habits help form the kind of existence in life. An adulterer’s acts can be equal to that of animals. Such activities would generate kamma beeja in the animal bhava in the next life.

Nama-rupa paricheda-nana can be also taken as one being able to see oneself as five grasping groups (Pancaupadanakkhandha). Those five are namely:
Rupupadanakkhandha - Grasping group of corporeality
Vedanupadanakkhandha -Grasping group of feeling
Sannupadanakkhandha - Grasping group of perception
Sankharupadanakkhandha -Grasping group of mental formation
Vinnanupadanakkhanda-Grasping group of consciousness
These are the five aspects through which the Buddha has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence, and which appears to the ignorant man as his Ego or personality. It is also called Ditthi-Visuddhi.

2 - Paccaya Pariggaha Gnāna

The cause of all the physical and mental phenomena of existence (Nama-rupa) is no other than Avidya (non-awareness of truth), Thrusna (desire or craving born of false views and attachment), Kamma, and Ahara (nutriments). It was true in the past, it is true in the present and it will be true in the future. Nana or insight which realizes this fact is called Paccaya-pariggaha-nana. It is also called the purification by overcoming doubt kankhāvitarana-visuddhi.

By purification by overcoming doubt (kankhā-vitarana-visuddhi) is meant the understanding which, by grasping the conditions of this mind and corporeality, has escaped from all doubt with regard to the 3 times (past, present, future). Ahara (nutriments) are of four types: The foods for the physical body are called kabalinka ahara. Sense impression (phassa ahara) is Contact, Volitional thought (Cetana) is Intellectual Intention, nutriment of Consciousness, and

3 - Sammasana Gnāna

This is Knowledge by Comprehension. Here the knowledge that one gained in the above two Namarupa Pariccheda Gnāna & Paccaya Pariggaha Gnāna  are seen in relation to Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta nature.This Nana or insight is called Sammasananana.

On proceeding with the contemplation, oneobserves that all rupa cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction. This is "Anicca-sammasana-nana" (Insight that nothing can be kept to one’s satisfaction, that leads to suffering,  and is a viparinama dhamma).

Thus one understands that no “rupa” can be kept to our satisfaction, therefore that (i.e., forming attachment to such rupa) will lead to suffering, and therefore there is no reason to consider of them having any substance. Anicca leads to dukkha and to anatta, because we have nicca sanna about such (anicca) rupa.

4 - Udayabbaya Gnāna

This is Knowledge of Contemplation of Arising and passing Away. “Udayabbaya gnana” when one develops, one can see the causes that need to be eliminated to overcome otherwise inevitable future suffering. One then learns of the factors relating to all knowledge about the arising and destruction of anything in this world. It is also called Maggamagga-nana-dassana-visuddhi.

By purification by knowledge and vision of what is path and not-path (maggāmagga-ñānadassana-visuddhi) is meant that understanding which knows the right path from the wrong path: 'This is the right path, that the wrong path.'  This knowledge is the mature form of Udayabbhayanana", flawlessly free from 'Upakkilesa' (impurities).

One practising Vipassana meditation, at this stage, generally beholds a supernormal light (obhasa), feels a thrill of zest (piti), calmness (passaddhi), determination (adhimokkha), great energy (paggaha), happiness (sukha), deep insight (nana), intensity of mindfulness (upatthana), equanimity (upekkha), and a mild desire for this state (nikanti).

These states arising in one at the stage of Udayabbaya Nana in ten phases are termed 'Vipassanupakkilesa’, defilements of kilesa. These are imperfections of Insight and are ten in number, as follows: (1) Illumination, (2) knowledge, (3) rapturous happiness, (4) tranquility, (5) bliss (pleasure), (6) resolution, (7) exertion, (8) assurance, (9) equanimity and (10) attachment.

One, arriving at this stage, is liable to these defilements and his mind may be seized by 'spiritual excitement' or 'agitation about higher states' (dhamma-uddhacca). 'For example, he may, on having an illumination, feel that this constitutes Path-experience and so inhibits his further progress through deceiving himself.

5 - Bhanga Gnāna

This is Knowledge of Contemplation of Dissolution. This is the first of a series of nanas known as the dukkha-nanas. At this stage one has already attained the purification of overcoming doubt and the purification of knowing and seeing what is and what is not the path. The essentials of the practice have already been revealed, and in the process the one has experienced confidence, rapture and bliss,  and had seen the arising and passing away of experience.

As the awareness and concentration continues to develop one now sees only the passing away of phenomena. It is as if one’s awareness is faster than the experiences he is examining, As soon as he places his attention on some aspect of his experience, it disappears. This is the knowledge of dissolution (bhanga-nana). This can take the form of one apparently losing one’s concentration, like one can no longer focus on anything; one’s attention keeps sliding off whatever one tries to look at.

This can be a shocking experience, because one is used to be able to focus on anything. Now, it seems, one can focus on nothing at all. One can even experience the disappearance of the form of the body. The sense of the body disappears; all that is left is a series of apparently disconnected individual sensations. There is no "body" as such.

6 - Bhaya Gnāna

Bhanga-nana gives way to the knowledge of fear, (bhaya-nana). In the disappearance of everything examined, the mind at some level begins to realise: there is nothing beneath. There is no foundation.There is nothing at all. This can manifest as panic. The realisation that "I am not in control of ‘my’ life".

7 - Ädeenava Gnāna

Contemplation of Ädeenava as bad consequences is another aspect of the awareness of a sense of fear:  Temporary enjoyment (asvada) is bound to bring about bad consequences (adeenava). There arises the realization of the fact that these psycho-physical phenomena so rapidly dissolving are undesirable, faulty and defective in nature. This is "Adinava-nana" (Insight into unsatisfactory condition)’.

One realises there is no rest, no security, in anything. The power of this insight-knowledge is such that one knows there is no escape. One knows that this danger, this disadvantage, remains because one knows this is the nature of experience as such.

8 - Nibbida Gnāna

This is Knowledge of Contemplation of disenchantment. If we could stay away from valuing sense pleasures and live accordingly, then we could arrive at this gnana. Thus, one would contemplate on the endeavor to break all bonds to this world, and stop making new bhava. It is a conviction that it is unfruitful to stay in this world as there is nothing in this world that worth craving for (upadana).

9 - Muncitukamayata Gnāna

This is Knowledge of Desire for Deliverance.  Knowledge consisting in the desire for deliverance means: the desire for freedom and escape from all mental formations of existence. For feeling aversion for all mental formations, becoming weary of them, finding no more delight in them, the mind does not cling to a single one of all these mental formations.

Simply put this is the "get-me-outa-here-nana". And of course, this knowledge includes the understanding that, whatever situation one could escape to, that too will be unsatisfactory, and the urge to escape will still be there in that new situation.

10 - Patisankha Gnāna

This is Knowledge of Contemplation of Reflection. In reflecting, one  instills a decision to practice further. At this stage as contemplation is carried on with reflection, carefully, with proper care or intention, a clear perception of 'anicca', 'dukkha' and 'anatta' would arise. In particular, the nature of dukkha, sufferings, may be perceived very convincingly.

This is 'Patisankha nana" (Insight arising out of further contemplation; Nana or insight that regains the awareness of Anicca or Dukkha or Anatta nature of all things. That none of those can be maintained to our satisfaction, i.e., they all are anicca. Thus we eventually suffer, and thus all struggles to keep them to our satisfaction are in vain and therefore, we are helpless in this rebirth process.

11 - Sankharupekha Gnāna

This is recollection once more of the afore knowledge, in fully comprehending that nothing can be maintained to our satisfaction, i.e., they all are anicca, thus we eventually suffer, and thus all struggles to keep them to our satisfaction are in vain and therefore, we are helpless in this rebirth process. The realization of the true nature of the objects of contemplation without exertion and without pursuing good or bad sensations in the course of the contemplation which lasts for a long time is "Sankha-rupekkha-nana" (Knowledge or insight arising from viewing things with equanimity; Nana or insight, that is indifferent to Arammana [thought objects]).

12 - Anuloma Gnāna

This is Knowledge in Conformity with Truth-conformity knowledge. When one comprehends anicca, dukkha, anatta to the extent that one gets to ‘see’ this Tilakkhana, one is said to have the “anulöma nana”.

That special knowledge appears with the realization that physical and mental phenomena which occur at the six sense-doors momentarily cannot be maintained to one’s satisfaction, will eventually lead to suffering, and everything in this world is without substance (anatta).

The knowledge that arises at the last moment is "Anuloma-nana" (Knowledge of adaptation) which consists of three 'javanas', impulse moments, called 'Parikamma' (preparation), 'Upacara' (approach) and 'Anuloma' (adaptation). Anulomanana transforms mind to become qualified to enter the threshold of Nibbana.

13 - Gotrabhu Gnāna

After 'Anulomanana' there arises "Gotrabhu-nana" (Knowledge of Change-of -lineage ("götra") when getting close to a jhana) which grasps the sensation towards Nibbana where the miseries and sufferings connected with rupa and nama entirely cease.

Gotrobhunana pushes mind across the threshold. As soon as mind crosses the threshold, it becomes aware of Nibbana. This is the knowledge which severs the lineage of 'Putthujjanas' (worldlings) and enters the lineage of the 'Ariyas' (Noble Ones)

14 - Magga Gnāna

This is Knowledge of Path. Knowledge and vision of what is path and not-path means that understanding which knows the right path from the wrong path: 'This is the right path, that the wrong path.' In order to attain this gnana, one at first should develop methodical insight.

15 - Phala Gnāna

This is Knowledge of fruit. No sooner the "sotapatti Magga Nana” arises one comes to Phala Nana" (Insight wisdom arising from the Noble Path of Stream-winning and its Fruition) which realises Nibbana. The 'Magganana' is called "Nana-dassana-visuddhi" (Purity of insight)

16 - Paccavekkhana Gnāna

Once the 'magga and Phala Nana' arises, then retrospective reflection of the peculiar experiences of the "Magga, Phala and Nibbana" takes place. This is 'Paccavakkhana-nana" (Insight of retrospection). This is Knowledge of Reviewing. 'retrospective knowledge', refers to the recollected mental image obtained in concentration, or to any inner experience just passed,
Knowledge which reviews the defilements still remaining.


Is it never what you think it is? In the Sappurisa Sutta, MN 113, Access to Insight it says:

'The Blessed One has spoken of non-fashioning even with regard to the
attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception,
for by whatever means they construe it, it becomes otherwise from
that.'

Or as translated in The Middle Length Discourses, page 912

'Non-identification even with the attainment of the base of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception has been declared by the Blessed
One; for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than
that.'

and by Tang Huyen, alt.zen

'Non-identification-with (a-tam-maya-taa, the state of
not-being-made-up-with-that) even the place of neither notion nor
not-notion has been spoken of by the Blessed One; for what and what
(yena yena) they think it (maññanti tato), it becomes otherwise (ta.m
hoti aññathaa ti).'

The phrase in the second translation: "for in whatever way they conceive, the fact is ever other than that", seems to apply generally, as if describing Maya.
The other translations could be read as saying specifically the "attainment of the dimension ..." or 'Non-identification-with' should not be construed.
Should the more general sense apply?  Is that the original meaning?

Thanks to ChrisW for additional clarifications.
In my understanding, this is a reference to a folk poem-turned-proverb popular at Buddha's times about impermanence and the futility of human condition:

Yena yenahi maññanti,
Tatotassa hi aññathā;

In whatever way you think of it
It invariably gets otherwise.

Here Buddha creatively uses it to emphasize the point he's making about confusing any particular meditative state with Nirvana. However refined, any meditative state is fleeting, "it invariably gets otherwise". In whatever way one tries to grasp it and make it into something one can own and be proud of -- true Nirvana remains unreachable to the grasping mind. It cannot be held onto, cannot be conceptualized, it can only be realized through actually letting go, or, in Mahayana terms, through embracing Shunyata as one's actual modus operandi.
You can see on my example right here in the previous paragraph that, indeed, as soon as you use a positive statement to describe Nirvana, your very words become a conceptual box limiting the vast open space and misrepresenting the living realization.
Or to paraphrase OP's apt question title, Nirvana is never what you think it is.
To answer your question directly: the poem speaks about impermanence of everything in life in the general sense, but when the Buddha quotes it he refers specifically to the impermanence of meditative states vs the letting go of grasping at conceptual boxes (atammayata) as the only true Nirvana.


Does the "nature" of a person move with her to the next life? Imagine a person that is very calm, generous, doesn't like to harm others etc. If this person gets a rebirth in the human realm will he/she develop the same characteristcs?

The point is that Kamma and the last mental state can go on, but according to Anatta I'm not sure about the rest.

kamma doesn't actually go on. kamma means action, and it is finished after it is performed. Nothing actually goes on from one moment to the next; the effects of one moment are felt in the next, and have potential repercussions far into the future.
It is these repercussions that do indeed create a sense of continuity from life to life; a person who ended their life with a certain nature will be reborn with a similar nature, simply due to the causal nature of reality.

"Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind."
MN 19 (Bodhi, trans)


A question on morality As I understand it, we carry out generous and selfless deeds for the purpose of acquiring positive kamma and/or promoting our spiritual quest. However, this seems like a form of greed, one of the three unwholesome roots (I think that's what it is labeled as, unsure). How can moral acts be qualified as free of greed, when it seems that the motive for morality is ultimately self-gain (greed)?

Your question might be considered a mixture of asking about sila (morality) and dana (giving). The reasons for doing each are a little different.

The most basic reason for acting with sila is to prevent remorse at our own wrongdoings which would make samadhi (concentration or meditation practice) far more difficult. Being able to practice proper samadhi leads to panna (wisdom). Sila, samadhi, and panna are all intricately connected and the whole thing breaks down when one is filled with remorse at wrong doing.

You should be interested in your own enlightenment. From What Buddhist Believe, by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. (page 266-267)

  You Have to Save Yourself

  ONESELF, indeed, is one’s saviour, for what other saviour
  would there be? With oneself well controlled the problem
  of looking for an external saviour is solved.
  (DHAMMAPADA 166)

  As the Buddha was about to pass away, His disciples came from
  everywhere to be near Him. While the other disciples were constantly
  at His side and in deep sorrow over the impending loss of their
  Master, a monk named Attadatta went into his cell and practised
  meditation. The other monks, thinking that he was unconcerned
  about the welfare of the Buddha, were upset and reported the matter
  to Him. The monk, however, addressed the Buddha thus, ‘Lord as
  the Blessed One would be passing away soon, I thought the best way
  to honour the Blessed One would be by attaining Arahantship
  during the lifetime of the Blessed One itself’. The Buddha praised
  his attitude and his conduct and said that one’s spiritual welfare
  should not be abandoned for the sake of others.
  In this story is illustrated one of the most important aspects of
  Buddhism. A person must constantly be on the alert to seek his or
  her own deliverance from Samsara, and ‘salvation’ must be brought
  about by the individual alone. One cannot look to any external
  force or agency for help to attain Nirvana.

Working towards our own enlightenment is clearly acceptable and expected.

The most basic reason for acting with generosity, is to reduce our own greed or attachment to our own resources. If we cling to anything, we suffer. If we give with wholesome intentions, we reduce our clinging to our own resources which reduces our suffering. That's different than giving with the expectation of receiving a good kammic effect in return. There are good kammic effects connected with acts taken with wholesome intentions, but we don't know the timetable on receipt of such kammic fruits. It could be a long way off.

So we do good things because it's good for our mind states, which is good for our eventual enlightenment. The importance of creating the conditions for our own enlightenment was stressed by the Buddha among his last words.


Incoherent Meditations Seemingly, despite my questions, I still am encountering great difficulties. I've been meditating for perhaps 1-2 years in a haphazard fashion, on the metro, walking places, while doing things. Perhaps the word "meditation" is inappropriate, it was more like a mindfulness or perhaps a mixture of different types of reasoning, contemplation and attempts at realizing certain facts. Overall, I feel like I've accomplished absolutely nothing in these two years, and that I've wasted much time.

I would say the only thing I want now is to be able to stop all this, whether to meditate properly, or even to understand how to reverse the conditioning that I unwittingly imposed upon myself. I'm asking if anyone knows or conjectures a means by which I could achieve this, and perhaps some tips on what I should avoid doing to create this massive incoherence in my mind.

It sounds like you are experiencing runaway mindfulness.  At the very least, you're falling into discursive thought (as you say "reasoning" and attempts at "realizing certain facts").  Neither of those is really Buddhist in practice.  They're also not going to get you any closer to true realization.  I really think you need to slow things down.  A little samatha might go a long way in settling your mind and help keep it a bit more collected.  Once you've established some degree of calm, you might have more success with a mindfulness practice.

And like Suminda says, make sure you learn correct technique before you have at it again!


Where did the belief about monks' mothers going to heaven come from? Some people believe that in Buddhism when the mother of a monk dies she would hold on to the monk's robe and go to heaven.

I never read the Buddha say anything like that, but of course I haven't read everything the blessed one said. It makes me wonder because in Buddhism there are no shortcuts and it may look like one.

I've heard this belief exists in Thailand, does anyone have more information on that, like did the Buddha ever suggested it?

This belief comes from a popular Chinese Buddhist tale in Mulian saves his mother from Hell.

Mulian Saves His Mother From Hell is a popular Chinese Buddhist tale originating in the 3rd century CE, inspired by tales from India of Maudgalyayana, who becomes Mulian in the Chinese stories. Mulian, a virtuous monk, seeks the help of the Buddha to rescue his mother, who has been condemned to the lowest and most painful purgatory in karmic retribution for her transgressions. Mulian cannot rescue her by his individual effort, however, but is instructed by the Buddha to offer food and gifts to monks and monasteries on the 15th day of the 7th lunar month, which established the Ghost Festival (Chinese: 鬼 節; pinyin: guijie). The monk's devotion to his mother reassured Chinese that Buddhism did not undermine Confucian filial piety and helped to make Buddhism into a Chinese religion.
The story developed many variations and appeared in many forms..

There are many variations and from that comes the simple belief that if a filial son could descend to Avici Hell and save his mother, a filial son will will always saves his mother especially if he is a monk. In Confucianism filial duty is inculcated and taken for granted


Loss of "faith" in buddhism I've never had any religion throughout my childhood and adolescence, and at the age of 18 I had my first contacts with buddhism; It seemed fascinating, and I kept reading about all the things I could find about it. Everything just seemed right, because I was truly convinced by this idea that the truth lies within, and I just saw the buddha as someone who had found it. It seemed to be the "no trust-my-words religion".

Recently I bought a buddhism book. It was an interesting reading, but somethings were discussed that I haddn't seen with this emphasis: karma and rebirth in other worlds.

The thing is that, after that, I became VERY skeptical when I learned that those things come from hinduism. It seems to be the religion that existed before buddhism, and it has karma, it has the samsara, the liberation (which is a little different), the worlds, the gods... And it's just seems as though the current culture at the time and location buddhism took place influenced buddhism itself, poisoning it with the same kind of dogmas other religions have - man-made dogmas, made up truths.

In short, my problem is that following buddhism started to seem like following christianity, or islam - just another religion that it's followers think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Why is buddhism any different? It seemed right, now it feels overwhelming and almost crazy. I want to follow buddhism, but those hindu concepts make it become yet another trust-my-word religion. I'm seriously disappointed.

One of the beauty about Buddhism is "Don't just believe, but find the truth by yourself" (as I paste below).

  The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):

  Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
  nor upon tradition (paramparā),
  nor upon rumor (itikirā),
  nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
  nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
  nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
  nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
  nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
  nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
  nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
  Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'


Why do the scriptures employ so much repetition? I was reading the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

and here the Buddha attempts to demonstrate that not in any of the five aggregates is the self to be found. He says this about form for example:

  "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

Now with other aggregates he follows the same paragraph structure and just substitutes in for the word "form".

What I've noticed though, is that many other suttas employ this style of exposition and I wanted to know what the motivation was for this?

I've heard that repetition made memorization easier, which makes sense; but is there another reason for this?

Should I read through each paragraph even though its an almost exact replica of some other paragraphs? It can be tedious to read something that uses this style and I have simply just skipped such paragraphs.

What do you think? What is recommended?

edit: Some other translations of this sutta don't explicitly rewrite the paragraph and just place elipses to avoid repetition.

Mr David V.,

There are many aspect but one of the central is to be and stay concentrated. Its also the case, if you try to translate a Sutta for example, that if you go a head, you would suddenly see "Oh, that part did I miss before" since mind loves to interpret things into certain attention gaps. One would even swear that one read this or heard this or that.

Listener, or reader, if not very concentrated would either get bored and lose patient or start to be aware of that matter and put an effort into it.

Upasaka John Bullitt (founder and generous giver of accesstoinsight.org) wrote some useful and guiding words, worthy for everybody new to the texts:

Befriending the Suttas - Tips on Reading the Pali Discourses

If Atma remembers right, Upasaka mentioned this question as well.

Oh yes (from a sound engineer and musician):

  Don't ignore the repetitions.

  Many suttas contain repetitive passages. Read the sutta as you would a piece of music: when you sing or listen to a song, you don't skip over each chorus; likewise, when you read a sutta, you shouldn't skip over the refrains. As in music, the refrains in the suttas often contain unexpected — and important — variations that you don't want to miss.

and also good, even if very unusual in modern or western world:

  Read the sutta aloud, from beginning to end.

  This helps in several ways: it encourages you to read every single
  word of the sutta, it trains your mouth to use right speech, and it
  teaches your ears how to listen to Dhamma.

You could even record it and share it (if your like): Dhammaoke! Giving others the possibility to listen to the Dhamma

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


What is the school of Buddhism that believes in God? I am a Westerner raised in the Christian faith but have left it in search of a path that fits with my beliefs and philosophy.  Over the past few years, I have studied, prayed, researched, etc of the different schools of Buddhism.  In my readings, a type popped up that was more of a Buddhist/Hindu mix - it was a long word that started with an "A" and that is all I can remember.  Can anyone help?  Thank you!

I believe you are thinking of the Amitabha Buddha - which is the principal - or rather the most popular Buddha in Pure Land Buddhism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit%C4%81bha

He's represented with the attribute Infinite Life and Infinite Light (of Wisdom) presiding over the Pure Land of Supreme Bliss (Sukhavati).

I am from a Chinese Buddhist organization which holds Chan lineage, but is non denominational, and devotion to Amitabha is one of the fundamental practices through the chanting of the Amitabha Sutra.

I will repeat what I have said else where about him:

After more than a year of chanting the sutra, my conclusion is that it is a metaphor for the Dharma! Remember that Pure Land Buddhism is an outgrowth of Mahayana Buddhism and therefore one of the highest goals is the Perfection of Skillful Means (Upaya Paramita). Mahayana texts utilize fantastical imageries and stories to bring across the difficult to understand technical concepts and teachings in early Buddhism, preserved in the Pali Canon and the Sanskrit Agama.

Imagine your average person being told about the Four Noble Truths, Suffering, Cause of suffering, End of Suffering and the Noble Eightfold Path. It doesn't interest him - "Give up my desires? That's ridiculous! And end of suffering doesn't sound exciting at all! Impermanence sounds so depressing!"

So this is where Pure Land Buddhism comes in. "What if we tell you that there is a place called the World of Supreme Bliss better than any worldly pleasures? And to reach there you need chant this sutra everyday, and I promise you Amitabha Buddha will appear before you". If you didn't realize, chanting is actually a very powerful form of meditation, in fact for the novice, it is faster and more effective than sitting meditation and trying to watch your breath. Here your attention and focus is on the sutra, attaining Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. With that it is possible to experiences the mental factors of the Jhana, joy, happiness, peace, and realizations.

Further more the description of the Pure Land has peppered references throughout to the numbers four, seven and eight. Referring to the Four Noble Truths, Seven Factor of Enlightenment, Noble Eightfold Path.

There are many other messages within. For example, the name of Amitabha himself is Infinite Life and Infinite Light, referring to the Deathless Truth and Wisdom of the Dharma, reminding people that ultimately the goal of Buddhism is Eternal Life, and that the buddhas are ultimately immortal.

Further more it is stated in sutra that in the Pure Land of Amitabha, even lower realms (hell, hungry ghost, and animals) do not exist, this is a Mahayana message that ultimately the goal is not only to save yourself, but purify the whole world. Pure Land Buddhists vow to turn this very world into a paradise. And have a Pure Land in their hearts wherever they maybe.

At the end of the Amitabha sutra, the theme of perfection of skillful means repeats, It said that to attain enlightenment is difficult, but what is even more difficult is to teach it.

There are many other messages which I am slowly absorbing as I encounter them, but I hope this clarify the intentions of Pure Land Buddhism.


In Buddhism can all we percieve / experience b used as teachers? ...I have been working on this one question for a while so can everything we experience in life internally and externally be used as our teachers from a Buddhist point of view?examples..
Anger = powerful emotion active in a person when one is threatened or insulted ,,an injustice over a issue etc also known to protect the persons personality ( possible to say anger is a friend then ! ) anger is an emotion that is automatically generated ,defense mechanism. It is repetitive and has been for x million yrs within the human psyche.  We could also say it  exists in lower beings birds ,goats , dogs etc so anger could be an important link to other forms of life by now I think you'll get some idea about just one state of mind that's revealed so much ...

The Buddha told us the three marks of existence, all things which exist in the mind have these properties:

Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta
All conditioned things are impermanent, All conditioned things are suffering, All things are without a self.

This means that everything has the potential to teach us. We can learn about impermanence, dukkha, and not-self from anything which arises in the mind.


Correct meditation Technique I am subject to thoughts containing anger, hatred, resentment etc. which causes me lower back pain.
I am using medicines but useless because the relief is temporary.
I am a meditator but I watch breath at nose tip, which causes me more
tension after the session is over by 2 -3 hours.
I have read somewhere that watching breath at belly i.e. Dantian is also
recommended.
I have tried it once and found it more relaxing.
What should I do? Watch breath at nose tip or belly button?
I have been doing nose tip meditation for six months which took me sometimes to thoughtless awareness - but did not solve my problems of physical pain and irritability

I'd suggest to leave anapanasati behind, do low-concentration ("dry") vipassana which will make you face and learn to face the anger (you will learn how to not attach to it, let it come & go, not judge yourself for it, not analyze and not make theories about the pain it causes), dtto for the back pain. There is nothing wrong with anger, it is your teacher just like pain; the attachment and unskillful dealing is the problem; by observing the pain or anger, you will get insight into yourself, and will learn to accept anger and pain as a part of you being human, and integrate it into your life skillfully, without (progressively) harming yourself and others.

(Explanation:) The reason for this is that people tend to use concentration (including anapanasati or brahmaviharas) to run away from conditions, instead of dealing with them. Those practices can be beneficial, but they have also their blind spots, and the best is to have a long-term teacher who can guide you here. Otherwise it  likely that the ego will use metta-practice to re-affirm itself, such as persuading you about being loving and caring when you're perhaps full of anger and hate. I've seen on a few occasions people developing metta-crust on the top of stuff they never dealt with; which means (a) they learn to live with lie (delusion) instead of being in the present and in the truth (b) in more difficult situations, the crust breaks and I was very surprised how quickly the seemingly loving person turned into almost a hate monster; they regretted that themselves later, but did not understand what happened.


Any cure for blurred vision after sitting with eyes half-open? I get slightly blurred vision after a long sit during which I have my eyes half-closed (as in Zazen style). It can last for more than an hour and is a practical drag, and also creates a slightly woozy feeling.

Any re-focusing eye exercise anyone know of?

Thank you

Joe

Close them, would be maybe the most practical.


Are Aksobhya and Bhaisajyaguru the same buddha? This page by Venerable Husan Hua says yes; this page by Zhuoge Rinpoche says no.

Apart from both being blue, the iconography of the two Buddha's is completely different - different mudras and implements for example. Their "function" is also different. One represents wisdom (Akṣobhya) and the other compassion (Bhaiṣajyaguru). if they are supposedly the same, then why are they so different?


Is it helpful to avoid first person pronouns when speaking and writing? "There's no 'I' in team" is an aphorism that promotes the selfless group effort, but what about first person pronouns from a Buddhist perspective such as 'I', 'me', 'mine', and 'my'. I am also wondering about starting a sentence with the pronoun 'I'.

Is it helpful from a Buddhist perspective to always avoid such pronouns? Is using it just a symptom and the underlying disease needs to be treated?

I usually try to avoid using pronouns in these context but sometimes the ease of using them overcomes my efforts, like with this sentence.

Most likely this rule needs to be taken with a grain of salt but was wondering if the community had any helpful advice.

There is no rule about such use, and the Buddha begins many suttas with 'Aham, bhikkhave...' 'I, bhikkhus,...'

ChrisW has the general idea: the point is not the use or omission of the personal pronoun but the point of view in back of and reflected by that use.

Where the point of view is simply to identify an individuality (as one's place on the computer screen is marked by the cursor) such use is called 'speaking conventionally', for example,

"Please pass me the salt. I will be going to the store at 10. I, friends, when I was a young lad ..."
Where the use is to enhance the idea of an on-going or eternal self, the use signifies that a point of view concerning the self is present in the speaker, for example,

"I am everything and everything is me. You make me feel bad. That is my toy. Some day I will be president."

As for the middle way being part of the answer to this question, there are a number of suttas where an Arahant is praised for teaching Dhamma 'without bringing in the self'.

The two extremes that are not the Middle way can be said to be the point of view that an eternal self exists and that an eternal self does not exist. (See: The First Sutta) (The way it is stated in the First Sutta: 'the path down self-indulgence, and the path down self-torture' represent the forms of behavior that result from these two extreme views of existence. They are elsewhere directly spoken of as being the two extreme worldly points of view.)

The Middle way, the essence of the Dhamma teaches the fact of becoming, the satisfactions of becoming, the disadvantages of becoming, and the way to escape from becoming without bringing in a point of view concerning 'self.'

The whole of the Dhamma is essentially The Middle Way, but The Ariyan Eightfold Way is specifically called that, and an equivalent of the Eightfold Way, also often called 'The Way Down the Middle' is the Paticca Samuppada which you can see speaks about the process but does not bring in the self:

  "From blindness proceeds own-making.
  From own-making proceeds consciousness.
  From consciousness proceeds named-forms.
  From named-forms proceeds the six realms of the senses.
  From the six realms of the senses proceeds sense-experience.
  From sense-experience proceeds desire.
  From desire proceeds fueling desire.
  From fueling desire proceeds existing.
  From existing proceeds birth.
  From birth proceeds old age, sickness, and death,
  grief and lamentation,
  pain and misery,
  and despair.

  But from the utter eradication of blindness comes the utter destruction of own-making.
  From the utter eradication of own-making comes the utter destruction of consciousness.
  From the utter eradication of consciousness comes the utter destruction of named-forms.
  From the utter eradication of named-forms comes the utter destruction of the six realms of the senses.
  From the utter eradication of the six realms of the senses comes the utter destruction of sense-experience.
  From the utter eradication of sense-experience comes the utter destruction of desire.
  From the utter eradication of desire comes the utter destruction of fueling desire.
  From the utter eradication of fueling desire comes the utter destruction of existing.
  From the utter eradication of existing comes the utter destruction of birth.
  From the utter eradication of birth comes the utter destruction of old age, sickness and death,
  grief and lamentation,
  pain and misery,
  and despair.

No mention of self. If the thinking in back of the personal pronoun is of such a nature there is no reflection there of a point of view of self. Where the thinking in back of such speech is: "I am. That is mine. That is the self of me. I am a part of that. That is a part of me." Whether of the past, the future or of the present, then the self has been brought in.

Still this is not a matter for criticizng others or holding one's self superior or taking pride in one's handling of personal pronouns! It is simply a reflection of one's inner state of mind.


Do we reduce hindrances gradually? Do we reduce hindrances gradually ?  is it like we have 10000 units of hindrances (of different types)  and we lower them each time we are aware of them ?

is it a right way to see how we advance - as how much we lowered our hindrances ?

The mind when covered with the five hindrances is like clouding a clear bowl of water (still mind) with different contaminants or situations. – Sangarava sutta (SN 46.55) Also try to refer to Nivaranapahna Vagga. (The 5 mental hindrances: their causes and ending – A 1.2).

The five mental hindrances (nivarana) which obstruct concentration, are: (1) sense-desire, (2) ill-will, (3) sloth and torpor, (4) agitation and remorse, (5) skeptical doubt. For details, see The Five Mental Hindrances and their Conquest, by Nyanaponika Thera (BPS Wheel No. 26).

In the Samyutta Nikaya (Sutta 46.4.8), it is stated that when one listens to the Dhamma attentively, the five hindrances (nivarana) do not exist and the seven factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga) are present. Through factors of concentration these five are suppressed (also when wholesome activities are done these five hindrances can be suppressed).

One 'pointedness' opposite of sense desires
Joy opposite of ill will
Discursive (applied) thoughts opposite of sloth & torpor
Happiness or comfort (pali term 'sukha') opposite of restless & worry
Sustained thought opposite of doubt

A person becomes mindful about:

Existence of a hindrance (sense desire, ill will, sloth & torpor, restlessness & worry, or doubt)
Non-existence of a hindrance
When a non existing hindrance arises
When a hindrance that has arisen is removed
When the removed hindrance does not arise again

This widespread harmful influence of the five hindrances shows the urgent necessity of breaking down their power by constant effort. One should not believe it sufficient to turn one's attention to the hindrances only at the moment when one sits down for meditation. Such last-minute effort in suppressing the hindrances will rarely be successful unless helped by previous endeavour during one's ordinary life.

One should carefully observe how, and on which occasions, these hindrances usually appear. One should further know the positive forces within one's own mind by which each of these hindrances can best be countered and, finally, conquered; and one should also examine one's life for any opportunity of developing qualities to counter these. In some cases, subjects of meditation have been added which will be helpful in overcoming the respective hindrances.

By the "worldling" (puthujjana)  however, only a temporary suspension and partial weakening of the hindrances can be attained. Their final and complete eradication takes place on the stages of sanctity (ariyamagga):

Doubt is eliminated on the first stage, the path of stream-entry (sotapatti-magga).
Sensual desire, ill will and remorse are eliminated on the third stage, the path of non-returner (anagami-magga)
Sloth and torpor and restlessness are eradicated on the path of Arahatship (arahatta-magga).

Hence the reward of the fight against the hindrances is not only the limited one of making possible a shorter or longer spell of meditation, but every step in weakening these hindrances takes us nearer to the stages of sanctity where deliverance from these hindrances is unshakable.


Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim? I have been in search of a higher truth as far as I remember, like a stargazer looking for the brighter one and dropping the dimmer. I started from Christianity or generally from the Abrahamic religions just because it was close at home, then progressed on to the early Greek philosophy when I found out that the theology of these religions is just a makeshift of Plato's Philosophy.

The Greek thought kept me for a while, especially the Stoics which I still respect the most, but then I discovered the wisdom of the East mainly because of the proximity of the Taoist with the Cynics. I explored the Eastern thought and religions for many years Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I read, inquired and tried to practice some for longer and some for shorter years. There is an apparent similarity between these religions and it can be said that a common theme is repeated again and again

That said, Ashtavakra Gita is very distinct and truly a higher teaching. I know it is a Hindu scripture, but it’s just by name, the Gita presents almost all Hinduism as a bluff of vanity. By my understanding none of the philosophy or religion of the world that i encountered, except perhaps the higher teaching of Buddhism, Laozi Tao and some few thoughts in the west, will stand its truth.

So, I'm looking for a comparative study between Buddhism and this specific scripture Ashtavakra Gita.

We don't usually compare Buddhism with other non-Buddhist teachings here, both because few of our users seem to know other teachings deeply enough to give them justice, but also because we prefer to stay away from qualitative judgements and arguments, so you're unlikely to get many in-depth answers on this. I can make a few general comments though:

A.G. seems to be mostly in-line with the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism. This is not surprising, considering that Advaita Vedanta is thought (by Buddhists) to be a derivation and adaptation of Mahayana Buddhism for Brahmin audience.

Unlike A.G., in Buddhism we do not identify ourselves with the mind / the witness / pure consciousness etc. We say that the mind is just an emergent property of nature, whereas "I" is only a concept. Nor do we identify with the All. So the many statements in A.G. of the kind "I am pure consciousness; I am in everything and everything in me" etc. - would sound odd to a Buddhist who would find it misleading.

Then, A.G. seems to describe the target state in considerable detail, but hardly if at all explains the practical path from a typical Samsaric condition to the freedom of realization. In contrast to that, Buddhism declares, and spends a great deal of effort expounding the practical implementation of a gradual step-by-step method for reaching that state, which can be followed by someone starting from complete scratch, all the way to Liberation.

Finally, A.G. does not seem to concern itself with the social morals, while Buddhism defines a comprehensive set of guidelines for regular society which is in complete sync with the Buddhist path and vice versa.

Still, from a quick read of A.G. it seems like it comes from tradition that could be completely at home within the higher yanas of Tibetan Buddhism, especially what's known as Dzogchen. It almost reads like a Dzogchen Tantra and I suspect back when religious traditions were more pliable than they are today, there was likely some cross-pollination between the two.

This similarity is seen in many cases on the Dzogchen side as well, with texts talking about rigpa (ground awareness), making proclamations like "I am the eternal Buddha" and so on. And certainly the spirit of "nothing requires fixing" that A.G. is permeated with, plays the key role in Dzogchen as well.

Since you appreciate A.G. as the higher teaching, I suppose you may enjoy reading about Dzogchen, for example as presented by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu whom I found clear and to the point.


Is there any way one can be a Monk without a teacher in India/Nepal? Nowadays, it can be seen that instead of doing meditation people are focusing on rectifying outside world. Some of such people call themselves a saint, sanyaasi, monk, swami, mahaguru (great teacher), sadguru(teacher of all), etc.

But it can be easily detected that they are not worthy of such noble words. If someone is unsatisfied in one way or other and is not ready to compromise in any way, can that person be a "self inspired meditator" to be an Arahant?

Remember Buddha's last words: "Atta Hi Attano Natho" (You are your own master), in fact this is what our mind does.

Is it possible to live an ascetic life in India/Nepal and meditate to one's heart's contents?

Any suggestions of such place in India/Nepal? (That place must be silent, as in pin-drop-silence).

This question has 2 parts:

1) Possibility of being a SELF - Meditator/Bhikkhu.

2) Silent place/ashram/Monastery in India/Nepal to practice Self-Meditation by being a monk without teacher, other than core teachings of Buddha (Means without teacher-student criteria)?

Contact me at tempoit1@gmail.com to have discussion/advice in private (if you don't want to answer in public).

Remember buddha's last words :: Atto Na Attanno Natho ~ You are your own teacher, infact this is what our Mind does.

It's important to see the Buddha's full paragraph because one cannot solely and entirely be one's own teacher without His Teaching:

Therefore, Ānanda, live with yourself as an island, yourself as a refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge. And how, Ānanda, does a monk live with himself as an island, himself as a refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge?
Here, Ānanda, a monk dwells contemplating the nature of the body in the body, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the nature of feelings in feelings, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the nature of the mind in the mind, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world; he dwells contemplating the nature of things in various things, ardent, fully aware, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world... ~~ DN 16 ~~

So while it'd be helpful to have a knowledgeable and virtuous teacher who can coach/advise/correct you along your path, but if you're not able to find one who's truly knowledgeable and truly virtuous, it's totally legit. to go solo provided that you remember to cultivate the Path in both theory and in practice. Use great online resources like accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net, themindingcentre.org for the theoretical aspect and observe precepts/practice meditation for the practice side. Remember, one is a monk not because he shaves his head, wears an orange robe, and stays inside a monastery, but because he observes the Vinaya with its 227 rules and seriously cultivate Samadhi and Panna, just like you can't call someone a martial artist because he wears a gi and a black belt, but because you see him walking out of the ring alive and on his own two feet.


Attachment vs legitimate need I heard a talk by Ajahn Amaro that says that wherever I encounter dukkha, it is a sign that there is an attachment involved, that I can let go of and this way free myself from the dukkha.

https://youtu.be/-h_O_SuKOKE?t=2823

But this way, what prevents me from laying down and dying from hunger or thirst - if I feel hunger, it may be dukkha from my attachment to food, or to survival...

What is the difference between attachment and legitimate needs?

Thanks for answering a noob question.

In modern terms, Buddhism defines dukkha as a state of mind that is in conflict between "is" and "should". The logical opposite of dukkha is a state of peace and harmony with no such conflict.

The conflict between "is" and "should" can be resolved in one of three ways:

By changing the "is" (acting externally)
By changing our perception of "is" (acting internally)
By changing our idea of "should" (acting internally)

Now, when it comes to acting (whether internally or externally) all our actions and choices can be broadly classified in two types:

Those that lead to eventual peace and harmony.
Those that explicitly or implicitly provoke / sustain the state of unsatisfaction and cyclic pursuit.

When you feel hunger, would suppressing the hunger lead to peace (of health) or to unsatisfaction (of sickness)? It depends on your dietary condition, of course. If you are overweight, abstaining from food intake may have a positive effect on your overall health. Alternatively, would acting externally to obtain food lead to peace or would it lead to trouble? It depends on how you obtain food, doesn't it? If you steal it, it would lead to short-term peace but long-term suffering.

This is the basic formula of Buddhist karma.

What's called "attachment" in Buddhism refers to a mistaken idea about either the "is" side or about the "should" side, due to some sort of misinformation or overgeneralization. For example, in case of hunger, attachment could be an invalid idea about priorities. You could be mistakenly prioritizing feeling of cheap satisfaction from eating pastries or fast food over genuine goodness of healthy diet. Or, on the opposite end of spectrum, it could be an invalid idea about spirituality vis-a-vis fasting - that extreme fasting leads to spiritual breakthroughs etc. In short, attachment is always some kind of irrational idea the person is stuck on.

Like, when you're in love and the person is irreturnably gone, an irrational idea (attachment) would be to keep wanting the person back. Or as you get old an irrational idea (attachment) would be to keep wanting to stay young. That kind of stuff.

Why do we get stuck on irrational ideas? Because they carry emotional significance to us. They bring us a (fake) sense of comfort. They help us sustain a comfortable image of ourselves (Ego) and its mirror projection, comfortable image of the World. So in a way, attachment to irrational ideas is a primitive coping mechanism against dukkha, just not a very efficient one. Sooner or later, reality gives us a wake up call, and then we get hit by dukkha really hard. So holding on to attachments, to illusions, to an idealized image of self (ego), to generalizations about the world is definitely something that long-term leads to eventual suffering, not to peace.

Understanding this in practice was a big part of my own training back when I started. In Mahayana we are taught to prioritize the Global Good over individual gratification. From this perspective, any idea that we hold on to, out of a subconscious desire to protect our ego, as opposed to it being objectively-strategically-globally good, is considered an attachment.

So the rule of thumb for recognizing attachments is to ask yourself the following questions:

Will this lead to long-term good (peace, health, harmony) for myself and others? Or will it serve to sustain conflict, pursuit, and passions?
Is this truly objectively so or am I being biased because of subconscious desire to protect my ego or my generalizations?
Even if both 1 and 2 are true, what is my primary motivator? If it looks like it's genuinely good, but the reason I'm doing it is to congratulate myself on being holy and awesome, then it still counts as an attachment.

You have to question yourself really hard, especially regarding #2 and 3 - because the normal mind has a very strong tendency to not see its own biases.


First cause, appearances and mind Im asking about the Vajrayana or Mahayana view, but theravadan views are fine too. Buddhism rejects a first cause, but how can birth and death go in infinite regress? How did samsara start? Ultimately nothing arises yes, but then there would be no movement or action, right?

The only way I can posit a solution is the cyclic universe theory where mind and appearances have always existed, and are dependent upon each other. Thus they can be said to give rise to one another in a sense (but not in succession, just that without one the other cant exist). I think this is what Guru Rinpoche also said somewhere? Is this the Buddhist view?

By the way, I have recently converted to Buddhism after having debated it in the past. I want to understand it more, so this is not an attack on buddhist Pratityasamutpada.

This is very hard for me to understand. I am hoping someone more knowledgeable than me can provide some insight.

Edit:I think I have found an answer with the theory of the Five lights in dzogchen.matter and consciousness(wich is a element)are always there,and have always been there.

Let's say you are learning to play baseball.  One of the first thing you find out is that the game has nine innings.  What, you ask breathlessly, comes before the 1st inning????  While you are mulling that over, your turn comes at the plate.  You stand there asking yourself "What comes before the 1st?  What comes before the 1st????".  As you delve deeply into the fundamental nature of innings, their arising and their passing away, the pitcher lobs three balls to the catcher in quick succession.  The umpire calls you out.  You go back to the dugout none the wiser on the nature of innings nor having actually played the game.

Buddhism doesn't seek to make any ontological statements about reality.  Even the headiest of Buddhist philosophies are exclusively soteriological.  The statements they make on the nature of being, mind, karma, etc. are to be understood exclusively within that context.  Notions of beginning and endings or the nature of reality are entirely Western constructs that are completely out of bounds in discussions of Buddhism.  More to the point, they have no bearing whatsoever on the endeavor of Buddhist practice.

  "Don't waste your time on doubts and arguments that have nothing to do
  with this." - Seng-Ts'an.


What is the Buddhist Perspective on Lucid Dreaming? What is the buddhist perspective on lucid dreaming?
I am very curious about my first lucid dream last night.

Lucid dream is a place where you can do more work, more Buddhist practice. For example, if you are afraid of fights you can pick a fight with anyone, man or monster. It's a safe place to try things you can't try in regular life.

Reference: Tibetan Buddhist teacher Tarab Tulku. For more information read Chapter 19 of The Psychology of Awakening anthology by Gay Watson and Stephen Batchelor.


How long would it take to enter 3rd and 4th Satipatthana? Let's say I am meditating for 2-3 hours each day. How long would it take?

How long would it take to enter?

That's like asking how long would it take for you to start tasting the curries that are already on your plate. Or like asking how long will it take for you to taste almonds and cashews when you are eating a mix of nuts. It's just a matter of you deciding to practice awareness on them.

Cittanupassana

When your mind wanders thinking about past/present/future or when your mind becomes concentrated/scattered, you can be mindful of it to practice the 3rd Satipattana

Dhammanupassana

If you decide to practice mindfulness on seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting etc. or the five hindrances, that's the 4th Satipattana.


Morally unwholesome deeds knowing the consequences but without unwholesome intentions As far as I understand (of course I may be wrong), every act done voluntarily is born from some specific kind of intentions, and according to the nature of that intention, the act can contribute to perpetuate dukkha or to its eradication.

What happens when one acts without any amount of aversion nor passion, doing an action which in most cases is considered almost inseperable from evil intentions and almost objectively inmoral, let's say, consciously killing a child or raping somebody, while knowing the consequences?

Can those acts actually be executed without any amount of evil intentions? Is that even possible?

Thanks in advance for your time!

I think the doctrine says there are three unwholesome roots: i.e. passion, aversion -- and ignorance (or delusion).

It's also possible to do things accidentally -- but that's not what you're asking about.

See also e.g. this answer about lying -- but maybe that's not without passion, nor considered "objectively immoral", nor without consequences.

It's hard for me to imagine another case, other than these.

I think you're trying to talk about a "dispassionate killer" -- I guess killers can appear to be dispassionate, but I'm not sure a killer (a real person) can be actually dispassionate except in fiction, though perhaps practised at controlling their emotions.
Another case might be a "sociopath" -- maybe they act for a reason of their own though, e.g. passion rather than aversion. Or a psychosis -- misunderstanding reality. I'm not really equipped to judge that.
I'm not sure about animals. I think they're understood as being passionate, but perhaps unreasoning. I'm not sure that the "lower" animals have a theory of mind which allows them to see others as "sentient beings" (and immoral to harm them), instead of simply moving objects (which might be killed for food).

This isn't a very good answer -- not based on much personal experience nor references.

I think that's because I tried to map the question -- "is it even possible?" -- to the doctrine, and didn't really succeed very well. So I think the answer might be: "in general, no".


How to deal with post meditation frustration? I agree I may be impatient here. I am doing Zazen and Anapan sati like breath awareness for quiet a while now. But I get no results, no satori and no Jnana and no present moment breath awareness.

This creates frustration after meditation as I dont go into silent spaces. This creates discouragement for sitting for next time.

Can someone please point me a way to look at this in a somehow positive way and keep me encouraged.

Sometimes expectation may lead to conterproductive meditation.


What is the source of these "Lay Bodhisattva Vows"? Okay, I'm well familiar with the regular Bodhisattva vows from the Brahma Net Sutra. That set of vows is open to both lay and monastic followers.

I just found another set on Dharma Realm Buddhist Young Adults and I can't figure out where they come from (which sutra).

Full text linked below. It has 6 major and 28 minor precepts. It has precepts like, 21st-- pay your taxes and 27th-- don't raise silk worms.

Is this a modern set of precepts or does it have a older origin?

ref:
http://www.drby.net/attachments/035_The%20Bodhisattva%20Precepts%20for%20Laypeople%20-%20English.pdf

(Above PDF came from this link: http://www.drby.net/index.php/Events/Lay-Bodhisattva-Precepts-Transmission.html )

Okay I found the answer.

It's from the "Sūtra of the Upāsaka Precepts" (Shansheng Jing). It was translated into Chinese in the 5th century.

http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html

This sutra has similarities to the older Sigalovada Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html

(Ref comparing the UPS and Sigalovada: "Buddhism and Peace", chapter 10)


Did anyone ask the Buddha what their rebirth will be? Did anyone ask the Buddha what their rebirth will be?

I'm just asking 'cos that's what I would ask, if I knew of any 'Buddha'.

Ven. Ananda had the habit of asking Buddha the future destinations of people who passed away. So Buddha gave him the mirror of Dhamma so now you can decide this yourself.

The Mirror of the Dhamma

"But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
"And what, Ananda, is that teaching called the Mirror of Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple may thus declare of himself?

"In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.'

"He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, [18] inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.'

"He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honor, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration — the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.'

"And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind.

"This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
And also in Nadika, in the Brick House, the Blessed One often gave counsel to the bhikkhus thus: "Such and such is virtue; such and such is concentration; and such and such is wisdom. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of concentration when it is fully developed by virtuous conduct; great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of wisdom when it is fully developed by concentration; utterly freed from the taints of lust, becoming, and ignorance is the mind that is fully developed in wisdom."
When the Blessed One had stayed in Nadika as long as he pleased, he spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "Come, Ananda, let us go to Vesali."

"So be it, O Lord." And the Blessed One took up his abode in Vesali together with a large community of bhikkhus, and stayed in Ambapali's grove.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html


Why do so many traditions and religions have saint men who claim having attained enlightenment? According to the suttas, the then Bodhisatta Gotama discovered by himself that ascetic practices of his contemporary India were not enough (or were even wrong) to attain complete enlightenment. Then, after trying his own methods and intuitions, he reached Nibbana.

However, many so-called saint men from other religions and traditions are said to have reached enlightenment in their own terms and according to their own definitions of enlightenment. We even have people within Buddhism itself claiming to have awaken, but still showing signs of craving and unethical behavior.

Considering what I've written, why should we deposit our trust, time and effort in the Buddhadhamma, when there are so many other practioners assuring that they have reached their ultimate goals following their own practices?

The most common argument for following the teachings of the Buddha is that when put in practice by ourselves we'll see how effective and accurate the teachings, analyses and practices actually are. But the same can be said about most other religions.
We have a lot of examples of men and women through history telling stories and personal experiences of feeling the supreme love of god, or attaining Moksha, or becoming one with the Universe, and so on.

Can you help me to find new perspectives to solve this problem?

Thanks for your time!

The Buddha's teaching are unique in certain respects but their essential message is found in teachings from all over the world throughout history. The reason why so many claim enlightenment is that it is and always has been available to those who seek it. Were it otherwise the Buddha could not have become a buddha. There have been countless buddhas.

So there is no problem raise by the many people who have claimed or been assigned enlightenment and wisdom. One would not need to be a Buddhist. It seems that the Buddha delved deeper and wider than most and there is no doubt he was a unique teacher, but we find the same essential message hidden in the Philokalia, the Corpus Hermeticum, the Upanishads, the Tao Teh Ching, the teachings of Al-Halaj and Rumi, the Kabbalah and elsewhere, the same claims of transcendence, no-self, formlessness and so forth.

Beautiful Painted Arrow, a shaman of the Pueblo Indians, writes that in his tradition there are two states of consciousness available to human beings. In translation these are 'Believing we exist' and 'Awakened awareness'. Those who attain the latter state would claim some form of enlightenment regardless of whether they have heard of Buddhism. Truth is universal and the facts are the same for everybody.

Enlightened beings are not uncommon but the Buddha is usually considered to trump most of them for his depth of understanding, knowledge and communication skills. If there were no claims of enlightenment from anyone but the Buddha then his teachings would be implausible and contradictory. He teaches that enlightenment is our birthright.

It is up to each of us as students to assess the claims of all these teachers and 'saints' and examining the level of agreement between them would be a good indication of their knowledge. The diversity of these 'saints', once we have sorted the wheat from the chaff, is not a problem but a proof of the Dhamma. The Buddha was not a Buddhist when he attained his complete enlightenment.

EDIT: The story as I have heard it is that while with his father he was instructed by Brahmins. Later, from Arada Kalama, who had three hundred disciples, he learned how to discipline his mind to enter the sphere of nothingness. Though Arada Kalama asked him to remain and teach as an equal, he recognized that this was not liberation and left. Next he learned how to enter the concentration of mind which is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness from Udraka Ramaputra. But neither was this liberation and he left his second teacher.


Does 'kusala' (skillful) also mean 'wholesome' and 'morally good'? According to this page the same word, 'kusala', can mean 'wholesome', 'skillful', 'good', or 'meritorious'.

In English, these words have very different meanings or connotations, especially in different cultural contexts, e.g., in cultures that have religious ideas of sin. For this reason, I am wondering if anyone can provide more information about the Pāli term, the connotations it had, and the subtleties of its meaning in the context of Buddhist teachings (generally or in specific contexts, i.e., specific suttas). Does it carry a moral sense with it (in the sense of sin)?

Thanks.

Conceptually, Buddhist ethics is very simple and elegant, at least in my limited understanding.

The state of Buddha (Nirvana) is taken as the gold standard of all the best.
While Samsara, and within Samsara the hell realm particularly, with its absolute dukkha, is taken as the worst possible condition. Psychologically, subjectively, Hell is defined as state "everything is wrong" -- and Nirvana as "everything is right"1

The good and bad then are defined in relation to these two extremes. Whatever is conducive to psychological suchness is considered good (kusala). And whatever is conducive to psychological wrongness, to staying in or getting deeper into Samsara, is considered bad (akusala).

So in Buddhism the connotation of kusala/akusala is not a moral quality but the effect in terms of propelling us one way or another. Researchers of pre-Buddhist sources suggest that kusala originally meant "wise", "clever", "intelligent", "expert" -- and later "blameless". As in, if you act wisely, you won't be blamed. My favorite choice of translation, is one that Thanissaro Bhikkhu settled on: "skilfull". On one occasion I translated akusala as "pathological" -- kinda the opposite of "healthy", which is another connotation of kusala. Although in informal speech I simply say good (as in "drinking milk is good for you").

To add more depth and color, both long term and short term effect must be considered. While achieving harmony of short term and long term is said to be a sign of a high skill (e.g. enjoying pleasant being in the here and now, and at the same time making progress towards Nirvana), sometimes the two cannot be reconciled at which point long term becomes more important than short term. All this follows from Buddha's explanations in Pali Canon.

Also, both personal as well as global result must be considered. Again, harmonizing the two is a sign of class, but in case of conflict -- Mahayana folks close your ears -- personal result wins. Buddha is very explicit about this. It does not mean it is Ok to achieve personal bliss at the expense of the world, vampire style. It just means, if oxygen masks jump out, first put on yours, and then help your neighbor. This is my understanding of course, but I swear I did not make this up.

There is one distinction that Buddha usually drew and that is between the good that leads to worldly happiness vs. good that leads to Liberation. The two match pretty closely in most basic scenarios (like adhering to five precepts in day to day behavior, which both helps social harmony AND involves taming one's mind), but may diverge on more advanced stages:

  ... Now, I say that right view is twofold. There is right view that has
  cankers, that is on the side of merit, that ripens unto cleaving to
  new birth. There is right view that is ariyan, cankerless,
  super-mundane, a component of the Way...

This is how it basically is... What else... To answer your question directly, if there is anything like "sin" in Buddhism, it would only be so because of its correlation with bad effect, getting one further from Nirvana and closer to dukkha. Buddhism is a very practical framework, and because it grounds itself in first-hand experience it's kinda hard to to argue with.

For a more professional take on the topic, check out this piece by Bhikkhu Thich Nhat-Tu. There is also tons of research on this topic in buddhological academia, but I would be very careful with putting my trust in research that does not come from a practicing Buddhist.

To conclude on a practical note, in case you have doubts as to whether it is in our power to develop kusala and abandon akusala here is some encouragement from The Man Himself:

  "Abandon what is unskillful (akusala), monks. It is possible to
  abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is
  unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But
  because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you,
  'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful
  were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what
  is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is
  conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is
  unskillful.'

  "Develop what is skillful (kusala), monks. It is possible to develop
  what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful,
  I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is
  possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is
  skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to
  harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But
  because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit
  and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" -- Kusala
  Sutta AN 2.19

......
1not really, as "everything is right" would be the god's realm. Nirvana achieves "everything is right" in a funny way, by transcending the axis of psychologically agreeable/disagreeable, which makes everything right even when it's wrong, but that goes beyond our present discussion. For practical purposes let's pretend Nirvana is a simple "everything is right".


Does kama have a place in the life of a practitioner after losing kamacchanda? Since kamacchanda is one of the five hindrances, it seems to be something to overcome.

Does that mean then that there is no more place for art and beauty in the life of a practitioner after the first jhana, according to Buddhist teaching?

Or can you have a healthy relationship with kama? Is taking pleasure in a tree or a conversation with a friend kamacchanda?

Since kamacchanda is one of the five hindrances, it seems to be
  something to overcome.

Yes, it is. Such as nivaraṇapabba (hindrances title) in mahāsatipatthānasutta.

  Does that mean then that there is no more place for art and beauty in
  the life of a practitioner after the first jhana, according to
  Buddhist teaching?

Yes, it is till that practitioner still can keep his jhāna. But it is still can return when he loose his jhāna. Because jhāna-mind just arise instead of hindrance-mind, jhāna-mind does not destroyed chance to arising of future hindrance. It is a duty of vipassana. However, jhāna is required, for vipassanā of taṇhācarita-puggala.

  Or can you have a healthy relationship with kama?

Yes, the practitioner can practice the right mettā, without kāmacchanda. But the practitioner must be smart to choose his friends (be able to all ariya)/partners (be able just for sotāpanna and sakadāgāmī), too.

  Is taking pleasure in a tree or a conversation with a friend kamacchanda?

It is up to the practitioner's present, arising, mind factors on that time. See my answer about chanda here to understand about chanda.


Killing a bigger animal causes more bad karma than killing a smaller animal? I know that killing virtuous beings is a grave bad karma. But when it comes animals, virtue is irrelevant. I have heard from monks that bigger the animal greater the sin it is to kill it. How is that so? Why does physicality matter at all? Isn't it just a matter of your intention when it comes to karma?

My knowledge in Buddhism is quite poor. IMO it is a greater sin to kill a larger animal than to kill a smaller animal but this cannot be the case always! Let me ask you a question. Which is easier, to kill an ant or to kill an elephant? Generally the effort and planning you have to go through to kill an elephant is much greater than to kill an ant. The greater the effort you are willing to put is because of the greater intensity of cruelness of your mind which makes it a greater sin. True physicality isn't what determines this. Hope this answers the question


Attending Mindfully Versus Without Mindfulness In this answer by ven. Yuttadhammo, it is said that depending on the level of concentration and mindfulness of a person, attending to certain states can result in either wakefulness or tiredness. Hence, I wonder:

Is it the case that strong mindfulness tends to counter unwholesome states merely by observation, and that without mindfulness these states persevere and may worsen? E.g. a person meditating on a bus mindfully will decrease hindrances, whereas a person mindwandering might increase them?

If so, then I ask:

Does this entail that strong meditative states 'burn' unwholesome states because of a mindfulness absent from daily life?

Ayoniso manasikāra, as such, means “not directing the attention to the roots of things” or “directing
the attention away from the roots of things,” that is, not observing phenomena as they truly are, not noticing that they are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

Yoniso manasikāra as such means “directing the attention to the roots of things,” that is, observing
phenomena as they truly are, as being characterized by impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self.

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

OP: without mindfulness these states persevere and may worsen?
... As a result, wrong view arises, and when this
become a habit, wrong view is reinforced so that it remains as a latent tendency (anusaya)

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

OP: a person meditating on a bus mindfully will decrease hindrances, whereas a person mindwandering might increase them?

If you have initial and sustained application this will reduce hindrances. Mindfulness accompanies by initial and sustained application will decrease it.


mindfulness thinking about future and past? Is there such thing as mindfulness thinking about the future or past? I have a job that requires a lot of "going" into the future and past (projecting forward and assessing the past). I was wondering if could practice mindfulness while working. But it's not like I'm working with my hands, where I can be completely concentrated at the current moment with what I'm doing. From what I understand, mindfulness practice has to do with staying in the present. So my understanding is that it is inherently in conflict with what I do for work.

As you suggest by writing that your work involves ‘going’ into the future and past, the reality of our experience is that past and future exist only in thought (which includes memories, imagination and so on). This is the key to approaching your experience with mindfulness. In any given moment it is possible to recognise, from a place of awareness, that thought is occurring. In my experience the best place to start with mindfulness is the body and breath. They help root us in our present, moment by moment experience. When aware of being in the present moment it is possible to notice that thinking is happening. It is not you,  it is not necessary to identify with the thoughts nor get lost in them. One way to work with this is to start work with a kind of ‘checking in’ with yourself, with a minute or two of mindfulness, being present, however you find it is best done for you. And then to frequently ‘check in’ with your body and breath as your work continues, continuing like this throughout the day. In this way you can gradually develop the ability to think but not be lost in thought. I hope that helps…


I am finding myself being unable to enjoy things, my mind keeps going to meditation I have noticed that while watching TV or trying to do work, my mind keeps getting caught up in the feeling of my breath, or the random noises around me. These are the exact things that I notice while meditating, and while meditating I allow myself to notice those things and observe myself noticing them. But, when I want to read a book I am finding that I am now noticing those things instead of reading the book, like I am going back to meditating without meaning to.

I’m having a hard time getting into a flow state at work or while doing something enjoyable. It’s bothering me. I don’t want to stop meditating, but if this keeps happening then I will have to stop.

Skill at anapanasati means being able to read & work with awareness of breathing. Here, the tempo or pace of reading & work adjusts to conform with the rhythm of the breathing.


Sentience, killing, & extremes? The Buddha always said killing, no matter the circumstance, is always unskillful & leads to negative Rebirths.

  In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at
  all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to
  kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing
  them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds
  that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a
  recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk
  was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in
  self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the
  monks,

  "Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a
  two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at
  that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
  yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
  words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with
  no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
  imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
  the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

  — MN 21
  http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/gettingmessage_en.html

Three questions:

- What determines an animal's sentience?

- If killing is never allowed, how would one deal with a parasite infesting their body, or any other animal as so?

- Would not killing the parasite mean it is self-mortification, & thus an extreme, breaking the Middle Way (as it can hinder the practice of the Dhamma too)?

Please help! Metta to all!

Mr Suminda here expressed well what is included in sentience.

The working out of the exact results of action & intention is not to be done, as far as i know.

The consequent origination is without a discernable beginning and the exact results of this or that action is not something that is easy to figure out.

There is no forumulae or a solver which can simulate two beginningless worlds, arrive at the same states of the world and split the desicion tree to compare outcomes; that would not be possible because if two systems evolve in exact same way with an infinite complexity then it is unreasonable to expect the decision tree to split in and by itself, as a matter of fact there is no decision tree either because world just evolves, it does not stop to think should i go this way or that way, become this or otherwise; it goes according to prior development.

However even if there was a decision tree there is no basis for a split if values are exact and same given that the systems simulate the same exact premises and conditions. This is not like simulating a move in chess or blackjack because these games have determined starting points and a "decision maker".

Therefore one can not evaluate actions in this way, there is no way to input values and simulate outcomes for action A comparing to action B, having solved for which one could say that 'one is better than the other because the better one has exactly this much estimated shorter time to Parinibbana'.

Therefore the exact values are difficult to work out. There are other circumstances where this comes into place, like the Parajika of stealing; "A bhikkhu must have stolen a certain amount for the circumstance to be considered an offence of defeat". Figuring out these values in their exacts & particulars is impossible at this point afaik.

Nothing else makes sense, the type of thinking; 'If i get maggots i will have found my assasin', is going to lead to inconsistencies and reveal hipocrisy imo.
This is because a person who says he will be devoured by worms rather than break his training, he is saying "lives of others are sacred, i can train even as i am devoured by worms", but at the same time this same person probably goes for walks to exercize his legs where he might step on an animal, drives a car that might kill even a group of people or he causes others to walk and drive even if it is for his training or the training of others, so why sacrifice beings when it is better to train even when devoured by worms?

It is going to be inconsistent because there is no way to say this life-form goes and this one's are ok to hit with a car on a way to make living or the supermarket. There are all sorts of problems with that thinking, it seems like a person like this would want to sit down and not break the sitting posture until arahantship and then go without food but maybe that is not an option as it might kill the bacteria, beings and worms currently in the body.


Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism? Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism?

I think it shouldn't be considered acceptable:

because of the fifth precept
because of the first precept (smoking is physically harmful, so trying to logically defend smoking is rationalizing suicide)
and because smoking is addictive.

The reality of smoking, as I see it, include:

400 chemicals poisoning your physical body
pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packages in Canada
having a parent with emphysema spend the last ten years of life hooked to an oxygen tank
seeing someone die suddenly from a heart attack or complete heart failure
seeing someone go through chemotherapy with toxic chemicals to kill a cancer tumor and the hair loss and vomiting that comes with it
seeing people treated for cancer using radiation therapy that leaves behind second and third degree burns on the skin

Also, I think this is not exactly "craving", but rather, "addiction". The power that is has on us is purely a physical addiction: it is not due to the intentions (volition) which the mind creates, it is due to a physical chemical controlling the brain.

I find it amazing that Buddhists want to dance around the issue of addiction and their unwillingness to discuss addiction in modern terms.
I challenge Buddhists to not hide from modern addiction problems using irrelevant Buddhist philosophy.

Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism?

I read that smoking is done.

The Broken Buddha includes these (and other) references to smoking.

  No Sri Lankan monk
  would dare to smoke in public because this is believed to infringe the Vinaya but it is quite
  acceptable for them to chew tobacco. Thailand’s Thammayut sect likewise considers smoking to be
  contrary to Vinaya but the Mahaniky sect does not.

  A study released in
  2002 showed that the leading cause of death amongst Thai monks was smoking related illnesses.

  For example, here in Burma, in the afternoon a
  Bhikkhu can drink iced mineral water but not hot water, must not eat fruit but can smoke a box of
  cigars, can eat jaggary but not onions, beetel nut and not coconut.

  When last in Upper Burma I noticed the
  number of Christian Missions that had sprung up, and when I asked a prominent man the reason he
  replied, ‘These missionaries have opened schools and hospitals and help us in many ways. They are
  doing the work of the Lord Buddha while our own Bhikkhus do nothing but sleep and smoke all
  day.’

  Thirdly. Food. The present food regulations observed by the Sangha do much more harm than good.
  They produce ill health, gluttony, bad habits, and dishonesty. Let me explain what I see almost
  daily. A Monk goes around with a bowl in the morning, gets meat, fish, fowl, rice, etc, food that
  heats the blood and has little nourishment. But he must eat it all before noon and then starve for
  eighteen hours, so he stuffs down much more usually than he can digest and so has to sleep for
  some hours after. Late in the afternoon he gets hungry and then has to chew tobacco, pan leaf and
  jaggery, and smoke innumerable cigarettes and cigars. Bad health often results, and while boys in
  day schools are taught that smoking is ruinous to health, in the Order they are actually encouraged
  to do so.

  In Ceylon
  and Burma for example, a Bhikkhu can smoke but must not drink beer, but in Tibet a monk drinks
  as much native beer as he pleases but never smokes, which is a most serious offence.

Also this answer was from someone who is known as a monk. I think it's defensive about smoking, saying that:

Smoking is less harmful than cars, chocolate, or burgers (I think he means "less harm for others" rather than "less harm for the smoker")
The fifth precept is more about "heedlessness" and smoking (unlike e.g. alcohol) doesn't cause heedlessness
Sila ("virtue") is about not harming others; a recluse, smoking in private, is relatively harmless


What is the meaning of "in and of itself" in DN 22? What is the meaning of "in and of itself" in the
Maha-satipatthana Sutta DN 22?

Theravadin Abhidhamma;

And how does a monk dwell contemplating (the nature of) the body in the body in regard to himself?
Here a monk in regard to himself—from the sole of the feet upwards, from the hair of the head down, bounded by the skin, and filled with manifold impurities—reflects (thus):
There are in this body:
hairs of the head, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, excrement, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spit, mucus, synovial fluid, urine.
https://suttacentral.net/vb7/en/anandajoti


PIN POTHA (puñña potha) or Merit Book, costom still alive? How to keep it up? My person just came across an answer by Upasak Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena, mentioning:

  Also there is a concept of Pin Potha, which is a journal of all good deeds done.

And

  It is an age old custom of the Sri Lankan Buddhists to maintain a record of One's meritorious activities. This record is named PIN POTHA or Merit Book.

Since such is not only a perfect daily reflection means, fitting in the praised Anussatis: Recollection of one's own virtues (silanussati),
Recollection of one's own generosity (caganussati),
Recollection of the own qualities equal the devas (devatanussati), but also as telling, reminding very sick and dying people on their good deeds as support, my person wonders whether this custom is still alive.

Is such, keeping records of ones merits done,  still practiced in Sri Lanka?

And, since it can be used perfect also for the practice of sharing merits and the practice of rejoicing in merits, my person wonders if there are ideas how to make the basic practices more virtual, vital, knowing that modern people are hardly to motivate toward the basic practices. They might possible needs such as a "reputation system", possible implemented in other daily used software or online services.

[Some "experiments" had been done to encourage the nearly death basic section, such as Anumodana or mail-list, next to a section in use, to get some ideas.]

(Note that this is not given for use for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but for encouragement toward release and benefical undertakings toward such)

As a Sri Lankan, I've heard these in our grand parent times (within last 20-30 years back). With the current lifestyle, everyone has started looking for happiness in outer world, most of the people have forgotten these kind of customs / traditions. This doesn't imply that Pin Potha is no longer active in Sri Lanka, but I should say its very hard to find now a days.

As I've heard the main purpose of this book is, when the owner of the book is about to die and while laying on the bed (Here it's talking about natural death with aging, because that's how the most of the people died in back old days, no sudden heart attacks) someone else starts reading the book to the owner. The concept behind this is, to make his next life a better one ( next birth in human world or heaven not the hell)

How that happens is the bhava in Pratītyasamutpāda is caused by the previous Nidanas. So if he can have good Saṅkhāra (mental fabrication) based on what he hears (from Pin Potha) at the last fractions of seconds, it will results to create a good Bhava. This is the concept behind this action as I've understood.


Why is Nibbanna unconditioned if it's dependent on mind & brain Often it is said that nibbana is unconditioned, but nibbana is definitely dependent on other conditions. Also, according to modern psychology nothing can be 'eliminated' (greed, hatred and delusion in this case). Once learned, never able to unlearn. A skill, therefore zu can become either more efficient or less efficient, so why is it in Religion that something can be absolutely eliminated, whereas psychology tells us differently?

Often it is said that nibbana is unconditioned

True, Nibbana is unconditioned

  but nibbana is definitely dependent on other conditions

False. This statement cannot be backed-up by any reference from Pali canon.

  Also, according to modern psychology........

You cannot explain Dhamma with modern Sciences.

WHY??

There is a true nature in this world. That is the nature of causes and effects. An effect is made by many causes and that effect will cause many other effects in several ways. (This is a very complex, hard to understand, hard to see, and very deep truth which has been taught in the "Book of Causal Relationships or Patthana Pakarana" in Pali canon. There have been mentioned 24 modes of conditionality). Only a lord Buddha can see this ultimate truth with his own wisdom without the guidance of a teacher. No other can.

Scientific method is the foundation for all modern sciences. In scientific method you carefully observe something or a pattern in the world.

Observation:

  Once learned, never able to unlearn.

Then a hypothesis is developed upon that observation.

Hypothesis:

  nothing can be 'eliminated' (greed, hatred and delusion,...)

Then a prediction is developed and carried out an experiment to prove the hypothesis.
At the end a conclusion has been made whether the hypothesis can be rejected or cannot be rejected. There lies the limitation of scientific method. An experiment can only support a hypothesis but cannot prove the hypothesis. So, a hypothesis can be true only under the conditions which the experiments carried out to support it. This is the reason one hypothesis is criticized and proved false by another over the time.

Scientists may explain a natural phenomenon with theories well supported by extensive amount of researches. And yes, that would have been true for a while until they find another behavior within that phenomenon which cannot be explained with the same theory. For example some phenomenon cannot be explained with Newtonian Physics but they can be well explained with Quantum Physics.

Dhamma cannot be criticized or argued. It is true for all the time.


As a Buddhist lay-follower is there a need and good form to do good deeds? As I've started to consider myself a lay-Buddhist for at least five years now, I've had an inclination to do good. But I've found it difficult to give it proper form.

I've found that politics are not the way for me, to much based on ego's and manipulation. But even doing just volunteer work or a food bank or help for refugees I've felt part of political machinations and power games.

Maybe this question is to much about opinion, but I was wondering:

Is there a need to good deeds as a lay-Buddhist?
What is are proper way of doing so, avoiding just giving money, or becoming to political?

Yes, good deeds are very useful to us! Read the Cula Kamma Vibhanga Sutta and the Maha Kamma Vibhanga sutta to get an idea of how good and bad Karma can affect our lives drastically.
You can do good deeds on your own without depending on political mechanisms. But if you have to get involved, focus on the good aspect to it, instead of the political side.