Concept of Panchang Pranam in Buddhist culture What is Panchang Pranam in Buddhism and what is the correct way of doing it and its significance? Is it some sort of chanting?

I found the term "panchanga pranama" on the wikipedia page for Praṇāma. In Indian culture and Hinduism, this simply means prostration with five parts of the body touching the ground.

In the image above, the left person is doing ashtanga pranama (eight parts touching the ground - also known as full prostration) and the right person is doing panchanga pranama (five parts touching the ground - also known as half prostration).
This is common in Buddhism and is known to be practised since the time of the Buddha, for e.g. from SN 22.1:

Then the householder Nakulapita went to the Blessed One and on
arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting
there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, I am a feeble old man, aged,
advanced in years, having come to the last stage of life. I am
afflicted in body & ailing with every moment. And it is only rarely
that I get to see the Blessed One & the monks who nourish the heart.
May the Blessed One teach me, may the Blessed One instruct me, for my
long-term benefit & happiness."

Both ashtanga pranama and panchanga pranama appear to be common in Tibetan Buddhism, as seen in this YouTube video, meanwhile panchanga pranama is common in Theravada Buddhism.
Apparently, in Pali, this is called pañcanga-vandana, which I found in the essay by Ven. Khantipalo entitled "Lay Buddhist Practice: The Shrine Room, Uposatha Day, Rains Residence".
An example of reverentially reciting Pali incantations and prostrating respectfully before a Buddha image as described below, can be found in this YouTube video.
Ven. Khantipalo explained here:

Dhamma is the way for training mind, speech and body. But the Buddha
dhamma is sometimes regarded in a way which is too intellectual and
theoretical so that there is a danger that it is not practiced as a
way of training. To help with the training of the body there are
various gestures which are expressions of one's confidence in and
reverence for the three Treasures. These actions when performed with
due mindfulness are wholesome kamma made by way of the body. Repeated
frequently they become habitual bodily kamma and it is good to have
the habit of reverence as part of one's character. The Buddha, soon
after his Enlightenment, thought that to live without reverence was
not suitable, so he looked around with the divine eye to find some
teacher under whom he could live, revering him and his teachings. But
he found no teacher superior to himself, nor any teaching superior to
the Dhamma which he had discovered. But out of reverence for that
Dhamma he decided to make the Dhamma his Teacher and to live revering
Dhamma. We who are his followers should follow in his footsteps and
live with reverence for those three aspects of Enlightenment: Buddha,
Dhamma and Sangha.
The gestures used for this are mainly two: respectful salutation with
the hands (añjalikamma), and the five-limb prostration
(pañc'anga-vandana).
The first of these, which may be remembered as "añjali" as there is
no satisfactory English equivalent, is made by bringing the palms of
the hands together, and raising them to the region of the heart or
higher, according to circumstances. For instance, in the shrine room
after kneeling down in front of the Buddha image, one makes añjali
before offering flowers, lights and incense. And as the Teacher was
the highest in the world and one to go beyond the world, so one
respects him by placing one's hand in añjali to the forehead. But
while chanting, the hands are held in añjali at heart level. This
action and others described here, should be done with mindfulness and
therefore gracefully. And one should be careful to see that
exaggerated and impetuous movements are avoided. As we remarked
before, the Dhamma does not encourage unrestrained expressions of
emotion, rather with its aid one endeavors to calm one's heart.
After all these preliminary remarks, we have just got into our shrine
room, knelt down, made añjali and offered the three offerings. Now
there are flowers placed in their vases or upon some offering tray,
candles or lamps burning brightly and a blue column of incense smoke
rising to the ceiling. It is time to pay one's respects with the whole
body to the Teacher. When afterwards one says "Namo tassa..." that
word "namo" (homage) comes from the root nam meaning "to bend." So
now one bends oneself, one's mind and body, down and acknowledges that
the Buddha was indeed the Perfectly Enlightened One that one's own
understanding of Dhamma is insignificant. In the kneeling position,
one's hand in añjali are raised to the forehead and then lowered to
the floor so that the whole forearm to the elbow is on the ground, the
elbow touching the knee. The hands, palm down, are four to six inches
apart with just enough room for the forehead to be brought to the
ground between them. Feet are still as for the kneeling position and
the knees are about a foot apart. This is called the prostration with
the five limbs, that is the forehead, the forearms, and the knees.
This prostration is made three times, the first time to the Buddha,
the second to the Dhamma, and the third to the Noble Sangha.
An ancient tradition from Thailand makes this more explicit as it adds
a Pali formula to be chanted before each of the prostrations. Before
the first one may chant:
Araham sammasambuddho bhagava
Buddham bhagavantam abhivademi.
The Arahant, the Buddha perfected by himself, the Exalted One
I bow low before the Exalted Buddha.
Before the second prostration:
Svakkhato bhagavata dhammo
Dhammam namassami.
The Dhamma well-expounded by the Exalted One
I bow low before the Dhamma.
And before the last one:
Supatipanno bhagavato savakasangho
sangham namami.
The Sangha of the Exalted One's disciples who have practiced well
I bow low before the Sangha.


Is the seer and seen different? Example i saw tree . tree and "me" are different? Or tree and "me" are same? Is the seer and seen different?

Is th watcher and watching different ?

Is the observer and observe different?

camera and picture  are different ?

For example

I saw  a tree?

Tree and "me" different?

Tree and "me" same?

It is very difficult question.

Please correct if  i use wrong grammar

It is the people who rely on the commentaries, like [REMOVED BY A MODERATOR], who talk a lot about  ''doer''
They say that being enlightened is when there is no doer, instead there is ''pure action'' or ''pure phenomena''.

for instance Mahasi quotes this

  Thus one realizes that feeling itself is what feels the plea- sure
  associated with pleasant sense objects and so on. We con- ventionally
  say with regard to the appearance of feeling, “I feel.” 512 In order
  to point out that there is no doer apart from actual phe- nomena, the
  commentary says that feeling itself is what feels. 513

https://wisdomexperience.org/academy/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/Manual-of-Insight-for-Course.pdf

The pali word they use is ''Karaka atta'' http://www.abhidhamma.com/Mahasi_anatta.pdf

you have to read all their texts to know what they say about ''a doer''.
Their obsession with the doer comes from their lack of understanding the baya sutta, where they cram their view of lack of doer, instead of lack of craving, because the popular view is that ''people suffer because they judge, so when they do not judge they do not suffer'', and ''phenomenologically'' it would mean that there is no subject-object, ie no doer, but only phenomena .

If you want a sutta talking about doer (or lack of doer) there is this

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html

  “I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How,
  indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself
  [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do
  you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or
  beginning an action?”[3]

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4]
  clearly discerned?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. [5]

  “What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ...
  is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of
  steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is
  there an element of endeavoring?” [10]

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings
  clearly discerned?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

Bikkhu sujato translate attakāro as ''one's volition''


How bad is the karma of feeding meat to your children? I have a girlfriend who has a daughter from another man. If I raise this kid not vegetarian, will that be bad karma? Her mother is an omnivore and the kid is being raised in an omnivore household. It would be very difficult to change her diet. Is it my reponsibility to make her vegetarian?

Please read "Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?".

According to most schools of Buddhism, it is against the first precept to kill an animal yourself, but it is ok to buy frozen meat from the supermarket for consumption.

Let's say you go to a restaurant as a customer. If the restaurant prepares your meal order using frozen meat, then that's  ok. But if you have to select the animal for slaughter (which happens in some Asian countries, for seafood dishes for e.g. you need to pick your lobster from an aquarium), then that breaks the first precept.

As long as you did not do the killing yourself or select the animal and ordered the butcher or chef to slaughter for you, it is not a violation of the first precept.

To summarize from that question:

It is wrong to kill or directly cause the killing of animals
It is wrong to have a livelihood on the business of meat
It is wrong to consume meat that is from an animal that is seen, heard or suspected to have been slaughtered specifically for you
It is ok to purchase and consume meat from the market (that was already dead long before you arrived at the market)
It is ok to order a meal from a restaurant, which is based on frozen meat

Why? This is because you did not have the intention to kill that animal. You are simply buying meat that was no longer alive when you first encountered it.


Doctrine to address or alleviate someone's sense of betrayal? Does Buddhism say anything about suffering as the result of having a sense of "betrayal" -- perhaps a sense of someone else having committed an "injustice"?
I think that for some individuals it's an important and a very long-lasting type of suffering -- for example:

if they feel betrayed or mistreated by their parents
... or their spouse, their children
... or even become outraged as a result of criminal offence by a stranger
... or even just impersonal bad luck ("oh, that is so unfair!")

But although it can be important, I see nothing about it on Access to Insight.
The one possible mention of it that I can think of is Dhp 3:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

Another mention in passing might be the parable of the saw -- i.e. the importance of keeping a mind of good will even if you are abused -- but that's all: very few examples/mentions.
I understand it as being a specific case of a more general problem, i.e. of "craving" (for things to be other than as they are), and "I-making" -- but do you know any doctrine on this more specific subject, i.e. of betrayal and/or a sense of injustice?
Also is it right to say that Buddhist doctrine on the subject tends to "well actually, you deserved this misfortune" -- for example something like the origin story for Dhp 5 implies that if someone persecutes you, then perhaps that's a result of something you did in a previous life. If so, is there a way to paraphrase or explain that principle to a modern non-Buddhist audience? Because "actually it's your fault" might be quite unwelcome (therefore ineffective), the modern view tends to denounce that as "blaming the victim", and the victim themselves might want to know that you're on their side and not siding with their abuser.
If this is a 'reference request' question, it might be asking for doctrine from outside the suttas.

The reasoning is along these lines and where the answer diverges that is due to self view and one then questions on whether it is appropriate to hold that view.
"Who hurt you? Did the head hairs, body hairs, the teeth, the nails, the skin.. did the earth element, the liquid element, the wind element, the fire element or the space element hurt you?"
"Did the intellect element hurt you?"
"No but the person who has these elements hurt me:("
"What do you think, bro: Do you regard form as the person?"
"Not rly."
"Do you regard feeling as the person?"
"Not rly."
"Do you regard perception as the person?"
"Not rly."
"Do you regard fabrications as the person?"
"Not rly."
"Do you regard consciousness as the person?"
"Not rly."
"What do you think, friend: Do you regard the person as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"Not really, no."
"What do you think: Do you regard the person as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness [taken together]?"
"Nah brah."
"Do you regard the person as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"Nope.."
"And so, Friend — when you can't pin down the person as a truth or reality — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, he/she betrayed & abused me:( '
"I guess not.."
In the end one can only think in terms of true elements and can delineate the elements of delusion as the corruption of intellect element which like the other elements can be grasped with wrong view to be personal for this or that being, corrupted knowledge can be shown to beget wrong resolve, wrong action etc
So one breaks this idea of a person being a true element and likewise with the idea of the self who got abused.


Bringing 'Atta' concept to Buddha's teachings We have seen many researches and references (like "Reviewed Work: Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism" and many more supporting documents from PTS, Pali text society) that the idea Atta to some extent it exists and can be deduced that Buddha's teachings also consists of "the idea of Atta". The popular references by I.B Horner (need citation here) and some scholars is

  atta hi attano natho

In Buddha's teachings and Tipitaka, I do not see a slight extent of existence of Atta or some ambiguities about Atta by Buddha or monks at the Buddha's ages. All Buddha teachings are ubiquitously about Anatta. And Gautama Buddha repealed the very concept ’Atta’ in many Suttas. Since his second discourse “Anatta Latkhana Sutta", Buddha’s teachings are all about Anatta. Anatta is key concept in Buddha's teachings and Gautama Buddha was first and very first person opposite and challenged to popular Atta idealists at the age of his time. My question here is why some scholars and some publications from Pali text society are trying to coerce Atta concept in Buddhism or society of Buddhists?  What are the supporting facts that Gautama Buddha and his teachings are self denial to its own Anatta concept? What are the proofs that Buddhism accept/adopt Brahmanism's Atta idea since both are clearly opposed to each other?

Please keep in mind that the words self and not-self are loosely translated, have ambiguous meanings about referring internal and external based on perspective of particular individual being and not applicable/intended words here. Atta and Anatta is what I am referring here.

The definition of Atta

Atta is the word from Brahmanism, it is essence, from Brahma (or whatever creator make it exists), eternal or indefinite period of existence, it has capability of suffering pleasure and pain. It is in each and everyone bodies and pass from life to life. Some outside Buddha’s teachings define Atta as ’soul’ and/or self but precise definition of Atta is highly controversial.

It is possible to bend the Buddha's message (if you so wish to do) because the Buddha never denied Atta in an Essential sense, he only pointed out that within empirical experience (all the way up to the perception of cessation) no 'thing' can be said to be constant and unchanging, as a self would be required to be.. hence the Mulapariyaya Sutta.

Whilst the Buddha was very clear with regards to the lack of evidence for Atta within the empirical world, the Brahmajala and Potthapada Suttas shows that with regards to the Transcendental Atta (which is the Atta that most darshanas went for - Brahman/Atta is usually seen as beyond experience, commonly stated as 'neti neti' - 'not this, not that'), he asked people to avoid speculation (because whatever that 'transcendental' is inferred to be, it cannot be perceived and therefore cannot be verified)

The Anatta doctorine is very subtle, a not insignificant number of schools of Buddhism have gone towards either essentialism (brahmanism) or annihalationism (nihilism) at some point. Yogachara has the nature of Parinispanna, which is a transcendental Atta. Mahayana developed the Tathagatagharba, which makes the Buddha a kind of Atta for Existence. The Buddha would have likely not concurred with these though!


About mental diseases and kamma This question is built on top of another questions asked in this site (not all by me).

Based of these premises:

1) Kamma is not the only phenomena/process responsible for the current condition of beings. There are other processes apart from those borned from anthropologic interactions or from any kind of will/intention (e.g. weather conditions, geological events, biological diseases, etc.), which can affect our lives and states.

2) I heard from one user that ghost and other 'paranormal' entities (let's assume for a moment that they exist, and let's just consider what the suttas tell us) can control other's minds. And even if is not "the person itself" the one doing an action, the kamma will be ripen for that person eventually (and I insist, even if that person didn't have the intention of doing an unwholesome deed)

And the question: for those who believe in literal rebirth (i.e. the continuation of certain mind states and kammic seeds from one life to another after the break up of the body), what do you think it happens after biological death to those whose brains begin to malfunction as a product of some biological conditions or fortuitous event, such as a tumour, dementia or a lightning striking on someones head?
What if those persons begin acting impulsively and heedlessly, even if before those misfortunes they had completely normal -or even wise- behavior? Will they rebirth in hell or something like that?

Thanks in beforehand for your time and patience!

I knew someone who was diagnosed as psychotic for most of her adult life. Psychiatric medicines were semi-effective in her case (so the psychiatrist called her "one of the lucky ones"), so apparently the symptoms were brain-related -- even if etiology is too complicated i.e. physical and environmental.

A couple of comments based on that...

It took years before finding how to get medical treatment, because she was never "an imminent danger to self or others" which is the usual legal requirement for imposing medical treatment. I interpret that as evidence that her intentions toward others were invariably or mostly kindly, even when her thinking was very confused (disordered in form and content). To the extent that "kamma is intention", I think that counts for a lot.

She expected to be reborn; but she didn't say where nor for how long.

MN 57 says something about being reborn as an animal -- given her great sympathy for ("mind of goodwill towards") animals, perhaps that (rebirth in the animal realm) is a possibility.
Conversely her "sins", such as those ever were, were all too human -- perhaps that means a human rebirth.
Perhaps she visited other realms (brahma- and otherwise) "in this life", experienced "paranormal entities" -- to that extent perhaps she developed some equanimity about future experiences.


What are the six beads at the end of a mala used for? And what is there meaning if there is one I recently received a Impermanence Mala for Christmas.  I have read The Heart of Buddha's teaching and I couldn't find anything in there.
Thank you in advance for any information.

Depending on your tradition and the design of your mala, they're for counting cycles (if they can be slid around the tassels/cords), representing the Triple Gemn and/or Six Perfections, or just decoration.


connection between fear and anger(dwesha) I need to know if "Dwesha" anger and fear are connected according to the Buddhist teachings?
Also how to overcome fear or phobias with the practices of Buddhism?

Anger, Fear, Jealousy are all instances of the 2nd root of evil, 'Dosa', which translates to English as 'aversion'. They basically represent a disliking towards someone or something. Usually if it's someone more powerful than you, the disliking turns into fear. If not, it becomes anger.

Anger is mostly caused when you expect things to behave according to your liking. Fear is caused when you cling to things, taking them as I, me or mine. To overcome fear, you can recollect the virtues of the Triple gem and feel confident that you have taken refuge under them. But the permanent solution is to do Vipassana meditation and get rid of your clinging and the notion of self.

When one attains the state of Anagami, neither anger nor fear can ever enter one's mind again.


Are there Bodhisatta practices within Theravada? In the Majjhima Nikaya, there are mentions of Bodhisattvas.

For instance, Bhayabherava Sutta (4. Fear and Dread) says:

  "Before my enlightenment, while I was still ony an unenlightened Bodhisatta..."

It is a sentence that is repeated throughout the MN.

The Acchariya-abbhuta Sutta (123. Wonderful and Marvellous) also says:

  "Mindfull and fully aware, Ananda, the Bodhisatta appeared in the Tusita heaven."

I have two questions:

Are there Bodhisattva practices in Theravada? (such as the cultivation of Bodhicitta and the six perfections presented in Mahayana traditions)
Since we find occurrences in the Pali Canon, why do we often hear that the notion of bodhisattva is a late notion?

Bodhisatta practices in Theravada are mentioned in Buddhavamsa, Jataka and Apadana atthakatha, especially in Visuddhajanavilāsiniyā, Apadana Atthakatha, the commentary of Apadana, which is believed to be a late addition to the Pali Canon, added after the Second and Third Buddhist Councils. This is probably why we hear that the notion of bodhisatta is a late addition. However, in Theravada countries like Sri Lanka where I come from, the bodhisattas are widely accepted. (See also the wikipedia section on Theravada bodhisattas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva)

According to Buddhavagga section in Apadana Atthakathaa, Theravada Buddhism has ten perfections dasapāramitā (Giving, morality, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving kindness and equanimity)
and there are three types of bodhisattas, the ones aspiring to be Sammāsambuddha, Pacceka Buddha (a private Buddha) and Savaka Buddha (arahant).

According to the section Buddhavagga in Apadana Atthakathaa, to become a Sammāsambuddha, one requires either 4x10^140 (cattāri asaṅkhyeyyāni), 8x10^140 (aṭṭha asaṅkhyeyyāni) or 16x10^140 (soḷasa asaṅkhyeyyāni) eons of pāramitā perfection

  ‘‘buddhānaṃ, bhante, patthanā kīva ciraṃ vaṭṭatī’’ti. Buddhānaṃ,
  ānanda, heṭṭhimaparicchedena cattāri asaṅkhyeyyāni
  kappasatasahassañca, majjhimaparicchedena aṭṭha asaṅkhyeyyāni
  kappasatasahassañca, uparimaparicchedena soḷasa asaṅkhyeyyāni
  kappasatasahassañca
  Apadana Atthakathaa

depending on whether he has high wisdom (Paññādhika), faith (Saddhādhika) or effort (Vīriyādhika).

  Ete ca bhedā paññādhikasaddhādhikavīriyādhikānaṃ vasena ñātabbā.
  Paññādhikānañhi saddhā mandā hoti, paññā tikkhā. Saddhādhikānaṃ paññā
  majjhimā hoti, saddhā tikkhā. Vīriyādhikānaṃ saddhā paññā mandā hoti,
  vīriyaṃ tikkhanti.
  Apadana Atthakathaa

A bodhisatta aspiring to be a pacceka buddha requires 2x10^140 (dve asaṅkhyeyyāni) eons of practice.

  paccekabuddho paccekabodhisattabhūmiṃ ogāhanto dve asaṅkhyeyyāni
  kappasatasahassañca pāramiyo pūretvā
  Apadana Atthakathaa

For an arahant a time limit is not given for the bodhisatta period.


What exactly differentiates Vipassana from Samatha meditation? What are the key aspects of Vipassana that are not present in Samatha?

What is the main difference in the method from a meditator's perspective?

Labeling emotions and feelings are part of samatha or vipassana? Does Vipassana allows emotions to rise more freely to check it for what it is while Samatha tries to avoid paying attention to it by returning to the breath process?

What are the key aspects of Vipassana that are not present in Samatha?

samatha means tranquility - it is a necessary aspect of any wholesome meditative practice.

vipassana means seeing clearly or in a special way - it is a quality specific to Buddhist meditative practice.

Meditation for the purpose of seeing clearly requires one to focus on ultimate reality; the only way to understand reality is to observe it. Any meditation practice that does not take ultimate reality as an object is called "samatha meditation", because it leads only to tranquility, not insight.

Besides the difference in meditation object, meditation for insight will also obviously have different results; it will be less tranquil on the whole, as one is forced to experience all the inherent problems with ultimate reality, specifically that it is impermanent, unsatisfying, and uncontrollable.

What is the main difference in the method from a meditator's perspective?

There is no difference in the method, necessarily; the only difference is in the object.  As the Visuddhimagga says:

  But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle
  is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements (XI.27ff.).

  Vism XVIII.5 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Meaning the methodology is the same, but one's focus shifts to ultimate reality.

Labeling emotions and feelings are part of samatha or vipassana?

Since emotions and feelings are a part of ultimate reality, this would be considered vipassana meditation. Many people say otherwise; I can't help but argue that they are wrong. The difference isn't the technique, it is the object.

Does Vipassana allows emotions to rise more freely to check it for what it is while Samatha tries to avoid paying attention to it by returning to the breath process?

samatha meditation has the potential to lead to avoidance, since it generally seeks out heightened states of concentration that are impossible when the focus is ultimate reality. The point is that one can only understand reality if one takes it as a focus; if you are unable to come to terms with reality, you will instead incline towards avoiding it because it is uncomfortable, preferring a single, stable, satisfying, controllable illusion to the harsh reality of the universe. This is a potential difference between the two types of meditation.

It is not that samatha meditation is bad or useless, just limited and posessing a potential danger, as the Buddha taught:

  “And what, bhikkhus, is the gratification in the case of feelings? Here, bhikkhus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both. On that occasion he feels only feeling that is free from affliction. The highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction, I say.

  [same with 2nd - 4th jhanas]

  “And what, bhikkhus, is the danger in the case of feelings? Feelings are impermanent, suffering, and subject to change. This is the danger in the case of feelings.

  -- MN 13 (Bodhi, Trans)


What is soul made of; as per Buddhism? As per Buddhism, What are elements of soul or what is soul made of?

(If we split body and soul to seperate them then what are elements of soul?)

In Buddhism a human being is composed of matter, feelings, perceptions & memories, mental fabrications (thinking) and consciousness.

A soul is a conceptual belief which does not exist. It is concept which is deeply ingrained in the mind.

Just like a car is just a concept which is an accumulation of parts a steering wheel, chassis, wing mrrors etc..

For more on consciousness in the Theravada tradition and how kamma transmigrate see my other post


What does 'passing away of dhamma' mean in Satipatthana sutta? Considering the definition of dhamma as given in this answer. What does it mean by '...arising and passing away of dhamma...'in the satipatthana sutta?
Also, else where I read, 'all dhamma are also anicca' i.e. impermanent. Does the Buddha here mean that 'after few centuries the Buddha dhamma will be forgotten'?
In what way does impermanence apply in regard to dhamma?

The materialistic mindset invented language built around the key notion of objects. Objects are represented by nouns.
In contrast to that, the spiritual mindset or the mind-over-matter mindset came up with the concept of dharma as its primary building block. Dharmas are not nouns because they are not objects. Instead, dharmas are adjectives because they represent qualities.
In the mind-first view of existence, the primary building block is an experienced quality, a dharma.
Dharmas arise into existence, stay for some time, and then disappear. Most dharmas don't arise momentarily but gradually form from some combination of previous dharmas. Then they mutate or change, often weakening over time. Eventually they vane away or gradually decompose and become components for other dharmas.
All dharmas, practically speaking, with some rather theoretical  exceptions, are transient. This is because, being nothing but qualities of combinations of other qualities they morph away out of existence as their underlying qualities morph away as their underlying qualities morph away and so on.
When Buddha describes meditation on arising and passing away of dharmas, he is referring to gradual formation, deformation, and eventual morphing out of existence of all qualities observable by the meditator.
This includes so-called external qualities, and so-called internal qualities. "External" qualities include shape, size, color, loudness, pitch, smell, temperature etc. - morphing in and out of existence either quickly or slowly. "Internal" qualities include discursive, emotional, somatic, conceptual, abstract, intuitive etc. characteristics, morphing in and out of existence. Qualities in both groups arise and vane due to forces out of our control (such as the time passing) as well as due to forces in our control (such as us moving our gaze or our attention around).
This is what's called "arising and passing away of dhammas".
Specifically in context of Satipatthana the external dhammas are analyzed by their sensory basis (visible, audible, tactile  etc) and the internal dhammas are analyzed by their effect on one's practice. The most important dhammas to watch are the qualities of mind that help or harm meditation, such as sensuality, negativity, torpor, anxiety, uncertainty, as well as the positive qualities such as mindfulness, determination, enthusiasm, focus, calmness etc.
The most abstract method of contemplating the qualities is by observing the Noble Truths in action, happening in front of one's very eyes. "This is the quality of dukkha (i.e. ~painful aspect of some experience) arising, this is the underlying quality of craving, here the quality of craving has been abandoned, here the dukkha quality is no longer to be found."


How will I know that this state of no suffering will last forever? Suppose I have reached a state of no suffering. Then what is the proof that suffering won't arise again ? How can I be sure that state of Nirvana doesn't change or decay ?

Theravada Buddhist Answer.

  How will I know that this state of no suffering will last forever?

A good and important question. The thing is that you can't know whether or not this state of suffering will last forever.

There are especially two (and probably more) important reasons for this.

The first one being that fact that the Buddha didn't want us to accept his teaching based on blind belief, hear-say or something similar. The Buddha's teaching is a practical teaching meant for us to realize through especially meditation practice.

The second reason dives into the nature of reality and how to understand it. There exists different types of realities; Conventional and Ultimate realities.

Conventional realities consist of concepts. What characterizes a concept is that it can be understood by hearsay, logical reasoning, inference or intellectual thinking. In other words, such concepts are not regarded as ultimate reality.

An ultimate reality such as Nibbana cannot be understood by the above mentioned methods. A person born blind can never know colors no matter how others may explain those colors. Likewise, one can never know toothache if one has never had them.

In the same way, insight-knowledge and Jhana can never be known, unless one has attained them. Nibbana, the end of suffering, can only be understood by personal experience, ie. through correct meditation practice.

Ultimate reality is only accessible for insight-meditators, those who attained Jhana and the noble ones.

Lastly, be aware that Doubt (Vicikicchā) is one of the Five Hindrances to Enlightenment. The antidote for doubt is; studying the teachings, finding a good teacher and vipassana meditation practice.

The second Bojjhanga, ie. the Investigation of Phenomena (dhamma vicaya) is also a direct remedy for Doubt, since it leads to personal experience of the Three Marks of Existence (tilakkhaṇa) and how the mind-body complex operates.


How we can develop metta for terrorists? Metta is benevolence towards all beings, without any discrimination, free of attachment and free of hatred. How we can develop metta for terrorists?

I am going to try my reply, based on the assumption that by 'terrorists' you are referring to the recent events in Middle East, 'Sydney Siege', Charlie Hebdo and so forth.

Personally I would take the following approach:

Ensure my own 'safety' first

By 'safety' I mean to ensure I do not lose my own Metta. Within the eternal tides of Samsara, the wellness of my current physical body can not compare to my heart's purity. Terrorists attacks mainly originates from the hatred poison, and I must ensure I do not have delusions of justice which can subject myself to the same contamination.

In reality, I am a commoner with no political influence on international affairs. Therefore, as a son, father and husband, I am obliged to ensure my, and my families', safety so I can continue to fulfil my duties. I shall remain respectful to all parties, and always keep a graceful distance.

Repent my own poisons

Upon witnessing the aftermath of much hatred build-up, I shall reflect within myself, "am I still poisoned with the same or similar traces of hatred? if so, can I let go of them? if not, then I shall continue to diligently abstain from hatred."

Offer my merits to them

Buddhism teaches that we are one with every being in all realms. We all share the same essence, and the existence of 'me' and 'them' is an illusion.

Everyone in the cosmos is like the trillions of microscopic cells in a human body. When a body part is malfunctioning, the body proceeds to repair it, not avenge it. For example, if my teeth accidentally bites my tongue, would my tongue exact revenge on my teeth? If differently body parts start to turn against each other, the violence multiplies and we will all eventually perish together.

There is an African village that doesn't punish fellow villagers whom has committed misconduct. They consider 'bad people' are simply unfortunately confused, so they would band together, and sing and dance around the 'bad person'. They would sing to praise nice things about him, and remind him that he should return to being the wonderful person he has always been.

We may need to stay vigilant in the short term to protect our safety, but in spirit we must be mindful that anyone is capable of greatness, everyone can attain Buddha-hood, and work towards that goal.

As a Pureland Buddhist myself, I would ask Amitabha Buddha to help us and dedicate merits to the situation at the end of every practice.

Proper education

As a Chinese Buddhist I practise Confucian virtues as a core foundation before diving into Mahayana wisdom. An essential part of Chinese Buddhism (and Chinese culture, in general) is cultivating filial piety. By fulfilling our filial duties we focus our life on full and proper care for our parents, our first and most important benefactors, and then gradually expand that love to our direct family members, friends, community and, with Mahayana teaching, expand the love to all realms.

The confucian book 'Di Zi Gui' (sometimes known as 'Pupil's Guide') summarizes criteria of filial piety into 7 parts: filial to elders, care for juniors, exercise caution, trustworthiness, love all beings, get well acquainted with the wise, and study arts (e.g. literature, skills, music etc) once the former criteria have been well established. This is commonly thought to be taught to children, but has been highly encouraged for adults to practice and 'fill in the gaps'. After all, how can you be Buddha, if you can't even succeed at being a human being?

If we can promote education towards love and wisdom (Metta), then we can cultivate better empathy for others and work together to foster happier families, and better communities. The most efficient way to convince others is not to approach them, but to first practice Metta diligently, set a great example, and convince others with our actions.

I hope the above has been helpful. I must be honest to say that I am not the expert in global affairs, but I can act on what I know and try to be a better human being. Any feedback to my reply above would be very much appreciated.


Saṃvega or something else? Integrating sammuti sacca with paramattha sacca I've dropped out of three stable relationships back to back in 4 years, even though the women involved were very much in love with me, and were in quite a lot of misery when I left.

Rather than get the motivation to put my back into making things work by relocating or changing my life or whatever was required, each time, I took it to the point where firm commitment was needed and then backed out because I didn't see why it is worth it.

A voice inevitably rings in my head that such effort is better expended in meditation and a life of service and purity rather than on silly selfish samsaric satisfaction. Anyway, I'd also see exactly how the relationship would fail a few years down the line, or where the cracks would appear and lose my energy.

I have had at least one very stable shift in my consciousness since at least 3 years now, which has reduced my mental/emotional chatter to nearly 0-5% of what it was, and I don't get attached to anything including partners the same way anymore. I've been almost coldly unemotional about victory or loss in love and death, and most other things that would make people ride emotional highs and lows.

I don't really care to define this change as an awakening or as a kensho/satori or whatever - I think these are useless definitions that don't matter -- still, it is a change whose vast effects on my life I can't deny.

I can feel an all encompassing love and compassion for everyone yet a detachment from everyone. Which kind of complicates romantic life - do I really love my current partner any more than the rest of the world including exes etc. Confiding these feelings with the partner has never helped of course. Worse, they would very soon sense that I am not really bound down by anything, and resulting insecurity would lead to conflict.

Sure, I can still get angry but it is a powerless anger, and if I reflect on the anger or whatever mental feeling I have even for a moment, it will vanish instantly. If I choose to, I can always see the pure heart in anyone and fall in love.

There was a period of intense thoughtless equanimity in my life, about 6-8 months after the awakening that lasted for several weeks. My mind had a vastness that left me in awe. At this point a bomb could have exploded next to me, and I would have observed it without a flutter, as if it was very normal. There were several other brilliant characteristics to this period, but the most important was a profound sense of balance I had between the ultimate truth and conventional truth. I could perfectly balance my inner life and my outer life without conflict no matter how heavy the samsaric context. There was an ever present wisdom that enabled this.

I didn't really care what I did with my life, there was no "I" - I did whatever was appropriate, I reacted to life perfectly yet effortlessly, as if I wasn't there, life just flowed and I with it exercising only the gentlest of effort to produce the wisest action possible.

This seemed like a stable reality until it ended, and since then I've really yoyo-ed between ultimate truth and conventional truth. One moment wanting a relationship and the next day or week wanting to be a monk.

My ability to lapse into universal love means I have even strayed to infidelity, due to deeply loving several people, and continuing to love to this moment everyone who has entered my life.

Without the perfect wisdom that I had for those few weeks relationships feel like an accident waiting to happen, so I've now sworn off all relationships until I figure out what exactly to do.

Any ideas?

Philosophical thoughts can come to the mind at anytime. You shouldn't get too excited about them as that can lead to complacency, ego and false self assessments. Simply note them rising and passing away. If you are not enlightened, you are not safe no matter how deep you feel or think.

Don't focus much on love. Usually Patikulamanasikara meditation is recommended to people with lust issues. The details are in the Visuddhimagga. You can also do Silanussati and try to perfect your virtue. One suggestion is to stay in a forest monastery for a while, stay away from women and work on taming the mind.


Is there a sanskrit translation of the Pali tipitaka online? I see the ambatta sutta in pali and in English, but my personal preference is to read it in Sanskrit. Is there a sanskrit translation available online (say in a scanned book at archive.org)?

Very few of the early Buddhist texts survive in Sanskrit translation. Also the Sanskrit translations were made relatively late, perhaps the 4th or 5th century CE and they had frequently been substantially changed by this point. For example the Samaññaphala Sutta does survive in Sanskrit, but it is a very different text (and as far as I know, only available in a PhD thesis).

There is a comprehensive list of parallels in different languages on a website called Sutta Central. In the case of the Ambaṭṭa Sutta there are only fragments of a Sanskrit text extant. Most of these are only in manuscript form.

The Pāḷi Canon (in the Burmese, 6th Council Edition) is available in Devanārarī and a number of other non-Roman scripts via tipitaka.org


Is the skeleton meditation of Buddhist origin? I came across a skeleton meditation mentioned in this answer on this site, and I was interested because it supposedly grants interesting special abilities.

Googling it, I just found pages about something called white skeleton meditation, which I assume is the same thing (although according to guesswork on other forums it is either a Tibetan Buddhist type of meditation or a Taoist meditation but apparently NOT zen). Most sites that describe WSM talk of qi (because it "nourishes ones qi"), something I've never heard mentioned in a Buddhist context but I've heard very little.

Wikipedia seems to have nothing on the subject, so what is the origin of skeleton meditation? Is it a Buddhist meditation? A skeleton meditation is mentioned in this little book by Pa Auk Sayadaw (which I suppose is the same as the meditation mentioned in the answer referenced above).

Did Buddha ever talk of/teach this meditation?

Yes it's a Buddhist teaching. Contemplation on a skeleton is called atthika-sanna in Pali. Buddha's teaching of this is in Atthikamahapphala sutta (SN 46.57), however, there's no English translation of this .This technique is commonly used by forest monks to overcome sensual desires. You can practice it with a real skeleton, a picture of it or visualizing a skeleton in mind.


Is buddha nature active? Is Buddha nature active or passive?

Would anyone say that enlightenment means we can suffer (frustration) in an active way?

It depends on who perceives it, depends on what's being talked about, and it can be the both at the same time.

Eastern philosophy and spirituality is very different from our western logic. For us, it must be A or not A, for them it can be A and not A at the same time. In Shunryu Suzuki's "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind" there is a handful of paradoxes.

Coming back to the question, to the western mindset it seems that being active is good and being passive is bad. But it wouldn't be correct to assert that Buddhism is active just to say that it is good. So I prefer to say that enlightenment isn't one nor another. Or, in mystical terms, it is a balance between active and passive energies.

Meditation can look like a very passive practice, since you stay still, you stop moving, you stop talking, you calm down thinking and other mind processes. Then you stay there passive to noise, to itches, to mosquitoes, to pain, to chatter in the mind, to boredom, and so on.

Now, if you look from another perspective, meditation is very active. Nowadays people fill their days with activities, there is always something to do avoid tedium. Usually when someone starts meditating, it requires a great amount of effort to not move and to calm down the thoughts. People usually need to actively practice meditation to achieve subtler states of mind.

You will never listen someone saying something like "There was nothing to do and I was bored and then I suddenly realized that I was meditating."

Now, in enlightenment the underlying constant existential suffering isn't produced. It isn't fed, as if the ground of mind wasn't fertile for growing suffering. So if it doesn't exist, there can't be a relation of passivity or activity to it.

If you take mundane suffering such as physical pain or emotional pain, it keeps happening, but there won't be a "me" that feels pain. But there is just pain. You could say that enlightenment is passive because there is just a stream of phenomena that flows and between these phenomena there is pain. You could also say that enlightenment is active because there is complete presence and clear awareness of all phenomena that emerges, and nothing we judge as bad could produce the slightest suffering.

And finally, "active" and "passive" are just concepts. If you are taking the path to enlightenment, instead of trying to define it take the path to get there. And if you are just trying to define it, be warned that words and thoughts are too limited for this task.


Is this the correct translation and exact meaning of these epic verses in Tripitaka? There are two sentences found in Tripitaka. Do they mean, "the Divine one come to teach on earth"?

Please forgive me, but it very close to Jesus's savings. As Jesus says, "I'm son of Lord, come for you, through his wish, to guide you to my Father"!

These translations of mine is like this. I am native to language close to pali?

  tathāgato loke uppajjati arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathī satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā.

  AN 4.160

My translation: The Highly teacher appears on this world, the prefect holy, the one with Mighty Lord, perfect in wisdom and pure conduct,leading men to safe land, the charioteer of men and god to saddhamma from time immemorial, the Buddha, the Lord of cessation!

  Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā,
  Tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āha;

  Mahākhandhaka

My translation: The causes which exist for suffering (birth, decay,old age, death,unwanted thing, separation of dear ones), to eliminate it, He have come!

Please forgive me Masters here. But that question haunts me everyday! Also my intention isn't to oppose to Buddhist teachings as I think it's a best religion exist on earth ever! Pardon me!

"Divine" has its roots in the gods, the "devas". However, the Buddha declares this about gods:

  AN8.29:1.4: Firstly, a Realized One has arisen in the world—perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. He teaches the Dhamma leading to peace, extinguishment, awakening, as proclaimed by the Holy One.

Indeed, being reborn as a divine god is not so fortunate:

  AN8.29:4.2: But a person has been reborn in one of the long-lived orders of gods. This is the fourth lost opportunity.

Because of this, we must be careful in choosing adjectives used for gods and for the Buddha. A human life is the best opportunity to study the Dhamma fully.


Progress in meditation If one progresses in this lifetime, but doesn't attain enlightenment and doesn't become totally free from suffering, what can happen in future lives?

Nothing is lost. However a person below the level of Streamwinner is still subject to rebirth below the level of human being. The good kamma of having made an effort will eventually surface again and bring one back to a place where practice can be resumed.

The non-streamwinner is subject to stray and unskillful thoughts that can lead to a bad destination. Should such a tendency occur at the time of death, it's: 'Have a nice day!'

The principle is something like standing at the downtown platform in the subway. Up until the time one enters a car and the doors shut one can go over to the uptown platform, but once the door has shut on the downtown train one is going downtown at least for one stop.

This is the concern when it comes to attention to death, that is that one not be thinking, as the ordinary person thinks, that ok, death will come, but some time later. One should train to think that death is a possibility as close as a breath in and out or the chewing of a mouthful of food.

See for the above idea: http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.019.hare.pts.htm

and see for the practice:

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.020.hare.pts.htm

This is why one should strive for Streamentry. At stream entry, the knowledge is firmly fixed that 'that which comes into existence comes to an end.' This idea at that point is so vivid as to present itself at the time of death and acts as a barrier to making a foolish decision at that time, and the ball has been set rolling for an inevitable attainment of Arahantship within a period of no more than seven further rebirths in various heavenly states and among men.


Are there references to Meditation Techniques Practiced / Taught by Ven. Nanavira? Ven. Nanavira has written a lot on the Dhamma. I am looking for his material on meditation related topics.

I tried to search a bit for some books by ven. Nanavira. I could only find this one Clearing The Path. Maybe you can use it.


Kesi Sutta, what is an untamable person? "It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life.
  But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata
  doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally
  destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't
  regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing."

AN 4.111

Just so, is this subtle language? What then is an untamable person? Is it a being like an animal, who does not have access to Dhamma, or is it a being who has access to it, but disregards it out of hand, or something in between!?

Ven. Sujato translates it, "a person in training" (which makes sense in the context).

The word in question is purisadamma.

Piya Tan explains it here as follows:

  1.3.3.2 What is purisa? The usual translation for purisa is “person,” usually a “man.” And the usual
  word for “individual” is purisa,puggala or simply puggala, as if famously used in reference to “the pairs of
  persons, the 8 individuals” (purisa,yugāni aṭṭha,purisa.puggalā) in the recollection of the noble community (saṅghânussati).

  Here, purisa refers to a “person,” which loosely refers to a being with some capacity for thought and
  will (in the sense of personal action).

  The Buddha has tamed animal persons (tiracchāna,purisa), such as the naga-rajah Apalāla, Cūḷodara, Mahodara, Aggi,sikha, Dhūma,sikha, the naga-rajah Āravāla, and the elephant Dhana,pālaka.

  He has tamed human persons (manussa,purisa), such as the young nirgrantha Saccaka, the brahmin
  youth Ambaṭṭha, Pokkhara,sāti, Soṇa,daṇa, and Kūṭa,danta.

  He has tamed non-human persons (amanussa,purisa), such as the yakshas Āḷavaka, Sūci,loma and
  Khara,loma, and Sakra, the lord of the devas.

  1.3.3.3 What is damma? The word damma (Skt damya)
  is an adjective, the gerundive of dameti
  (causative: Skt dāmyati), “to bring into the house, to domesticate; to tame, convert; to be restrained;
  especially with reference to tamable animals; figuratively, to humans to be tamed or converted.” Technically, damma means “to be tamed, or should be tamed,” but the context here clearly refers to the
  capacity or readiness of a being or person for taming—hence, “tamable.”

  “Tamable persons” (purisa,damma), that is, those to be trained, according to the Sutta are of 4 kinds:
  (1) those who are trained with gentleness; [1.3.4.1]
  (2) those who are trained with harshness; [1.3.4.2]
  (3) those who are trained both ways (with gentleness and with harshness); [1.3.4.3] and
  (4) those who cannot be trained at all: the untamable. [1.3.5]


Mindfulness of Watching Youtube I noticed that upon watching Youtube videos, I seem to become sucked into merely watching stuff online. I almost 'forget' to do other things. Oddly, this doesn't happen while reading online, or creating something.

Can one directly relate this to lack of mindfulness? Is any such instance of 'forgetting' usually linked with mindfulness?

More so, why might reading not generate this type of absorbed state?

Thank you

The technology/internet makes things more complex, makes the mind more active. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter other social media platforms or other internet sites etc.(and now with digital things people is able to engage in these things all the time because internet is not only in computers but now it is in people's "hands" all the time). One thing after another arises in the mind and people identify with everything that arises in their minds.

So people are in the mode of "This is important, another evil coming in!".."A text message..It must be important".."Somebody just posted something in facebook"..And the attention is completely absorbed by these things. It was bad already before the digital things but now it is amplified. It causes more stuff in the mind. One thought after another, one text message after another, one facebook post after another, one unpleasant memory or anxious thought after another. And imagine living like that for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. What kind of "person" would that life-style and mind state produce? Angry or anxious..Continuously dissatisfied..Continuously needing desperately the next thing. And life becomes permanently "never enough".

https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/86df2c99/dms3rep/multi/mobile/Internet_addicts_suffer_from_withdrawal_symptoms_Camino_Recovery-500x462.jpg

And it is same for the music as well. In the cafes they generaly play the same songs that becomes famous in the last times. I heard a song recently in a cafe that had this words: "I would not stop the blood that would shed for the sake of you". And I opened the youtube clip of the song and I saw that the singer is smiling with deep "joy" while saying these words. And I read the comments under that video-clip and countless of people wrote(and ofcourse still writing) praising, glorifying things about the singer and the song.

To give another example of the internet's effect on the human mind: I saw that an important character in another internet platform(And that person is the "idol", "guide", "teacher", "leader" admirable person for that group of people) had a picture that gives the message of glorifying and advocating killing.  The picture is no longer on that profile(in my computer I can't see a picture in that profile anymore) but we all know that these things exist in all of the internet world.

That's the reason why watching youtube, social media and many other things in internet makes people more absorbed than simple reading of harmless things.

The Buddhist path leads it's followers to realize that humans are not the reference point. Most areas of internet leads people to the opposite direction. While accepting and realizing this (humans are not the reference point) is the hardest thing for the meditators(but it is necessary to find permanent peace and freedom), it is not a useful thing to engage in internet too much. One of the best solution for these things is to have a sangha(living or spending a lot of time with meditators). As Thich Nhat Hanh said:"Don't be a drop of water". In many places of the world this is hard but in Western and Buddhist countries plus Australia this is possible. With having a Sangha a person can more easily save the mind from these things or at least diminish the time that s/he spends in the craziness of the internet world.

And yes it is about lack of mindfulness but internet world naturally leads people to unmindful state. So the solution is try to be mindful while spending the time internet and gradually spend less time. So the mindfulness would not diminish and replaced by the internet world's effects.


what is logic behind rebirth I was listening to this video, from Bhante Vimalaramsi. He says that one meditator experienced his past live and he had some pscotherapy before this. How is that possible?
Buddhist talk about mind stream which flows to another body when a body dies, well what is this mind stream? This is the conciousness right? Is that some kind of emf waves or similar to wave which science hasn't descovered yet?

You won't find one single answer which covers all traditions. Different Buddhist traditions have different interpretations of the mechanism of rebirth.

I think you are looking for something material which facilitates a movement of something from one life to the next. However, Buddhism doesn't require that the world governed by materialism. We can consider a world which is entirely driven by mental ideas or "the mind" as we call it.

Buddhists are not in agreement about how the world exists, some would say that the world doesn't exist. If you consider one of these traditions then you have to ask if it even makes sense for something to move from one body to the next life's body. Bodies can also be considered as being entirely constructed by the mind. Yogachara is an example of a Buddhist tradition which is "mind-only".


What would one encounter at a Buddhist temple service? With the understanding that there are many different traditions and cultures within Buddhism, I wonder if it is possible to describe what a newcomer might encounter if they went to a temple service and also what might be some handy things to know about before going.

For example, what is considered appropriate attire? Should one bring an offering and if so, what type? What occurs during the service? Chanting? Meditation? How long does a service usually last? Other than common courtesy, are there things that would be important to know to show proper respect?

Thanks and also it would be helpful if tradition/country might be noted along with any descriptions.

You'd be shocked at how much different each ceremony is — even inside the same temple/centre — because there are a multitude of completely different ones, most of which would be completely incomprehensible for someone who came to them for the first time.

One thing is for certain: no matter how outrageously strange the 'ceremony' looks like, it's almost always one of two kinds: either a teaching or a meditation session (one could also see a teaching as a meditation session, of course). The important thing to have in mind is that 'meditation' just means 'training the mind' — mostly to be more mindful, more aware — but there are a lot of completely different types of training! Traditionally, it is said that just Siddhārtha Gautama taught 84,000 different types of training! (But there are many more)

If you'd drop out of the blue into a Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhist temple in the middle of a purification ceremony held twice per month, for example, you'd be seeing a very formal-looking temple, but exotic and garish-looking, with very strange images. Caught in the middle of it, you might be seeing a group of practitioners, old and new, some in loose clothing, some in formal red robes, some in more complicated attire, all laughing, singing (not necessarily 'sacred' chants, just popular contemporary songs), dancing, telling rude jokes, while drinking and eating meat. Dogs would be howling, cats would be sitting on people's laps, and children might be running around making a lot of noise. You'd run quickly away thinking that these people were all crazy or simply not 'serious', but just pranksters...

But in fact each and very one of those people there (except perhaps for the cats, dogs, and children) would be practicing a very complex and advanced form of meditation, using all senses — smell, taste, sound — during one of the most important purification ceremonies.

Obviously this would require a lot of explaining! And even for a very experienced practitioner of a different tradition, such a ceremony would be utterly incomprehensible (at least without a thorough understanding of what that training is supposed to be accomplishing).

Come in on the next day, and you might see the exact same people just sitting on the ground in perfect and complete silence for endless minutes, looking quite serious about it — and then come out of the temple, laughing, joking, making trivial conversation, having fun together, even with the presiding teacher. Again, that completely opposite behaviour might startle many people.

I'm obviously pointing out the extremes. Like @Tommy suggested, the best is to start with some introductory class for beginners. These will often be relatively short, perhaps half an hour to an hour, and there will be a mix of easy-to-understand explanations about easy meditation techniques (easy in the sense that they are very simple to follow — but have profound effects!), followed by short sessions of silent meditation of a few minutes, then back to a few more explanations, and so forth. As the vision of that particular school or tradition is better explained, you might feel more encouraged to attend to the more esoteric practices, and not feel they're completely insane and alien — because you've learned to understand what they are all about.

A few tips should be common to every session you attend. Shoes are off and remain outside in all cases (socks are fine). The same applies to any head gear — hats, baseball caps, scarves. It's customary to stand up when the teacher enters the room (like during Grammar School!), wait for him or her to sit down, and only then take a seat. In less formal environments the teacher will greet the students, and greeting the teacher back is naturally good etiquette. Although Buddhism seriously encourages questions about anything we don't understand (the only stupid question is the one we don't ask), it's customary to leave questions for the Q&A session, and let the teacher speak without interruption unless he or she asks for something specifically to you (like your name!). The reason for that is not merely to 'show respect'. It's actually a training! You're supposed to be learning to pay attention to what is being taught, and, when having questions, remember them until the end of the teaching session — that way, you're both training in paying attention and training your memory (that's why a 'teaching session' is also simultaneously a form of meditation — in this case, training your mind to pay attention and remembering things). Good teachers will always ask students, before they engage into so-called formal meditation practice (what is usually known in the West as 'silent meditation'), if everybody has understood the instructions correctly. At this point it's very desirable to ask questions if there are any doubts about the instructions.

Although teachers are supposed to answer anything (and most will do so gladly), it's good manners to only ask questions about what is being taught. You might read from many transcripts of teachings given by the Dalai Lama that people, during Q&A, ask His Holiness about pretty much everything, even if completely unrelated to what he has been saying. This is impolite. If you have very pressing questions about any other subject, it's better to approach the teacher for a private session. Most will gladly concede those, depending on their availability and time. It's also far less disruptive for the group. On the other hand, allowing the teacher to explain everything without interruption most often will allow them to actually answering your question further on — you'll see that happens quite a lot.

More traditional (even if informal!) meditation sessions will start with a short recitation, and end with another one. This is part of the session itself; it's not a 'waste of time' by 'going religious' or 'superstitious'. Again, you might ask the teacher — at the end, when the session is over — why they recite things at the beginning and at the end. They will gladly explain it thoroughly.

Traditionally, at least in Vajrayana Buddhism, more experienced practitioners will also offer prostrations to the teacher. It is very important that you do not imitate them — unless you know exactly why they're doing that! In Buddhism, nothing is pointless; everything is practice; everything has a very specific meaning and a purpose, and it can rationally be argued and discussed. So, if you are a beginner, you should just sit down after the teacher does, let the other practitioners do their things, and just remain silent. Sitting down in silence is not a form of disrespect; a teacher will know you're new and eager to learn; and he or she will most definitely be glad to explain you what's the whole point in those rituals.

Offerings are not necessary, but obviously they're also welcome. Again, they have a very specific meaning, and — yes, you've guessed it! — they are also a form of meditation, a form of training your mind. In this case, it's a training in generosity — letting go of your attachment to money and other goods. Anything really can be offered, but the important thing is that you're not really offering anything to gain some benefit, get something in return, or just by blindly showing some respect. The practice of generosity is mostly for your own benefit: to learn the importance of letting go of attachments. I remember that I offered my first teacher — before he formally was my teacher — a jar of pickles, because I had heard he liked spicy foods :) So what exactly is offered is irrelevant.

Usually such offerings are made in a way that nobody else is seeing. The purpose here is not to 'show off'. If you can't give anything to the teacher while everybody's watching, you can just leave your gifts anywhere in the centre or temple. Don't worry if they get stolen or not, or if the teacher doesn't get your things for some reason; the whole purpose is for you to practice generosity. Once given away freely, your deed is done. What happens afterwards with your gifts is not your concern. This is often misunderstood, because one thinks that one should have some form of 'control' to what is being done with one's gifts! I have seen teachers who take money, for instance, thank you, and almost immediately afterwards give it to someone else. That even happens with way more precious gifts — golden watches or statues or jewelry. Remember, teachers are practitioners as well, and they also practice generosity towards others!

If you are planning to ask for a private meeting with the teacher, where you will be able to ask any question, it is customary to bring a special offering just to him or her personally. This is a sign that you understand perfectly that these teachings will have a profound meaning in your life: you will learn to be more alert, pay more attention, become a better person. And because that's so precious to you, you wish to show how thankful you are for this kind teacher to be able to spend some time with you. Traditionally, in Tibet, it's customary to offer some sticks of incense, which the teacher can always use for his or her own practice (be careful not to pick Indian incense, though, because it often contains animal fats which are not appropriate as an offering — animals had to be killed to produce that incense. If you're unsure, just ask in the temple or centre for appropriate incense to be given as offerings to a teacher) and something that you know that the teacher likes to eat — biscuits are typical, perhaps some chocolate, or something like that. In the case of a private meeting, offerings are usually given at the very beginning, before you start with your questioning.

When the session ends, students stand up immediately before the teacher does the same. There are a few conventions which vary slightly. Some teachers assume that if the students don't get up, they wish to learn more, and so the teacher will continue. Others, when seeing all students suddenly stand up, might interpret that as dismissing the teacher, which might be slightly offensive. Teachers well acquainted with Westerners will often say good-bye first, so everybody knows that it's time to stand up, and they will rise slowly, to allow everybody to stand up just in time. Prostrations are never made at the end, but it's customary to remain standing, slightly bowed, hands palms touching, always turning towards the teacher, until the teacher leaves the room.

Because Buddhism has its roots in Indian culture, some things might sound silly to us Westerners, but the traditions are kept. You should never turn your back to a representation of the Buddha — or to a teacher. That shows disrespect. That doesn't mean that you need to walk backwards all the way (and risk stumbling!) if you leave a temple with some statues, but you can definitely do that for a few backward steps (safety first! tradition next!). If your teacher comes from the Far East and is not acquainted with Western traditions, it is rude to stare them directly in the eyes (by contrast, a Western teacher, or an Eastern teacher well-acquainted with our traditions, will understand that staring directly in their eyes is a sign of paying close attention to what they're saying, which would be a sign of respect in our culture).

Pointing your feet to the teacher and/or any Buddha statues is also considered very rude. For the Indian tradition, the feet, because they are touching the mud and filth on the ground, are considered 'dirty'. So pointing them at objects worthy of respect is very impolite. If you really need to stretch your legs, do it sideways, so that your feet are not pointing to anyone. In the winter it's sometimes easier, temples might distribute some blankets, and so you can cover your feet that way.

If you're a beginner, and you cannot stay cross-legged for a long period, it's fine to ask for a chair if one is available. Sitting cross-legged is not even an 'Eastern' thing. Chinese, for instance, use chairs. The Japanese 'sit' by kneeling down. So there is no fixed rule for what 'has' to be done when attending ceremonies or teachings. However, Vajrayana Buddhism has some very advanced meditation techniques which require sitting down cross-legged, which will be explained to you why — in due time. In the mean time, in the West, many temples might have some chairs, and it's neither rude, nor impolite, to ask to be allowed to sit there. In fact, if you can sit down and remain still in your chair, it's far better than be constantly stretching legs, arms, back, etc. because you cannot (yet) remain still cross-legged. It's also far less disturbing for others. When sitting down, you should not cross your legs, nor play with them, sit sideways, etc. The appropriate way is to sit down with both legs parallel to each other, feet well planted in the ground, your back straight.

Inside the centre or temple, it is very rude to speak of anything futile or trivial (except on those very exceptional occasions mentioned at the beginning!), but Buddhists are supposed to be happy, easy-going people, so they just have their fun outside. It's not 'hypocrisy' to 'behave well' inside and be a jokester outside — it's only important to understand that, one one hand, Buddhists take their practice very seriously, but the result of that practice is a way of happiness — so being too serious, too worried, too stressed, too stiff is definitely not a good sign! Buddhists are easy-going and certainly behave that way outside the centres or temples! Just look at the Dalai Lama, he's always smiling, laughing, telling jokes, amusing himself with silly things, and pretty much spreading that easy-going nature of his to everybody around him. But inside a temple he's serious.

Good teachers, however, will also teach in an informal way. This is specially the case in the Nyingma and Kagyü schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It's not unusual for a teacher to tell jokes, illustrate a complex point of doctrine with a hilarious anecdote, and, in general, make the students relaxed and in a good mood. Of course, visiting teachers who come for the first time to a specific temple will be much more formal, because they might not know what the reaction of the audience will be. You can certainly see that a teacher who has come to a centre often — or who is a resident at that centre — will most certainly have a much more informal way of teaching.

In a Vajrayana temple, all objects and images you see there are 'special', in the sense that you have to be given special teachings to understand their purpose. You're still welcome to ask about anything, but please refrain from touching anything. In particular, you should not touch anything belonging to the teacher — or to other practitioners. Vajrayana temples have musical instruments around, but, again, they're not toys, and their purpose is not really just making musical sounds — there are far more profounder meanings in the music — and they are not to be handled unless you have been given special instructions and explanations about them. This sounds a bit crazy and secretive, but you can imagine how you would feel if a visitor to your place would start opening the drawers and look at your underclothing and ask strange questions. Of course, if that visitor happens to be your sweetheart or someone very close to you, you would share a certain degree of intimacy, and then you'll let them do that to your home easily. Vajrayana Buddhism is a bit like that: once you have some 'intimacy' with the whole philosophy and the whole point of the practice, then, yes, slowly, you'll be able to touch everything, do everything... and, in fact, it will even be a requirement. In many Vajrayana temples, new visitors might be shocked that suddenly one of the other practitioners start to do the practice without a supervising teacher, or even teach some meditation techniques, etc. There is no real 'dividing line' between 'student' and 'teacher'. A teacher becomes a teacher when their own teacher tells them to do so! So, every time you see someone who is dressed just like you, very casually, all of the sudden leading a meditation session or more complex ceremony on their own, you can rest assured that they have been given explicit permission from their own teachers to do so. In fact, they're practicing to become teachers one day. And the first thing that they all learn is how to do everything — because teachers will die some time, and who will continue their work?

Books with recitations or anything related to the teachings of the Buddha should never be touched or handled without permission, and never ever placed in the ground. You should also never place anything on top of them — not even your glasses (if you use glasses to read). The reason for that is that these books contain the precious instructions that will teach you how to train your mind, to become more functional, a gentler being, a better person. Even if they're just photocopies of something scribbled down in a hurry, they're the most precious things you can find. As such, they are to be handled respectfully. If, before a meditation session, they handle out some plain printouts of the recitations, or some instructions, don't place them on the ground. They might look very simple and plain, but they're nevertheless very precious. And, for practical purposes, it also means that you are not spoiling them, making them dirty and unreadable, thus contributing that the next person who gets them to read can benefit from them as well. Not all Buddhist groups are wealthy enough to be constantly printing out things!

Most groups will also not give you their books or photocopies of the recitations, etc. This is not due to a lack of generosity of their part! One difference from Buddhism to other religions and philosophies is that you cannot learn anything from a book — just from a teacher. Books are just memory aids — things to remind you what you're supposed to do. But without a teacher to explain you what is meant, they're worthless — to anyone who doesn't understand them. As such, they're not easily given away. Instead, you should always ask the teacher for permission to get a copy. A teacher will know if you really intend to practice those instructions seriously, and, if that's the case, he will be most glad to give a copy or allow you to buy them. But if he's not sure yet that you intend to follow the practice as he instructed, then he will politely decline to allow you a copy.

Many teachers practice generosity towards their students. Some teachers are really not wealthy and give away everything; so the slightest gift is very important, and also a form of test. For example, it's rude not to accept something to eat or drink from a teacher. When he offers you food or drink, he or she is symbolically offering you the teachings of the Buddha — this is the most generous offer he or she can make to you. So even if you're full from your last meal, or even ill with some stomach disease, accept at least a tiny morsel of what the teacher is giving to you. This will give the teacher confidence in you: if you're willing to accept food from him or her, you will very likely be willing to accept teachings from them as well.

Last, but most definitely not least, but rather the contrary: Buddhism is a very thorough philosophy/way of life/religion/science of the mind with a vast amount of literature. Over 2,600 years of discussion and debate have been recorded by millions of teachers. As a result, it's profoundly logical and rational at every level. While externally there might be some rituals and some rules to observe, all of them have some logic behind you. So, the beginner's mind should be a questioning mind. Question everything. Be skeptical, but open-minded enough to ask everything. Think the answers over: do they make sense to you? Are the arguments rational and well-presented? If so, accept the answers, and turn them as if they were your own. If they don't make any sense to you, reject them. Siddhārtha Gautama himself said, quite clearly, that nobody should take his words for granted, just because he is called the Buddha. Instead, you should think them over very carefully and see if they make sense. If not, and you're still curious about Buddhism, ask away — ask as much as you can to see if you can clear away each and any doubt you have. Be wary of 'teachers' who refuse to answer your questions, or come up with some technical mumbo-jumbo which might sound impressive but really doesn't make any sense. Buddhist teachers do not try to 'impress' students, or 'convert' them. Instead, they describe methods and techniques, and expect students to ask them 'why does this work?' — but also that they are willing to experiment those techniques and see if they work for themselves. It's a very experimental philosophy: it makes little sense to read about Buddhism — except if you wish to put it into practice, which is the whole point.

Oh, I forgot to say: make sure you get a qualified teacher to ask your questions. A qualified teacher is someone who has been asked by their own teachers to teach. And you're certainly allowed to ask any teacher, 'who told you that you're allowed to teach?' Any serious, qualified teacher will have absolutely no problem in answering that question truthfully — and you're quite welcome to check if it's true!

I, for sure, am not a qualified teacher :) But I try to help when asked to the limit of my abilities; all I know was what my poor memory retained from the words of my excellent teachers. So all mistakes I make are only mine — not a flaw of the teachings of the Buddha, and most certainly no flaws from my own teachers.


Is the experience of suffering or enjoyment completely reducible to physics e.g. such as in materialist views i.e. materialism? What do you think?

I believe the experience of suffering or enjoyment is not equivalent and is not reducible to physics e.g. things like "repulsion", "attraction" etc.

I cannot see "suffering" or "enjoyment" arising out of or being equivalent to forces, force,energy, waves, atoms etc. no matter how one configures it.

It seems suffering cannot be reduced to "energy", waves etc. in the same way that hearing cannot be reduced to seeing.

Your question is quite interesting because it starts out with an openness regarding identity view. Awesome! You ask about what is and are puzzled at the rise of feelings pleasant, painful or neutral. You ask whether we have experimental evidence for such feelings and equations for them. Indeed, you might well be asking for the wave equation for "self" or "consciousness".

An interesting read that delves into the five grasping aggregates is SN22.80 With Khemaka. Khemaka is gravely ill, perhaps dying, and the monks are very worried for him. So they keep pestering him with Dhamma questions in an effort to rouse him and cheer him up.

  Reverend Khemaka, the seniors say that these five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is:
  the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Do you regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self?’

This Dhamma dialogue is relayed by poor Reverend Dāsaka, who runs back and forth between Khemaka and the senior monks, relaying questions and answers again and again.

Finally, the exasperated Khemaka rouses himself from his almost deathbed and limps over to the senior monks. And what he says is quite remarkable:

  For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.

Regarding the nature of physical forces, I think that might be a simple confusion here resulting from the inadequacy of terminology. The attraction of two masses to each other is a nature of space-time, not the ephemeral "I love you, love you not" that the Buddha addresses. The Buddha addresses suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path to that cessation. Without physics.

To understand suffering (dukkha), we are given the rather perplexing:

  Everything this individual experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.

However, for those seeking deeper causes, we have in MN1, that

  Delight is the root of suffering

This small phrase (Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti) is the E=mc2 of MN1, The Root of All Things. This is the canonical statement of the "I love you, I love you not" dilemma. Yet it goes much deeper, since we are led to explore further into how nandī generates dukkhassa. And THAT is dependent origination (search SE Buddhism).

On a side note, physics is the science of modeling the physical for predictability. Per DN33, there are three ways to see and study the world with:

  the eye of the flesh, the eye of clairvoyance, and the eye of wisdom. --DN33

If we say that physics is the second, let us consider that Buddhism is the third. Remember that physics gave us Hiroshima. Buddhism has a different goal. The ending of suffering.


Sleep, references to the buddha and other arhats I have heard on various occasions that the Buddha slept very little. I was wondering if there is any theory out there that explains this. I was also looking for some specific reference in the literature that can attest to this.

My question doesn't refer specifically to the buddha, it could refer to any trained person.

Thanks.

I have heard on various occasions that the Buddha slept very little. I was also looking for some specific reference in the literature that can attest to this.

One of the most common references in the early texts is the wakefulness (jāgariya) pericope:

  "And how is the disciple of the noble ones devoted to wakefulness?
  There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, sitting & pacing
  back & forth, cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the
  mind in check. During the first watch of the night [dusk to 10 p.m.],
  sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any qualities
  that would hold the mind in check. During the second watch of the
  night [10 p.m. to 2 a.m.], reclining on his right side, he takes up
  the lion's posture, one foot placed on top of the other, mindful,
  alert, with his mind set on getting up. During the last watch of the night [2 a.m.
  to dawn], sitting & pacing back & forth, he cleanses his mind of any
  qualities that would hold the mind in check. This is how the monk is
  devoted to wakefulness."
  -MN 53, Trainee Practice

Notice that, in the second watch, sleep (niddā) is not mentioned. It mentions only lying down on the right side in the lion's posture (dakkhiṇena passena sīhaseyyaṃ kappeti). This could be an indication of not sleeping at all and continuing to practice mindfulness while, at the same time, resting the body.
On the other hand, the absence of the line "he cleanses his mind of any qualities that would hold the mind in check", which is included in the first and last watch, may indicate a less active practice or even sleeping.

I'm sure there are more references regarding this theme but I don't recall any additional ones at the moment.


Parents suppressing the teaching I love my parents, but for some reason they do not understand my teaching and misinterpret what I say and won't listen to me. Their misinterpretations led them to take all of my books on Buddhism I was studying as well as prevent me from meditation whenever I try or try to be mindful of doing anything, they prevent me from having to do with the Buddha's teachings (However, I can still do online things in secret as you can see). They say that when I leave the house or grow to a sufficient age, then I can resume, but for now, they have the right to take away my religion basically and it is really putting a hard toll on my spiritual growth and practice for purity. They hope it will fade away, but I have used the Dhamma as my practice for two years now and I have grown to know its truth, unlike my parents.

Does anyone have any recommendations on what I should do? Are there
any ways I can continue the practice even though my parents work
effortlessly for me not to do so? How can I work to show metta to them
when I want to but get frustrations when they push away my teachings
or speak as if Buddhism is a "cult" that makes me anti-social and a
bad person, even though I have explained all of it to them?

Please help! Metta!

You should not be teaching your parents Buddhism. It is forbidden in Buddhism to teach others Buddhism; unless the other people request to be taught (AN 9.5).

You should not be practising "zombie mindfulness" in sight of your parents because this will freak them out. As a Buddhist, your practise is to not cause harm or distress to others. In your parent's home, when with others, you should act naturally and normally.

Apart from this, there is nothing stopping you from meditating in private and also practising right speech, right action & right livelihood in public.

Buddhism (DN 31) says your parents have the duty to train you for a profession, i.e., ensure you receive an education. Your Buddhism should not interfere with your schooling and education.


Is there a way to hasten the results of bad deeds The law of cause and effect is unchangeable and we must face the consequences of the Karmas done through body, speech and mind.

However, is it possible to hasten the manifestation of the results of bad deeds so that we can face them and be free. Is there any sutta or any practise that anyone knows that we can do to achieve this?

The law of cause and effect is unchangeable and we must face the consequences of the Karmas done through body, speech and mind.

Only the five heinous crimes are guaranteed to manifest their results. According to what I have been told, others need a suitable environment/conditions to manifest at percent/future. But this is not entirely in your control.

Ex:- If you have in the past get involved in fights and beat up people, you would build up karma to eventually get beaten up in a fight. Because it is only natural and fully inline with dependent arising that you will over time keep increasing your abrasive nature and eventually meet your match. However if you stop getting involved in fights, that probability will be greatly reduced. But it is possible that someone from the past who held a grudge against you, plot revenge against you and succeed at a moment that you are weak.


Deep emptiness (nothingness) while meditating When meditating mom claims that she enters in to deep emptiness and she would reside in that emptiness for the whole period. She also says she can’t even feel her breath or her self. She’s bit lost ATM. Any suggestions on this? Any reference preferably in Sinhalese if possible?

Provided that your mom is well and healthy, your description fits with the buddhist perception of emptiness (sunyata). It's not dangerous, and the experiences could be the result of a progressed concentration thanks to meditation.

In short, sunyata can be described as a state during meditation - just like you described it - but it also has connections to a way of perceiving the world, in a general sense.

Below is a link that discusses the phenomenon, as well as referring to relevant suttas:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html

(Perhaps an online translation service can help to display this content in sinhala)

Lastly, an unsolicited advice would be to consult a buddhist monastery, where you might be able to recieve some more substantial guidance from experienced practicioners.


Rebuke of Jains - resource after Bodhis approach Recently Ven. Thanissaro sacrified a lot of effort and time, to make certain Jain-ish approaches via the Buddhas better understandable.

  The Limits of Description : Not-self Revisited. A response to a critique of Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu’s essay, “The Not-self Strategy” (available in the essay collection, Noble & True). (Also available as pdf format)

Now, it would be maybe good to read Bhikkhu Bodhis previous critic.

Does any one know if there is a non-commercial shared copy avaliable? And if, maybe possible to be quoted.

Here is a reference to the critique, provided by Nyom Chris, the topic is about:

  These reflections were sparked recently by reading a critique of an article I wrote in 1993, called “The Not-self Strategy.” ... The critique—“Anattā as Strategy and Ontology,” written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi—was brought to my attention just over a month ago, even though it has apparently been around for some time.

Using Google I only find it in a book:

Title -- Investigating the dhamma : a collection of papers
Author -- Bhikkhu Bodhi, edited by Bhikkhu Nyanatusita
Published -- Kandy, Sri Lanka : Buddhist Publication Society, 2015

Here is a copy of the introduction, taken from a Google preview of the book:

So far as I know there's no free/electronic copy of the book.

The summary of the book on Amazon says,

  This book brings together eight essays of Bhikkhu Bodhi, five of which were earlier published in academic journals and volumes, and three not published before. Most of the essays are critical responses to various modern interpretations of the Dhamma that the author considers to be at odds with the Buddha’s teachings, in particular as transmitted and interpreted by the Theravada school of Buddhism. The other essays are in depth discussions of important Buddhist doctrinal terms.


What was Buddha's purpose in constructing The Four Stages of Enlightenment? I can see the major to entering this path as being quite significant: the seeing through ones own imagination of their self. I also see that this four stage progression must be held onto quite loosely as one could become lost in defining their selves as sotapanna for instance and living out the identity of being someone who has seen through their identity.

However, what practical use can one obtain from using the four stages?

The four stages define what the basis of enlightenment is, namely, losing the belief in an inherent self ("stream-entry") ; and, at the same time, further define what full enlightenment is ("arahant"), namely, the complete uprooting of greed, hatred & delusion. Therefore, if you or a teacher (guru) still has lust, hatred or selfishness then this means full enlightenment has not been reached.

For example, there are many intellectuals (e.g. Sam Harris) who speak and act to give an impression they are enlightened because they speak theories about "no self". However, if we examine their other views and beliefs, we can work out if they are really enlightened or not.

Or there is a certain chat site where members claim to practise "jhana" yet they also post about their sexual lusts. Since a master of jhana will be at least a once-returner but often a non-returner, any significant lust should not arise in a once-returner or non-returner.

The same applies to us. The four stages are a guide to us of the level of (our) enlightenment. They are not for boasting but for the opposite. They are so we do not overestimate our experience.


Learning about buddhism through text only I am legally deafblind. Any form of videos, images, audio, ..., so any media apart from text is difficult to access for me. Hence, even though I'm interested in Buddhism, I struggle to figure out if this is indeed my type of faith.
Going to a Buddhist community would probably be the best way to find out, but due to the pandemic, all in-person meetings in my area are canceled. There seem to be good online courses out there, but most of them are video-based.
So my question is: Are there books about Buddhism that could help me understand and perhaps start practising Buddhism without requiring video instructions on e.g. meditation? Or is physical or at least visual guidance absolutely necessary?

The website voice.suttacentral.net is designed for users with visual impairments. This website will let you search the suttas and it may be possible to read them with your braille device. For example, one can search for One thing can be developed.
Voice is dedicated to accessibility for Early Buddhist Texts and translations hosted on SuttaCentral. Indeed, we'll gladly adjust the site as we can to make it more accessible for you.
Your Braille screen reader should be able to navigate Voice.suttacentral.net much easier than the SuttaCentral website.


What are the Ānāpānasati Kammaṭṭhāna as Taught By Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero I am curious to know how Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero teachers Ānāpānasati. Does he follow the 16 stage instructions or perhaps something similar to the 8 step method1 or combination of both or something different with or without overlap.

NB: In answering this please make this a self contained answer without having to navigate links and audio files.

1
Anapana Sati Meditation on Breathing by Ven. Mahathera Nauyane Ariyadhamma

Mainly it is concentrating on one's breath as "l'm inhaling short, I'm exhaling short" or otherwise "I'm inhaling long, I'm exhaling short".

This is what Lord Buddha asks us to do in the beginning. He also says this meditation isn't for everybody. This meditation isn't the only way to understand the Four Noble Truths.

Official Website: http://mahamevnawa.lk/

Meditation Section:
http://mahamevnawa.lk/meditation/

You can find English sessions of Sound Cloud in that website and might find English guides on meditation.

The thero also published a book in sinhalese called É Ama Nivan Suwa Bohoo Dura Nowe (ඒ අමා නිවන් සුව බොහෝ දුර නොවේ - The Nirvana is not that far away) which explains Maha Satipattana Sutta, which contains the above form of breathing. Buddha states also to note that the breath isn't me, mine or my soul (hence the book contains it).