Fathersday - how would a western disciple of the Buddha make use of this fest? How and why would a "modern" or "western" follower of the Buddhas teaching celebrate this day, and use it to pay gratitude to his father as one of his/here first God and the other three Gods?

Maybe you like to share also how you fullfill this duty personaly to give others inspirations and ideas, meaning: Be not greedy in sharing possible merits you do or have done.

(Note: This question is given as a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains)

My father is dead but I try to go the extra mile and help--really help my eldest uncle and those closest to my father in ways that I can whether it is:

psychologically and emotionally supportive by giving happy thoughts and emotions and not supporting negativity
virtually supportive (I work in IT so I know most things that are useful) by setting up phone, accounts, etc.
reminisce about my father's good qualities and actions frequently with family, ignoring the bad


Is there any significance to shaving the head? I have noticed when I look at Buddhists, or Buddhist monks, that they have shaved heads. Is there any significance to that?  If so, then is it an obligation for Buddhists, or at least Buddhist monks to shave their heads?

First of all, lay Buddhists are not required to shave their heads, only the monks and nuns.
In most Buddhist traditions it is a custom/rule that when you become a monk or nun (a.k.a. Bhikkhu) you have to shave your head.
There are also monastic rules that say that a Bhikkhu is not allowed to grow hair beyond a certain length or time.

The hair of the head should not be worn long. It should be shaved at least every two months or when the hair has grown to a length of two fingerbreadths — whichever occurs first, says the Commentary.
The beard should not be grown long, although — unlike the hair of the head — there is no explicit maximum length, unless the two month/two fingerbreadth rule is meant to apply here as well.

(source: page 14 and 15 of the Buddhist Monastic Code II)
Several reasons have been given as to why these rules exist:

One of the first things Gautama Siddhartha (who became the Buddha) supposedly did when he left his palace and started looking for a way to defeat old age, sickness and death, was to shave off his hair and beard. Bhikkus show their commitment by doing the same.

Shaving our head symbolizes cutting off confusion, hostility, and attachment (source)

Shaving your hair removes the risk of vanity and allows you to focus on more important things than combing and fixing your hair every day.

Hygienic reasons

By looking less attractive, celibacy (another monastic rule) becomes easier (at least that's what this author claims, I'm not sure about the validity of this myself).


Eradication of the Five Hindrances Is there any stage, along the 'supermundane paths' to enlightenment, where the Five Hindrances to meditation are destroyed forever?

I think that the answer is 'yes, progressively'.

When you say "supermundane paths", this says,

  According to the Abhidhamma, 'supermundane path', or simply 'path' (magga), is a designation of the moment of entering into one of the 4 stages of holiness - Nibbāna being the object - produced by intuitional insight (vipassanā) into the impermanence, misery and impersonality of existence, flashing forth and forever transforming one's life and nature.

Therefore, 'supermundane path' means the same thing as Four stages of enlightenment.
In each of these stages, there's the corresponding abandoning of more and more of the various 'fetters'.
This link says that the five hindrances include the ten fetters, and there's a table that says at which supermundane stage each hindrance is eradicated.


Buddhism, mothers and earthworms My first exposure to Buddhism was watching Seven Years in Tibet in my German childhood. Most memorable were the following two scenes of Buddhist monks in orange robes.

In the one scene, some monks were carefully making a large picture out of coloured sand in a room with large windows. Upon completion (after one year of labour), the monks would simply open the window to let the wind carry the picture away.

In the other scene, monks were very carefully turning soil. Apparently the monks had to be especially careful not to harm any earthworms, because, according to their belief, their mothers would be reincarnated as earthworms.

Needless to say, I found it very arbitrary at best that mothers should be reincarnated as earthworms and was troubled by this first impressions for the next decade or so. Unfortunately, I still haven't been able to solve this mystery.

So my question is, as it has been for many years, is there any connection between mothers and earthworms in Buddhism?

I'm pretty sure the belief is not that earthworms become mothers, it's that every earthworm has most likely been your mother at some point in the past, as per the mata sutta (SN 15.14-19):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

So, the point is that the love and care we have for our mothers should really extend to all beings, since we are all intimately related - a corollary is that your boy/girlfriend has also probably been both your mother and your father at one point :)


What community activities do monks in southest asia take part in? I often read about monks have little free time in their schedules but aside from teaching other monks I am not sure what they do with all their time. I have seen monks in Tibet working in an orphanage and monks in Thailand giving public talks.
Aside from this what involvement with the community do monks have (excluding dana)?

They try to fulfill   "Muni vrutha" - Muni's=Saga's, vrutha=Duty.
refer - Nalaka sutta.
[Nalaka:]  I ask you, Gotama, you who have gone to the beyond of all things. I'm intent on the homeless life; I long for the almsround. Tell me sage, when I ask you, the utmost state of sagacity.
[The Buddha:]
I'll explain to you a sagacity hard to do, hard to endure.
Come now, I'll tell you.
Be steadfast. Be firm.
Practice even-mindedness, for in a village there's praise & abuse.
Ward off any flaw in the heart. Go about calmed & not haughty.
High & low things will come up like fire-flames in a forest.
Women seduce a sage. May they not seduce you.
Abstaining from sexual intercourse,……..


What does mass donation of the Dhamma mean? What does mass donation of the Dhamma mean?

How is that done?

Does it include promotion of the Dhamma in public places or the Internet to vast audiences?

According to Itivuttaka 100:

  "There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

Here are a couple of lines of Pali (the first two lines of the verse at the end of the sutta):

“Yo dhammayāgaṃ ayajī amaccharī,
Tathāgato sabbabhūtānukampī ;

Here are the same lines from the translation quoted in the question:

He who, unstinting,
made the mass-donation of Dhamma,

Here are the same lines from another translation:

The Tathāgata has made the Dhamma-offering,
Unselfish, compassionate towards all beings;

Looking at the Pali, I think it's saying:

dhammayāgaṃ -- gift of dhamma
ayajī -- something to do with offering or sacrifice?
amaccharī -- without being a miser
Tathāgato -- the Tathagata

That just leaves sabbabhūtānukampī to translate.

I think that sabba means "all" or something like that ... that must be where the "mass" translation is coming from

And bhūtā means something like "a being".

And kampī, I'm not sure, maybe perhaps being "still" or "not trembling" ... or maybe the second translation above suggests that this bit somehow means "compassionate"

Anyway, the Pali suggests to me that the "all" there is associated with the "beings" (i.e. "to all beings") -- and that agrees with the second English translation that I quoted.
So I thik that what's translated as "mass-donation" in the first translation means "donation to all" ... i.e. that the Tathagata gave the dhamma to all beings.
But maybe the sutta (both the Pali and the second translation) is really saying, more literally ...

making the dhamma-offering unselfishly
the Tathagata (and something: compassionate, maybe) to all beings

... i.e. maybe the offering-of-dhamma wasn't "to all" ... and instead only the kampī (i.e. the stillness or compassion or whatever that means) was "to all beings" ... maybe the text could be read either way. This latter way might be more compatible with other suttas: e.g. he was teaching "those with little dust in their eyes" and so on, rather than everyone.

I don't understand though why the word "mass" also appears in previous lines of the translation you're using (because "sabb..." doesn't appear there, in the Pali: it's only in the verse).
Maybe this is the clearer or more straightforward, more literal translation:

The Dhamma-offering

This was said by the Lord…
“Bhikkhus, I am a brahmin, ever accessible to entreaties, open-handed, one bearing his last body, an unsurpassed physician and surgeon. You are my own legitimate sons, born from my mouth, born of Dhamma, fashioned by Dhamma, heirs of Dhamma, not heirs of material things.
“Bhikkhus, there are these two kinds of giving: the giving of material things and the giving of the Dhamma. Of these two kinds of giving, this is the foremost, namely, the giving of the Dhamma. There are these two kinds of sharing … these two kinds of help … these two kinds of offerings: the offering of material things and the offering of the Dhamma. Of these two kinds of offering, this is the foremost, namely, the offering of the Dhamma.”
The Tathāgata has made the Dhamma-offering,
Unselfish, compassionate towards all beings;
Living beings revere such a one,
Gone beyond being, as chief of devas and humans.


Causation without causes I just reread Bachelor's translation of MMK.

It struck me that the argument against causation was that:

A cause has no essence in addition to what it is, else it would not be the final cause. But it must have an essence if it is to be active for more than a moment.

So everything is radically impermanent: and nothing exists long enough to be born and then cease.

And so everything that is born and ceases is empty, it is not a final cause.

Any conditioned entity is then a mere conventional designation, something which can be identified in a better way (and on forever) and so is always incorrectly identified.

But I was reading about Sautrantika-Yogacara, and the idea that "existents" which aren't unique particulars aren't causally real. This to me seems wrong, I think we can eliminate the unique particulars from a theory and be left with something which is grounded in the particulars' causal properties. This is what some scientific realists do.

My question

Assuming it true that there can be causation without causes, then is there any way to argue that the sentences of science, with their unique particulars eliminated, are not conceptually constructed?

Perhaps because only those particulars are as such, and so empty; and our ideas about the rest of the world can be grounded in them, without that structure being thereby empty.

The Enlightened One taught that there is no cause or "creator" that was eternal or has immortality, such as; a soul or supreme being that was empirically knowable. The Buddha taught that there was causal conditions that are observable in the material world of form and in the conscious dispositionally conditioned state (samskrta). Simply put, the Buddha did not teach eternalism or annihilationism but that everything/everyone is streaming headlong towards becoming.  Perhaps an example might be useful.  A plant seed does not have an inherent cause within it.  It cannot become a tree in and of it's own.  The potentiality might be there but the tree is not evident.  The seed will not germinate without other causal factors; soil, water, temperature, atmosphere, and etc.  It is the causal conditions of these all these things that then cause the seed to germinate.  Once the seed has germinated, we now have the sprout.  Where did the seed go?  And, we no longer conceptualize the seed but the sprout.  Eventually, we may or may not have a tree because there are other factors (causal conditions) that may effect the tree's growth and longevity.
Even emptiness is empty of a state of a substantiality. Dependent arising is not a string of "moments" but a continuous flow of becoming.  If you are looking for a metaphysical cause ( "a final cause" , a "forever" something) that, is simply not evident.  What the Buddha taught was the means to end the general dissatisfaction we have with life and not a metaphysical philosophy. Nibbana is that liberation from dissatisfaction.


What's the difference between a "primordial consciousness" and a soul? It seems certain Buddhist groups have come to believe in something they call the "luminous mind" or the "primordial consciousness"; in essence, a mind that is lasting, stable, and assumedly pleasant.

From a Theravada point of view, this is terribly problematic; if this mind is able to know multiple consecutive objects, then it is indistinguishable from multiple cittas arising and ceasing, and thus not lasting at all. The idea that there is something lasting from moment to moment sounds very much like the concept of a soul. How does it differ? Or is the point that these Buddhists do believe in a soul?

"Luminous mind" in pali is pabhassara citta.

There will always be a problem when we start translating: citta, sometimes as consciousness, sometimes as mind; and there is another word in pali, vinnana, which is sometimes translated as mind, discriminating mind etc.

In my understanding of pali translation, translation of the use of a pali word is dependent on context, precedence and a whole host of other things.

There are opinions that to translate the cannon, understanding its context, the translator would have to have some experience of Buddhist meditation to get its flavour. If we say that is so, then how do we know that the translator is not incorporating his experience, basic or advance into his translation? If it is necessary and desirable then an advanced practitioner's translation would be much preferred, than to one who has no experience at all (if it is even possible to translate without any Buddhist meditative experience). We are after all talking about practice and experience.

Putting the problem of translation aside I'm going to decipher, IMHO, my understanding and translation of citta, vinnana and phabassara citta.

First I would quickly translate vinnana as mind or discriminating mind, and put that aside or away as not concerned with citta, which is translated as consciousness and phabassara citta, which would be luminous consciousness.

As we all know from our Abhidhamma there is only ONE consciousness (citta) and because of the many different mental contents (cetasikas) that arise with it we get different flavours of citta ( 89 flavours) etc...

Now what is this ONE citta?
And what is this arising and ceasing of the different flavours of citta, if it is not this one citta?
What does it mean for the citta to cease: does it mean to disappear into nothingness or disappear into something?

If it is nothingness, where does what makes up the citta and mental contents (call it energies, tendencies or whatever) goes and how does it arise again from its cessation? If its further arising is due to tendencies, where are these tendencies stored when the citta disappear?
If it is something, it must only be citta as there is nothing else that is other than citta.

It takes a lot of faith to believe that the citta disappears into nothingness and then arises again from nothingness almost intact with its kammic tendencies untouched.

What other traditions have explained (including the Thai forest Theravadin tradition, through the experiences of accomplished meditation masters like Ajahn mun) is that, that one citta that we have been talking about is the phabassara citta, "luminious consciousness/mind(loosely)" or primordial mind, clear light mind, buddha nature, bodhicitta, etc..

That the arising and ceasing of consciousness is "apparent". These flavours of consciousness arises and ceases within the "primodial consciousness" which is as yet, unseen, and seemed like nothingness. That is where avijja lies, where all the kammic tendencies are stored, the primordial consciousness.

How do we know it is there when it seemed like nothingness?

In a yet unenlightened being it is just "awareness". When the mind is empty it has this basic quality of "awareness and knowing" in an advanced practitioner and "awareness and knowing" has no shape or form?

In the end when we truly see it, it can be described as "consciousness without surface".

I've not found any description of soul that matches what I've said, so I'll pass it.

EDITS:  (I've added further explanations in my comments with @Sankha below)

  With a primordial consciousness, pabhassara citta ( which can be compared to an ocean with its waves), which is "stained" with kamma craving energies, creating the waves of these "apparent" arising and ceasing of the kusala/akusala/kiriya cittas, we continue to have the arising of the cuti (death) citta followed by the patisandhi (re-birth linking) cita.

At the end when craving is ended there is only the kiriya cittas waves in an Arahant's mind. When the last wave of the cuti citta ceased into the primordial consciousness, this primordial consciousness purified is the only permanent pure awareness, the nibanna without remainder, unestablished.

There is nothing that I've said that is not in accord with the Abhidhamma with only the addition that other traditions have added, that the ceasing is not into nothingness but into a primordial consciousness. What is the primordial consciousness in different traditions? Is it permanent?


Different transmissions for reciting various versions of a same mantra acc. to any of Vajrayana branches Tashi delek! My question concerns the mantra reciting in Vajrayana tradition, where some Buddhist deities (not to be confused with the mundane ones) may have several versions of a same mantra.

That is, a mantra of a same deity may be either longer or shorter according to different sutras and dharanis.

In Vajrayana, it is also very important to receive a direct transmission of energy from guru (lama) before reciting any mantra.

My question is, can a Vajrayana practitioner recite another version of the same mantra if she or he has already (in a given reincarnation) received from her or his guru a transmission for receiting another version of the same mantra?

A reference to any root texts of any Vajrayana branch (Gelug, Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu or Jonang) would be a great help.

This is a very partial answer because I can provide no textual reference.

Differences between mantras of the same deity are of two types:

In terms of length (short version / long version)
In terms of category

For instance: Vajrasattva has (1) a short mantra, (2) a long mantra, and (3) a mantra associated with its wratful aspect, that is another category, such as 'Heruka Vajrasattva'.

Generally, there is no objection for practitioners who received an initiation to recite both short and long version of a mantra of the same deity. As to reciting the mantra of another category/aspect of that same deity (in the given example, that of Heruka Vajrasattva), you must ask your teacher. In Kopan monastery - and so Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche - they do allow one to recite Heruka to those who took just Vajrasattva. If you are not a student of his, ask your own teacher.


Buddhism and the surrounding environment EDIT

At the request of yuttadhammo and Lanka, i am attempting to focus the question. Please let me know if it still remains unclear.

The environment is full of daily encounters through the physical, visual, auditory, mental and emotional faculties. Some of these interactions are positive in that they help promote the well being of one-self and other whilst others are negative.

It seems all is an illusion especially when some of these interactions out-weigh the other e.g. positive vs negative and vice versa. Often this feels like a battle to bring more positive in light of the negative. The emotional and mental effort required to keep forging ahead seems futile. Repeatedly i am told that meditation is the path however i fail to see how when it seems that it is intended more for me than for me and others.

I feel like a battered and wounded lion or soldier. I feel lost. Concepts are unedifying since they further cloud the situation e.g. where truth end and lies start, where right and wrong are right and wrong, etc

What does one do?

Original Question

The definition of environment in the context of the question is to do with the daily encounters one has with the world be it through physical interaction, auditory, visual, emotional or mental. Each day, these interactions are positive or negative. An example of positive may be someone assists another in need of help. An example of negative may be when someone is not conducive to the problem or issue at hand or a war stricken land.

Sometimes the positive outweigh the negative and vice versa. Sometimes it feels like a battle to bring positive possibilities as you are attempting to shine light in a large area of darkness.

How does one approach this?
How does one remain motivated?
How does one help another through their suffering?
How does one trust another?

I may be wrong in my understanding however meditation appears to be an activity for oneself. It does not encompass the wider world. If all is interdependent and interrelated, is this not futile?

I think you will end up getting better answers to your question. But I'll answer what I can. :)

It truly is exhausting to be in a mind state of continually judging every experience and every facet of life as positive or negative and trying to continually change things to be as you would have them. One of the reasons people come to mediation is because they realize they can't change the world and they want to learn to live in the world in a way that causes less suffering for themselves and others.

Meditation is something an individual does but because of the way it changes the individual; it also changes things in the individual's world. Spending time in meditation can help a meditator to become very aware of things they are doing which are causing suffering for themselves and others. It can help one to realize that suffering comes internally by identifying things as me and mine and trying desperately to prop up that fragile ego of me and mine.

The relief of learning to loosen the grip of needing to have everything under your control and everything to your liking is tremendous. I don't think it can be properly explained; it's something that needs to be experienced.

If you are concerned that meditating will make you indifferent to the needs of others, I can only say that because you are, examining your own mind when you meditate, you really can't hide anything from yourself. So if you are doing something that causes suffering to others, it'll be clear and you won't want to continue.


Is procastinating lengthen the samsara? I know that good or bad karma lengthen the samsara. Similary, Is procastination / laziness lengthen the samsara ?

The Buddha made a distinction between slow and fast practice. Since you're asking about procrastination, let's look at what the Buddha said about slow practice. As you can see, this path is indeed painful:

  AN4.162:2.1: And what’s the painful practice with slow insight? It’s when someone is ordinarily full of acute greed, hate, and delusion. They often feel the pain and sadness that greed, hate, and delusion bring.

However, a better approach is to choose a more pleasant path with less craving, more kindness and deeper insight:

  AN4.162:5.1: And what’s the pleasant practice with slow insight? It’s when someone is not ordinarily full of acute greed, hate, and delusion. They rarely feel the pain and sadness that greed, hate, and delusion bring.

An even better approach is to choose a pleasant path that is quicker:

  AN4.162:5.5: They have these five faculties strongly:  faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. Because of this, they swiftly attain the conditions for ending the defilements in the present life. This is called the pleasant practice with swift insight.

But since you asked about procrastination, the third path, which is the best, would only be available for one who gave up procrastination.


Why aren't more people interested in Dhamma? I read somewhere that Dhamma should only be taught to people who are interested and attentive to the knowledge, but why aren't more people interested in the first place? Dhamma could lead to the end of suffering, which is something most people would be interested in right?

Is this because of indifference and thus ill-will and aversion? Is it because of delusion? Laziness and lethargy, or other parts of the five hindrances?

And why do people react so hostile when discussing achievements such as having better concentration, more equanimity etc.? Why don't they see it as an opportunity to learn something new? Why is there such a lack of enthusiasm and a drive to search for wisdom?

In the Ayacana Sutta (SN 6.1), the Buddha explained that for the masses who are strongly clinging to sensual pleasures and other things like name, fame, wealth, health, relationships etc., it is hard to understand the full depth and breadth of the Dhamma.

  Then, while he was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking
  arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep,
  hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of
  conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation
  delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment.
  For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment,
  enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising
  are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of
  all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending
  of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach
  the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be
  tiresome for me, troublesome for me."

And then, most terrifyingly to us:

  As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.

Fortunately the Buddha was persuaded otherwise:

  There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.


Can a Buddhist mix Buddhism with other religions? Is there any authoritative sourced that a man can have more than one religion if he pleases?

It seems significant that HHDL advises us not to abandon the religion of our birth yet also encourages us to strive for realisation. This is the view that religion is a vehicle, not a destination.

All those I know who endorse more than one religion also say, equivalently, that they have no religion. It depends whether we see our religion as a proscribed set of beliefs or a set of methods and practices for transcending belief.

And then, talk to any three Christians and they will probably have three different religions, such is the game of Chinese Whispers.


Latent tendencies, memories of this life and brain damage, dementia This question is from the Theravada perspective only.

How are memories of this life stored and recalled? Is it stored in the physical brain?
There is the concept of latent tendencies (anusaya). Conceit is one of them. How are the latent tendencies of this life stored? Is it stored in the physical brain?
Does the bhavanga-citta of the Abhidhamma include some kind of storage function or not? If yes, what does it store?
If someone suffers from brain damage or dementia, they can lose their memories and/or have their personality altered (possibly including some change in latent tendencies). How does this work within the Theravada framework for moment to moment birth and death? The answer to this question may depend on the earlier questions.

The question seems to misconstrue the idea of "momentariness".

"Momentariness" does not mean everything exists for a "moment". "Momentariness" is merely the recognition that consciousness & thought arises for a moment (but other things do not necessarily exist for a moment).

SN 12.61 may help, here:

  It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

That SN 12.61 says the physical body can be seem to last for a long time supports the view in the question that tendencies & memories are stored in the brain. Personally, I don't see the point of speculating about scriptures in the situation where both science & personal experience tell us where latent tendencies & memories are stored. You know as an observable fact that brain injury impairs memory therefore what is the point of denying this reality and seeking to explain it in an alternate speculative unknowable way?

In MN 64, the Buddha said the underlying tendencies exist within the new born child, even though these underlying tendencies are yet to arise into the child's conscious mind. The Buddha said nothing about "past lives" here. The underlying tendencies are natural elements (dhatu). They have no relationship to past lives. Men & women are born with sexual organs and sexual apparatus (such as a womb). When their bodies mature, these sexual tendencies start to produce chemicals and hormones which result in the salient arising of sexual lust in the young man and young woman. We can see through mere observation that the growth in the mental defilement of lust is related to the growth & maturity of the physical body.


"Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe.", true? Ven. and good Buddha-Parisatas,

A statement from a commercial Website here says:

"Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe."

Is that right, or wrong and how to understand such right?

(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

Two suttas come to mind.
Assu Sutta (SN 15.3)

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said:

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"

Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1):

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

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

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

Canonically the Buddha is credited with [re]discovering the Dhamma, and (I presume) with creating the Sangha and the Vinaya.
But I think the statement "Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe" was meant to be viewed in context, where the content was, "Difference From Other Religions":

There are, other religions which teach e.g. that "God created heaven and earth" or perhaps that "God created human's souls".
Conversely I think that Buddhism doctrine is that the origin of samsara is "an unanswered question", and even that people inherit their own karma. The Buddha acted as a teacher, a leader, a worthy example.


What does it mean by perfect morality? It's said that Sotapanna has perfect morality.

For example, AN 3.85 says:

  "There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. With reference to the lesser and minor training rules, he falls into offenses and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because I have not declared that to be a disqualification in these circumstances. But as for the training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life, he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue. Having undertaken them, he trains in reference to the training rules. With the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, he is a stream-winner, never again destined for states of woe, certain, headed for self-awakening.

And in AN 9.12:

  Again, Sāriputta, a certain person is complete in virtues, incomplete in concentration and incomplete in wisdom. Destroying three bonds he transmigrates as a human or god the most seven times and makes end of unpleasantness. Sāriputta, this is the eighth person who dies with substratum, released, from hell, from animal birth, from the sphere of ghosts and released from loss and hellish births.

But we do wrong thing from time to time. Our deeds are not perfect. So what does it mean by having a perfect (wholly accomplished) morality/virtue?

In AN 3.88 Buddha gives definitions of the three trainings. Basically, sila is training in discipline (often translated as virtue or morality), samadhi is training in controlling one's mind and mood, and prajna is training in understanding or insight.

In my understanding and as per AN 2.19, training in discipline is first and foremost training to optimize your actions by their result (instead of being simply reactive or impulsive). You do what's wholesome (leads to good results) and abandon what's unwholesome (leads to bad results). You repeatedly train yourself to think objectively in terms of action and its results, not in terms of your personal desires and aversions. For most people this is a radical change in attitude!

However, at this level you do only a minimum amount of self-reflection. Your sole focus is on external activity. But in order to optimize your activity you are forced to suppress some of your baddest impulses, habits and reactions. Which naturally leads to emergence of self-reflection, you becoming self-aware, and going to the next level - training to control your mental and emotional state.

So when Buddha says, "accomplished virtue" - I believe he means that as far as your intention to accomplish the good, you are perfect. Your behavior is fully determined by your good will. However, because of imperfections in your ability to control your mind and emotions, and imperfections in your wisdom/insight into how things work, you may still misstep occasionally.

Notice how Buddha insists in AN 3.85 that to be a Sotapanna you must also be moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. Not just virtue! This is because virtue, concentration and discernment interpenetrate. You can't have good behavior without some amount of mind-emotion-control and some amount of wisdom.

So in short, in my understanding the perfect morality is wholesome behavior and wholesome speech, based on wholesome intent, based on the right view - the first five and a half steps of the Eightfold Path.

Of course to say that one's behavior can ever be perfect is a (useful) simplification. As Buddha himself says in AN 3.85 you may still "fall into offenses and [later] rehabilitate yourself". But as far as your appreciation of the notion of kusala/akusala and your sincere attempts to act kusala, as far as your attitude - they are perfectly complete. You attitude has been completely reoriented towards the good result. That's what makes you a Sotapanna.


Is there any volition or will that I can manage or control? In Buddha's teachings, all mind-related entities are "not-self" i.e.:

uncontrollable (opposite of controllable = when I want it I can make it happen, I can turn it on and off as I desire)
unmanageable (opposite of manageable = I can make it details how it happen and how it behave)
not possess-able (opposite of possess-able = I own it, it is with me all the time, I can keep it, I can store it in somewhere I want it to be at)
temporary (opposite of permanent/eternal/long-lasting/with one's whole life).

This not-self attribute also applied to will or/and volition.

I found sexual desire has it own physical limitation. It is difficult for me to keep sexual desire and sexual pleasure(effect of sexual desire) to last a single day, two days, three days, four days,... up to seven days (even if I use medical supplementary to keep my will/volition/desire). And another thing I found is sexual desire is not primitive will of man, it usually comes around/after puberty, sexual education, physical development in teenage ages. So if I had never learnt what sexual intercourse is (or I am autism child who does not have any chance to learn/understand sexual education in my whole life) I doubt there will be sexual desire/will happen in my mind.

So I was looking for more self-ness will/volition or desire and I found another will/desire, Gastronomic. This may seem primitive to me since I had breastfeed to bottle-feed since I was born. But even without any physical limitation imposted (I haven't had any food so many hours), sometimes I lost my appetite. I found gastronomic will is also uncontrollable and unmanageable too here. It seems like chemical, environmental and other factors governed gastronomic will/desire. It may seem primitive but I have doubt that I can find self-ness in here.

And I searched for more will/desire which can be self and found a weak will of survival. Everyone want to survive so as mine will and it seem primitive, closer to self to me. (You can tell there are some people who end their life by taking poison to death, yes but I am not looking for universal self, I am just looking for self to me, self to my life, self to individual being.) But on careful consideration, sometimes I crossed the street and nearly to die hitting by a car. If the idea of will to survive is controllable, manageable I can avoid those events by power of will. There should not be other things or will or desire to overcome one will or desire.

So here is my question, is there any will/volition/desire that is controllable, manageable, self (at least for a person whole life if we cannot find eternal, indefinite period of time). If you have personal experience about it, I am glad to hear if it exists. If it is written in somewhere I like to get a reference.

I guess this question relate to the discussion we had with regards to free will here, or at any rate, there are some overlap.

I think the answer to your question is given in Attakārī Sutta

  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’?*

Also reads on the notes:

  Although the Buddha taught that there is no permanent, eternal,
  immutable, independently-existing core “self” (attā), he also taught
  that there is “action” or “doing”, and that it is therefore meaningful
  to speak of one who intends, initiates, sustains and completes actions
  and deeds, and who is therefore an ethically responsible and culpable
  being.

If only will/volition/desire direct to the path to Nibbana are controllable, all other volition including all bad volition are uncontrolled, and to say this is not wise because it offers a free licence for unaccountability.


What is the meaning behind different robe colors? I have seen the same monk in two different color robes and am wondering why. They were dark red and of course orange. Ihave also seen brown, but that was zen, and if any other colors have relevance i would like to hear about them as well. I practice Theravada if that helps with referencing or relevance issues.

I believe initially the robes were mostly yellow as this was a color of renunciation in the locality at the Buddha's time. As the Dhamma-Vinaya spread the different robe colors occurred due to the local dyes monastics used in their respective localities being different shades and colors.

I do know that in the Theravada tradition at least in Thailand and Sri Lanka there is a differentiation in colors between forest monks and city monks.

This may be helpful : http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/robe_txt.htm

The robe dye is allowed to be obtained from six kinds of substances: roots and tubers, plants, bark, leaves, flowers and fruits. They should be boiled in water for a long time to get the dun dye. Saffron and ochre (from the jackfruit's heartwood) are the most prevalent colours today. Though there is a tendency amongst forest monks to wear ochre and city monks to wear saffron, but this is not always the rule.


Will I keep my memories and experience with each passing incarnation? I am curious because I have seen documentaries, videos, posts and all kinds of books and literature saying some people are born with knowledge from a past life, I believe I might be such a person as even from a young age I was very knowledgeable about things I've never been exposed to.

So you see I'm just wondering if this is possible and how would it work? because the laws of Physics state no information is ever lost it just keeps on changing form (entropy) just as Buddhists believe You will keep incarnating infinitely until you learn your lesson and reach that higher state of being. So does this mean that in some fundamental way we get to keep what we have experienced and learned over lifetimes?

I ask this question also out of fear for the thought of being in an infinite void when the brain and mind dies and loses its content. Because to have lived a good life just to have your system wiped would be a big anti-climax.

We do not even keep our memories from moment to moment and day to day. Memories are relative. They have no intrinsic self and are impermanent. Certain memories change over time, or are covered with a lens of delusion. Other memories are completely fictional.


Can the substantiality of phenomena ever be conclusively ruled out through Buddhist practice? I can see how one can develop, through one's practice, a very high degree of confidence in the truth of emptiness through inferring from the conditioned nature of phenomena, their impermanence, their dependence on a perceiving consciousness, and on the need for memory and intelligence in order to recognize them as existent, but is it possible to ever be 100% certain? Who's to say the Higgs Boson isn't the fundamental, truly existent building block of matter that can never be further reduced, even if quantum physics tells us it's in superposition when not interacting with an observer?

Enlightenment happen when knowledge is certain (such knowledge is usually called jñāna), so practice is supposed to provide result as 100% certain knowledge, in regard to what is also required to cease defilements and suffering. Knowledge about 'everything in the World' is not included in that. (Maybe Buddha knows all that, though.)

  Who's to say the Higgs Boson isn't the fundamental, truly existent
  building block of matter that can never be further reduced, even if
  quantum physics tells us it's in superposition when not interacting
  with an observer?

Higgs Boson is a concept. And, as with any concept, we can invent into concepts any idea whatsoever, with any property we can imagine. What is constructed (and thus empty) in Higgs Boson is it's conceptuality, the way how that knowledge is reached.


The extent of free will To what extent does Buddhism state we have free will and moral responsibility for our actions? Does Karma mean our future is predestined?

In Transcendent Wisdom, H.H the Dalai Lama says:

  it is a fallacy to equate the Buddhist view of causality with either
  the mechanistic determinism of classical physics, or the probabilistic
  determinism of quantum physics.

In Robert Thurman speaks of

  [...]six well-known opponents of the Buddha [who were] teachers of
  nihilism, sophism, determinism, asceticism, etc.

In Buddhist Phenomenology, Dan Lusthaus says:

  The instantaneous moment is key, since it is precisely here that
  Buddhism, for all its elaboration of causal determinants, escapes
  becoming a form of hard determinism. At the moment one recognizes the
  conditioning process for what it is-a pain/pleasure calculus shaped by
  previous experiences that sets the basis for subsequent attitudes,
  predilection, proclivities, experiences--one is free, detached from
  that chain's ineluctability. If such a moment of insight is fleeting
  or shallow, the old habitual patterns will reemerge. But ifthe insight
  is sufficiently radical, one can at that moment, detach from the
  chain, ceasing to be its locus. The chain thereupon expires, ceases,
  is eliminated.

To put it another way, the so-called 'doctrine of karma' means that whatever arises has causes and conditions. Whatever arises in our continuum is caused, partly, by actions we ourselves engaged in. For instance, if anger arises in my mind, it is because I created the causes of it, but it is also because other conditions gathered.

Now, we can affect the conditions that we created. For instance, we can purify negativities so as for them not to give the results they would have lead to. Conditioned phenomena are determined, but not predetermined in the sense one might imagine.

H.H. the Dalai Lama speaks of the issue because he is acquainted with westerners. However, a teacher of mine once said that he found the question (about predetermination) odd. In all his years of traditional studies, he never once thought of it or came upon the topic.


Mind-Stream Continuum's Origination? What is the origination of the mind-stream continuum? What are the basic elements that make up the mind-stream continuum?

Gautama never described an origin. Whether existence had a beginning or end was never defined. Some traditions have taken to saying "beginningless." So if mindstreams have a beginning, the Buddha never said so. The asker was either told that the answer was irrelevant to liberation (hence not worth answering) or that the question did not apply.

The Pali canon relies on dependent origination for explaining where minds come from, but does not describe mindstreams themselves. Later commentators, such as Asanga and and Vasubandhu of the Yogacara school of thought would expound on additional layers of conciousness. From my experience, most talk of mindstreams take their source as the alaya-vijnana; itself a term that has been mentioned by some contemporary Theravadin monks (Ajahn Geoff and Ajahn Sujato).

I believe the orthodox Theravada response would be the parable of the poison arrow, and Mahayana responses would depend on the proclivities of the instructor. A Yogacarin would describe the features of the alaya-vijnana and a Madhyamika (in a Tibetan tradition) would conclude that mindstreams simply are (in conventional terms at least; illusory "like a city of gandharvas" in an ultimate sense).

There is no set "Buddhist" answer here, unfortunately.


What are the famous debates in canonical Buddhist texts? Debate plays an important part of Buddhism. What are famous debate encounters by the Buddha and also by other Buddhist masters like Dharmakīrti, especially with Hindus(exponents of Brahmavāda-Ātmavāda) and Jains?

A really good look at the sort of debates Buddhists got into is in the Kathaavatthu - translated into English as "Points of Controversy". This is a later text, but outlines the many controversies and associated arguments. Examples of good debates in the suttas are MN 56 and DN 23.

As you say, debate plays an important part in the teaching, so the debates are really too numerous to list. I don't have any information on Dharmakirti though.


Is shame and remorse unskillful? I read this in another answer on this site:

  "and later I regretted" -- remorse is a klesha, an obscuring emotion.

my person thought it's worthy to lift the question if shame and remorse (before, while and after a deed be mind, speech or body) are generally unskillful, therefore to be abandoned, or if certain shame and remorse is actually skillful and very needed, therefore to develop and relay on it.

(Note that remorse/kukkucca, as a hindrance, falls by abounding sense-desire, end of reason for ill-will)

Feel invited to reflect, and possible share even Buddhas view on this mind qualities: An invitation of shameless making merits, so that one might not feel remorse, having not done, later.

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

The other answer on this site was fine in its essence, spirit, purpose & intent.

There is the unwholesome 'remorse' or 'guilt' (kukkucca), which is a hindrance; and there is the wholesome 'sense of shame' (hiri), which is a virtue and one of the five gates to Dhamma.

As the other answer on this site implied shame towards unskilful deeds is for a Buddha a means of learning a lesson and moving beyond guilt & remorse.

The Lord Buddha said:

  He who having been heedless is heedless no more, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.

  He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.

  For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble
  ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in
  accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.


Help locating a widespread quote attributed to Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche This quote is widely attributed to Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche:

  The bad news is, you’re falling through the air, nothing to hang on
  to, no parachute. The good news is, there’s no ground.

Among the many instances on the web, the only pointer to an actual citation of Trungpa Rinpoche's work I can find is on page 239 of Sacred Groundlessness: Deepening the Ethics of Mindfulness in the Midst of Global Crisis by Lama Karma, chapter 13 of Handbook of Ethical Foundations of Mindfulness, edited by Stanley, Purser and Singh.

That pageless citation, however, is to The collected works of Chögyam Trungpa (Vol. 8) and seems to be incorrect. I have that book in electronic form, and searches on numerous words and phrases from the quote (ground, parachute, news, etc) do not turn up the quote or anything close. That's the only work of Trungpa Rinpoche cited in that chapter. The only other of his work in the edited volume is his very popular Cutting through Spiritual Materialism, and the quote is not in that either.

My question -- Can anybody identify a work or teaching by Trungpa Rinpoche that contains that quote or something like it, or say with some assurance that he did not actually say or write it. And if it's not his, who did say it?

In Smiling at Fear, in the chapter titled "Facing Yourself", Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche says:

The only way to relax with yourself is to open your heart. Then you
have a chance to see who you are. This experience is like opening a
parachute. When you jump out of an airplane and open the chute, you
are there in the sky by yourself. Sometimes it is very frightening,
but on the other hand, when you take this step, the whole situation,
the whole journey, makes sense. You have to actually do it, and then
you will understand.


Why a Buddhist prays at Hindu temple which is situated in another country and prays for the betterment of his own country? Namo Buddhaya,
I am a student of Buddhism from India, trying to learn more about the Buddhist values and more. My inspiration is Dr B R Ambedkar the great Indian Scholar and social reformer. I have a doubt about the Buddhist lifestyle and custom once I read a news very recently .
The news is quoted as below .

Sri Lanka Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and wife Maitree Wickremesinghe reached Kasaragod on a private visit and offered prayers at the Kumaramangalam temple at Bela, near Kumbla, here on Saturday.

Reports quoting temple priest Ramachandra Adiga said Mr. Wickremesinghe and wife prayed for the prosperity of their nation and welfare of their family.

They had offered prayers at the Sri Mookambika temple in Kollur in neighbouring Udupi district in Karnataka on July 26.

Special pujas

The Sri Lanka premier and wife were reported to have taken part in special pujas at the temple at Bela. Though Mr. Wickremesinghe had offered pujas at the temple at Kollur during an earlier visit, it was for the first time he was visiting the temple here, the priest is quoted as saying "

Sri Lanka PM prays at Kasaragod temple

Now my doubt is why a Buddhist follower prays in a Hindu temple ? BabaSaheb Dr B R Ambedkar taught us that Buddhism is a philosophy of logic, reasoning. There is no space for superstitious beliefs or a Supreme GOD who provide virtues due to the prayers . I think it's the general idea of Buddhism and that's in its core .
But why then a prime minister of One country goes to another country and do pooja in another religion and prays for the betterment of his own country ??
Thank you

Maybe it's a politic and skilful thing to do -- analogous to the Prime Minister of New Zealand wearing a headscarf after the Christchurch mosque attack.

New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern, wearing hijab, meets Christchurch terror attack victims' families

Perhaps it helps to represent that (the population of) Sri Lanka is Buddhist and Hindu too, and that populations (within countries and between) can co-exist peacefully.

That's just a guess though, I haven't read any publicity about his motive.


Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent does it have substance? Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent (and I believe it is called this) does it have substance? I'm just asking due to some completely trivial insights: it seems that a quality of my experience of time doesn't change, perhaps even arise or end.

And I'm wondering what that permanent quality is, or might be.

Nothing that is substantial can be permanent. Only absences (including cessations) are permanent. This is Buddhism 101.

In the Mahayana, Nirvana is the cessation (a permanent absence, never to arise again) of suffering and the causes of suffering.

What does not cease (in the Mahayana) is the continuum of consciousness, which has flowed from beginningless time, and will continue to do so after nirvana; It is a continuum uncontaminated by suffering and it's causes.

The continuum itself is not permanent in that it changes momentarily, just as it does while in Samsara.

Within the scope of the Asanga Mahayana, and the Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Zen/Chan traditions especially, the continuum of mind is what persists - the base nature of awareness. When we; through choosing to use the mind as both the subject and object of our meditation; become aware of the conceptual narratives that determine our identities, and then strip them away, we are left with just the mirror-like awareness of the mental continuum. It is then that the opportunities of recognising that the narratives of time and being are mere constructs arise.  Within the scope of Nagarjuna's Mahayana (the Madhyamaka) we also use anti-philosophy to guide us to an understanding of the essence-lessness of all phenomena, which we believe to be the definitive meaning of Anatta.  Himalayan traditions use both Asanga and Nagarjuna together to provide both a conceptual and an experiential approach to achieving the path of insight.


Doing daily or complex activities without attachment Is it truly possible to do activities without expectations or some aspect of the self ideal attached to them? Does the Buddha explain anything of the sort?

If yes, how to go about achieving that? It could be something like what the Bhagavad Gita says.

We could do those tasks mindfully, but they could be complex thinking activities, necessary to achieve some final goal, so we cannot dismiss them as "thinking, thinking". Consequentially, there is a chance that we may get lost in our thoughts and feelings may creep in.

Maybe this is another question, but did the more complicated concepts and practice techniques Gautama described attach to the context of that day and age? And maybe they are only best suited for monks? (Maybe we shouldn't take them to the workplace or family.)

In Buddhism things are slightly different. Being aware and mindful of what you do (as you say) is more of a hindu concept if it is from the Bhagavad Gita.

This itself is good. A surgeon, ballerina, acrobat, etc. will need to be mindful and aware. If they do not then they cannot do their job. This will make you do a good job in whatever you do.

In Buddhism what need to be done is you should be aware of the arising and passing away of sensation you experience with equanimity. (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2) This is what will eradicate the 3 evil roots which in turn helps you realise nirvana.


What are all the bhawana (meditation) methods in Buddhism? There are two types of meditations described as "Samatha" and "Vipassana"
I have heard that there are several types of samatha bhawana (40 kamatahan). Can you please elaborate this based on Theravada Buddhism

As answered here, the forty samatha meditation objects are:

1-10: The Kasinas

These all lead to the four jhānas; they are practised by creating a disk and focusing on it, while repeating, e.g., "earth, earth..."

1. Earth
2. Water
3. Fire
4. Air
5. Blue
6. Yellow
7. Red
8. White
9. Light
10. Space

11-20: Foulness

These lead to the first jhāna; they are practised by contemplating a corpse in various states of decay

11. Bloated
12. Livid
13. Festering
14. Cut Up
15. The Gnawed
16. Scattered
17. Hacked and Scattered
18. Bleeding
19. Worm-infested
20. a Skeleton

21-30: Recollections

Body and Breathing bring jhāna (body only brings the first jhāna, breath brings all four); the other eight bring only access concentration; they are cultivated by reflecting on the object, e.g. "Buddha, Buddha"

21. Buddha
22. Dhamma
23. Sangha
24. Morality
25. Generosity
26. Angels
27. Death
28. Body
29. Breathing
30. Peace

31-34: The Divine Abidings

The first three bring about the first three jhānas; the fourth brings about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by taking beings as an object, e.g. "May all beings be happy"

31. Love
32. Compassion
33. Joy
34. Equanimity

35-38: The Immaterial States

These bring about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by using the fourth jhāna as a base, then expanding and refining the object

35. Limitless Space
36. Limitless Consciousness
37. Nothingness
38. Neither Perception Nor Non-perception

39. Perception of Repulsiveness in Nutriment

This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by reflecting on food as one collects and eats it.

40. Defining of The Elements

This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by breaking the body up into the four elements.

All forty meditation subjects are described and taught in detail in the Visuddhimagga; highly recommended for those interested.


Fate and karma same or different? I do not understand the difference between karma and fate; are they the same or different?

All the things happen is not a result of Karma.
Actually in Buddhism there are Fivefold Niyama where as Karma Niyama is a just one of them.

The Fivefold Niyama is as follows

uthu-niyama: the caloric order, the climate of the geographical location.

bija-niyama: the germinal order, things you inherited from the genes.

kamma-niyama: the moral order, is the one you are talking about.

chitta-niyama: the psychical order.

Dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence. we all get old and we all die its a natural thing for all of us

more details: http://www.buddhivihara.org/niyama.htm


Mahāsamādhi in Buddhism? Wikipedia defines Mahāsamādhi as follows:

  Mahāsamādhi (the great and final samādhi) is the act of consciously
  and intentionally leaving one's body. A realized yogi (male) or
  yogini (female) who has attained the state of nirvikalpa samādhi,
  will, at an appropriate time, consciously exit from their body. [...] This is not the same as the physical death that occurs for an unenlightened person. 1

A non-practitioner of Yoga would call this 'dying at will'.

Is there a similar concept in Buddhism?

miccha-samadhi (wrong/defiled concentration). And to think the mind is in the body is also miccha-samadhi if so perceived.


Is it wrong to wish you could die? I'm so over life. I'm nearly 50 and I feel worn down by everything. The struggle to make sense of it, to find purpose and meaning, to make lasting friendships, to feel I belong somewhere, to survive in a capitalist society that puts money first and pits people against one another. The vacuous shallow emptiness of it all. To witness the awful violence and destruction that goes on relentlessly everyday.The heartbreak of it all and my own personal heartbreak of a very long relationship breaking down and changing and feeling unable to move on from it like a drug addiction.The conflicting, confusing feelings of both hating and loving ones parents for the hurt they caused and the lack of remorse they feel. The battle with my own dark side and the twisted comfort of lashing out and causing more chaos and hurt for others because of my own pain.   I just want to go to sleep and never wake up. It feels like a nice option. I've thought about going to Mexico and getting some nambutal, going to a hotel room and ingesting it.

Look. You basically keep asking the same question. So my answer from last time still applies. But I suppose it's very hard to break through this mood, so let me re-emphasize a few things:

You are not alone to feel this way. I feel this way. Buddha felt this way. There is nothing fundamentally "wrong" about your situation. Feeling that everything is empty, is what some people would call a great realization. Hurray, you already have it, congrats. Yes, it feels shitty - they didn't tell you in the books?
The Buddha struggled with friendships too. You did not know? Yes, he did. Read the Mara chapter in Chinese Samyukta Agama. He thought something was wrong with him because of that. Then he came up with the trick to identify such negative thoughts as "Mara" and counter-act them with self-affirmative arguments. This was post-Enlightenment! If Buddha had to do it, guess what? You must learn to self-affirm!
Relationships are addicting. I know, I've been through some. Intimacy generates tons of dopamine or serotonine or whatever. Your brain gets addicted to that. Then you no longer get it. Then you feel like shit. This is THE drug addiction. Guess what, this is the way humans work. Every move, thought, impulse, perception is always accompanied by dopamine changes, plus or minus. So everything always hurts or delights - and then hurts when it ends. This is how life works, for everyone. Pain. So the only way out is to learn to trick the mechanism, by changing your definition of "good" in such a way as to be rewarded all the time. Makes sense? This is what Buddha taught.
Let go of your past karma. Meaning, stop feeling bad about the circumstances of your childhood and your parents, that led you to be what you are. It's not your fault, it's not their fault, it's not anybody's fault. It is just a sequence of causes and results, like the billiard balls. Everyone gets their share of this mess. Even Buddha did (putting aside the legend). His relationship with his father was awful. Father was ashamed of him, said he was a failure. And they  never reconciled all the way until father's death. His mother died, and his maternal aunt who was his stepmother begged him to come back, and when he did not, she shaved her head and became first female Buddhist, just to be with her son. There was lots of drama in Buddha's life.

Buddha struggled with doubts all the time, he just learned to overcome them. You think it was easy when his students committed suicide? He thought, gosh what kind of teacher am I, if my students commit suicide! But then for the sake of other students who were still alive he put on a smile and said: this guy who killed himself has reached Nirvana, but you should practice breathing meditation and teach yourself to feel good, if you ever hope to achieve what I achieved. Makes sense?

Now, please stop beating yourself with negativity, I know it's hard, because I'm just like you - but please learn to be yourself, to assert your right to be in this world, and even to praise yourself. Killing yourself is a cop out. Buddha did not kill himself when he "awakened" to emptiness of it all, did he?


sutta reference: forbidding to call the Buddha by name I've heard that there are suttas where the Buddha forbade people to call him by his given name. Which suttas are these?

This first occurred when he met the five ascetics after the enlightenment when they started calling him by his name Gotama before teaching his earliest discourse, Dhammacakkapavattana sutta.

  Bhikkus, do not address me by the name Gotama nor as a friend. I have
  become a Perfect One, worthy of the great reverence.

Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/damachak.pdf page 56


Which Sutta does Sakkra asks 14 Questions from the Buddha? In Maha Buddhavamsa The Great Chronicle of The Buddhas by Tipitakadhara Mingun Sayadaw, page 949 to 980, there is a series of question between the Buddha and Sakkra. This seems very relevant to the Buddhist meditation practice. Which Suttas does this conversation appear in?

Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's Questions.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.21.2x.than.html


"Plunging" or Challenging Yourself in a New Enviornment On television I recently heard about a technique related to Buddhism called "plunging," where "you go somewhere completely unfamiliar, somewhere that has nothing to do with your usual way of thinking." The context of the quote involves a Zen monk who lived among the homeless for a time. As a student of Zen Buddhism this idea interests me a lot, but I couldn't find any reference to it on the internet or in my books. Is there a better name for it and is this a real concept or was this just made up for the show?

I have never seeing this term as a concept in Buddhism nor Zen. To the best of my knowledge, the closest formulation of something in that vein are the specific instructions to practice samadhi in the Vishuddhimagga targeted at people with distinct temperaments  -- which is kind of a compilation of pedagogical strategies developed at the time. Example:

"A suitable lodging for one of greedy temperament has an unwashed sill and stands level with the ground, and it can be either an overhanging [rock with an] unprepared [drip-ledge], a grass hut, or a leaf house, etc. It ought to be spattered with dirt, full of bats, dilapidated, too high or too low, in bleak surroundings, threatened [by lions, tigers, etc]. with a muddy uneven path where even the bed and chair are full of bugs. And it should be ugly and unsightly ..."
A suitable resting  place for one with hating temperament is not too high or too low, provided with shade and water, with well-proportioned walls, posts and steps, with well-prepared frieze work and lattice work, brightened, with various kinds of painting, with even smooth soft floor, [...] smelling sweetly, of flowers and perfumes and scents set about for homely comfort, which makes one happy and glad at the mere sight of it."
-- Visuddhimagga, Chapter III


Critique of interview with secular Buddhist author of "Why Buddhism is True" I wonder what critique other self-identified Secular Buddhists on this forum would have of this new interview with self-proclaimed Secular Buddhist author Robert Wright.

What are the specific doctrines that are discarded as "supernatural?"

Now, for some questions for non self-identified Secular Buddhists:

Any sutra references or teachings for the "cognitive bias that fascinates me" part where he talks about the "fundamental attribution error?"
Towards the end of the interview the interlocutors discuss what Buddhism has to say about Tribalism/Racism. Is Buddhism a prescription for overcoming Tribalism/Racism as they say?

Cheers!

Any sutra references or teachings for the "cognitive bias that fascinates me" part where he talks about the "fundamental attribution error?"

I find two definitions of "fundamental attribution error":

One is the view that behaviour characteristics are innate (or inherent in the person) rather than situational -- Wikipedia:

  In social psychology, fundamental attribution error (FAE), also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is the concept that, in contrast to interpretations of their own behavior, people tend to (unduly) emphasize the agent's internal characteristics (character or intention), rather than external factors, in explaining other people's behavior. This effect has been described as "the tendency to believe that what people do reflects who they are".

The author uses it in what may be a slightly different way -- e.g. here is the same author writing for Wired -- saying it's affected by our view of which tribe (friend or enemy) a person belongs to:

  After all, we tend to interpret the errors of our enemies and rivals in an unfavorable light, while explaining away the errors of our allies in more innocent terms.

  Indeed, this tendency itself involves a cognitive bias, one that is less famous than confirmation bias. It’s called “attribution error,” and it, too, is dividing America.

  In a context of intense tribalism, attribution error works like this: If people we identify as members of our tribe do something bad—if they’re mean to someone, say, or they break the law—we tend to attribute the behavior to “situational” factors. They had been under stress at work, or they were pressured by bad actors into misbehaving, or whatever. If members of the enemy tribe do something bad, we’re more likely to explain the behavior in “dispositional” terms—the bad behavior emanates from their basic disposition, their character. It’s just the kind of thing that people like them do.

You ask for sutta references. I think an obvious example is the Buddha's attitude to what a "holy man" is.
That's conveniently summarised in the Dhammapada (but I think the same doctrine exists in many suttas too):

  Because he has discarded evil, he is called a holy man. Because he is serene in conduct, he is called a recluse. And because he has renounced his impurities, he is called a renunciate.

and:

  Not by matted hair, nor by lineage, nor by birth does one become a holy man. But he in whom truth and righteousness exist — he is pure, he is a holy man.

and:

  He who without resentment endures abuse, beating and punishment; whose power, real might, is patience — him do I call a holy man.

My analysis:

People used to be called "holy" because of their birth i.e. if they were born Brahmin -- i.e. their holiness was considered innate -- and Buddhism contradicts the view, that they are holy because they're born holy.

This also says that people are not holy merely because they're called (named) or viewed as holy, or merely bear the outward signs of being members of a holy caste.
I'm not sure about the converse:

Maybe Buddhism suggests (instead of their birth or caste or maybe even their view) there is a good test for when a man can or should be considered holy -- i.e. when a person's behaviour can be attributed to the person's internal characteristics -- i.e. for example,

  He who without resentment endures abuse

Perhaps this is the right time to consider someone inherently holy, because it seems to be an example of when their behaviour isn't dependent on external situation.

(Not just "enduring abuse" -- other admirable qualities are described in this chapter.)
Maybe Buddhism suggests that a person is holy when they're serene because they're unaffected, when they are independent, i.e. because they are a recluse and renunciate.
Or, maybe a social psychologist, who holds that the "fundamental attribution error" doctrine is always true, might argue that even this is somehow an example of situational or something "dependent" (a reaction) rather than "inherent" (an action) -- I don't know (because I'm not a social psychologist and don't know exactly how they define and use their FAE doctrine).

As well as or instead of this (definition of "a holy man"), you might (I don't know) also view the FAE as having parallels with Buddhist the doctrine on emptiness (i.e. that things are dependent not inherent), and maybe the "non-self", "two truths", and "dependent origination" doctrines too.

The author's doctrine may come via doctrine on emptiness (not to mention, his own practice) -- e.g. as evidenced by the previous paragraph in the Wired article:

  I think the more you go down the path, the clearer the connection between practice and your everyday moral behavior. As I said, all the way down the path is this idea of emptiness where you’re not projecting essences onto lamps or weeds or people, but if you just get a little ways down the path and are reacting a little less emotionally to people, you can make real progress. Can I talk about a cognitive bias that fascinates me because it's so subtle?

The article you referenced mentions morality too, by the way:

  We talked about the illusion of self, the psychology of tribalism, how meditation can make us more moral, and why he thinks spreading meditation practice could be socially transformative

Buddhism has some "moral" doctrine too, as you know -- perhaps metta bhavana (meditation) for example, towards everyone (not just for "my own tribe" -- not to mention, whether it's proper to have a "my" tribe) -- not holding ill-will -- or in the context of contemporary American politics, Buddhism might frown on "fake news" (wrong speech) and, who knows, perhaps even any political, tribal, divisive (unendearing, unbeneficial) news and speech even if 'true'.

I don't want to start a discussion of "injustice (in America and elsewhere)" here, though.

In context, the main or final example he gave of what he called "fascinating" appeared to be "demonizing the leader of the country they want to invade" -- a reference to the year-long lead-up to (i.e. the media campaign to justify) the invasion of Iraq (which included what some people now call 'fabricated' evidence or false pretexts e.g. related to WMD).


Buddhism type by country Could someone give me a breakdown of the form of Buddhism likely to be represented by Vietnamese and Cambodian?

We have six Buddhist churches/Organizations near us and I've contacted them but because of a communications barrier I am unable to determine what form three of them are.

There are two Vietnamese called Phuoc Vien & Tu Vien Hong Duc - and another one representing Cambodia just called a Buddhist Society.

Thanks. :D

Wikipedia says, about Vietnam:

  Followers in Vietnam practice differing traditions without any problem or sense of contradiction. Few Vietnamese Buddhists would identify themselves as a particular kind of Buddhism, as a Christian might identify him or herself by a denomination, for example.

... and goes on describe aspects of Vietnamese Buddhist practice.

It also says:

  The overall doctrinal position of Vietnamese Buddhism is the inclusive system of Tiantai, with the higher metaphysics informed by the Huayan school (Vietnamese: Hoa Nghiêm); however, the orientation of Vietnamese Buddhism is syncretic without making such distinctions. Therefore, modern practice of Vietnamese Buddhism can be very eclectic, including elements from Thiền (Chan Buddhism), Thiên Thai (Tiantai), Tịnh độ Pure Land Buddhism, and popular practices from Vajrayana.

... and:

  The central and southern part of present-day Vietnam were originally inhabited by the Chams and the Khmer people, respectively, who followed both a syncretic Śaiva-Mahayana (see History of Buddhism in Cambodia) and Theravada Buddhism.

And about Cambodia:

  Theravada Buddhism is the state religion of Cambodia, which has had been presented since at least the 5th century.

Tu Vien Hong Duc is described as:

  While Tu Vien Hong Duc is therefore best classified as a Pure Land Buddhist temple, it is much more a Vietnamese Buddhist temple.

According to Google Maps, Phuoc Vien and Tu Vien Hong Duc are located in the same building.


What is the fastest way to reach enlightenment? I am asking for reference request and sutras where a person can cut through samsara quickly and obtain liberation.

I have heard a story when Buddha was asked this question and he replied "Sound". However I haven't found any reference of this & don't know how much accurate this is.

Thoughts are more than welcome!

You're probably thinking of the Bahiya Sutta (Udana 1.10).

Once there was a bark-clad ascetic Bahiya who thought he was enlightened, but a deva told him that he wasn't and asked him to seek out the Buddha for his guidance.

He found the Buddha who gave him a brief instruction, which resulted in his near-immediate enlightenment. Very shortly after that, he was killed in a freak accident. The Buddha said that Bahiya became totally unbound (i.e. enlightened).

What did the Buddha teach him? (translated by Thanissaro)

  "Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
  seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
  heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
  the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
  yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
  seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
  reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
  cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
  there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
  there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
  two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Alternative translation from here (Ireland):

  "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be
  merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the
  sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely
  what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

  "When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the
  cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be
  'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you
  will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then,
  Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.
  Just this is the end of suffering."

This is a teaching on anatta.

However, this may not work for everyone as it did on Bahiya, because Bahiya apparently was already advanced in attainment. Please see this answer.

For complete beginners, study of the Dhamma (in order to cultivate Right View) and practice of the five precepts and virtue (sila) is recommended. Please see this answer.


When the Buddha changes his mind to teach I remember reading a sutta (possibly in Majjhima or Samyutta) where a passage has the Buddha talking about his teaching attitude towards certain people when talking to them. Then, he says something to the effect of "... but when a person is a fool, the Tathagata changes his mind".

What sutta is this?

I'm positive it's not AN 4.111, where there's an analogy with horse trainning:

  “[...] 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.

It is the Asibandhakaputta Sutta- SN 4.8.6
It was Asibandhakaputta , the disciple of Nighanta-Natha-Putta, who raised the question for which Buddha gave the
parable of the three fields, the good , the middling, and the poor.   In this parable Buddhist laity rank as the moderate field, between the Bhikkus (excellent) and the men of other creeds (poor).

Within this Sutta look for the Khettûpama Sutta - SN 4.8.7. where Buddha took this parable of the three fields: the greatly fertile field, the fertile field, and, the unfertile field.   This Sutta explains as to why the Buddha does not teach all people with the same level of effort. The greatly fertile field is prioritized over the fertile field and the fertile field is prioritized over the unfertile field.  The greatly fertile field as monks and nuns; the fertile field as laymen and laywomen; and, the unfertile field being adherents of other doctrine and methods. It also includes the parable of the three pots; the parable of righting the upside down thing; the parable of the uncovering; the parable of the right road; the parable of the lighted lamp.

  “Venerable Sir, doesn’t the Blessed One dwell compassionate towards all living beings?”

  “Yes, headman, the Tathagata dwells compassionate towads all living beings.”

  “Then why is it, venerable Sir, that the Blessed One teaches the Dhamma thoroughly to some, yet not so thoroughly to others?

  “Well then headman, I will question you about this. Answer as you see fit. What do you think headman? Suppose a farmer here had three fields: one excellent, one of middling quality, and one inferior – rough, salty, with bad ground. What do you think, headman? If that farmer wishes to sow seed, where would he sow it first… in the excellent field, in the field of middling quality, or in the field that was inferior – rough, salty, with bad ground?

You could read further on this in the Connected Discourses of the Buddha pages 1338, 1339, 1340.


What are the other Theravada Councils held between the 4th and 6th The Wikipedia entry on the 5th council says:

  However, there were a number of other councils held in Ceylon and Thailand between the fourth and sixth ...

What are these other councils? Where where they held? What was their significance?

What are these other councils? Where were they held? What was their significance?

I am going to try to answer this to the best of my abilities.

I do not know the specifics of where they were held, but I do know what they are & their significance.

All the Buddhist councils are meant to preserve the Dhamma the Buddha formulated & to discuss the Tipitaka & its interpretations.

Buddhist councils have not consisted of all schools unified, although in some cases they have been.

I hope my answer suits you well! :)

May you be well.


How does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from "realisation of Anatta"? In what ways does the experience of "realisation of Sunyata" differ from the experience of "realisation of Anatta", for the practitioner?

The two aims are apparently non confirming, as far as I know, at least that is what their respective schools believe.

So in what ways does choosing one ideal over the other lead to a  difference in experience for the practitioner?

There is no difference between anatta & sunnata in terms of realisation. If there was a difference then the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta would be a lie & false because the five arahants in that sutta would not really be arahants (fully enlightened). They would only be partially enlightened.

The definitions of anatta & sunnata in the Pali suttas are basically identical, namely:

  Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

  Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta

  And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.'

  MN 43

In terms of the teachings, anatta & sunnata are different because anatta was taught 1st, in the 2nd sermon of the Buddha, where a gradual sermon was given that associated anatta with anicca (impermanence). Here, it was reasoned because something is impermanent & subject to disease, it cannot be a 'self' or regard as 'mine' ('belonging to self'). When the minds of the listeners penetrated this reality, the self-views in the mind dissolved, which was enlightenment. (In addition, the teaching of 'dukkha' also helped extinguished the defilements, such as craving).

As for sunnata, it does not rely on impermanence because it simply, correctly & directly asserts there is no self within the five aggregates. This is easily observed in meditation. For example, observing the breathing itself or a body part or observing sense consciousness itself, in can be seen easily there is no 'self' in the breathing or in a finger or in sense consciousness; just as it can be seen easily there is no 'self' in a rock, tree or cloud.

In conclusion, anatta was a gradual teaching for beginners that used impermanence (anicca) to assist in the realisation. However, when the realisation itself occurs, there is no difference from sunnata.


What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar? What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar?

Is it bad karma? Well, karma is about intention. If you did not intentionally drop and break the plate of fruit, then there is no consequence for you, from the perspective of karma.

Is it a bad omen? Definitely not. The Buddha did not teach his followers to believe in omens. In fact, we should not cling to unskillful thoughts like superstitious belief in omens.

How should I interpret the incident? All conditioned things are impermanent (sabbe sankhara anicca). Everything that arises, must eventually cease. That applies to the plate of fruit too. If you leave the fruit where it is, in due time it will rot and dry up, even without your intervention.

What should I do? It would be skillful, virtuous and thoughtful of you to clean up any mess that you created, even if done accidentally.

What should I not do? You should not carry remorse or regret for breaking the plate. It's unskillful to cling to remorse. Instead, you should resolve to be more careful next time - that's skillful. You should also not deceive others into thinking that you did not break the plate, as lying is against one of the five precepts.


Suttas where Buddha taught laypeople after heaven they will be reborn in hell? In AN 4.123, it is reported the Buddha taught monks if a person clings to the heaven of jhana they will end up in hell, as follows:

  Monks, there are these four types of individuals to be found existing in the world. Which four?

  There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by
  directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds
  satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling
  there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he
  reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas
  of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A
  run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the
  life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the
  state of the hungry shades.

In comparison, in many suttas addressed to laypeople, the Buddha taught if they do good kamma, they will appear in a happy state or in heaven, as follows:

  The Blessed One asked them, "Householders, is there any teacher agreeable to you, in whom you have found grounded conviction?"

  With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the other world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the
  body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly
  world. Even if we didn't speak of the other world, and there weren't
  the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this
  venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant
  as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine
  of existence.' If there really is a other world, then this venerable
  person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the
  observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body,
  after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly
  world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by
  him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the
  unskillful. MN 60

  The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:

  (i) they restrain him from evil, (ii) they persuade him to do good,
  (iii) they love him with a kind heart, (iv) they make him hear what he
  has not heard, (v) they clarify what he has already heard, (vi) they
  point out the path to a heavenly state.

  DN 31

Are there any suttas where it is taught to householder laypeople that after their time in heaven expires they will be reborn in hell?

Seldom he taught the transcendent path and the backward to householder. Seldom he taught sunnata to householder. Why? Because the untrained mind would not understand and not protected by firm Silas and precepts "Yogies" dwelling in "housholder-equanimity" would cause them all the reasons to fall into hell, after their "equanimity" journey, gross transgressions, totally unaware, one self totally overestimated.
They would easily, which a notion of "there is no I" tend to pernicious false beliefs which causes them to fall to hell.

The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:

(1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),

(2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),

(3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

(Of course many do not see that they just put the lable of Buddha Dhamma around gross wrong view.)
This is actuallynothing seldom. We find that much under modern Zen-follower, Bodhisatva strivers and in many other secualar approaches where householder are trained in "householder"-equanimity, meditation, but their basic right view and virtue not firm.
Where as the Uposatha of the "cowboys" still has an opening to the path, even if it is mostly just for mundane merits done, the Uposatha of the Jains cuts one easy of the path and closes all access.
Not to speak about the effects on many, when teaching but denying mundane right view, saying somehow "thats kindergarden"-Dhamma.

By ChrisW in regard of the question: If there isn't such a sutta, how could someone prove that in an answer? Where did you get the idea (or knowledge) that there isn't such a sutta: did you discover that yourself, or did someone tell you?

If you try to motivate a child to go to school and learn, become a doctor or what ever, would one start to teach it that doctors also dy?
If one has learned the skill of a doctor, whould it be good to tell him, that he still will go to dy?
The "problem" here is actually that many teaching and training "a doctor will not dy".
What do you think that you and many are? In which possible problematic situation of doubt and desire, yet full of knowledge, all around?
Stick simply to the Basics, all that you have learned and gained by means that are not in line of the Dhamma-Vinaya will not help, but be actually enemies. Why? Because it was not given, is not in line of the economy of the Noble Ones.
Devaduta Sutta: The Deva Messengers
People don't understand when it is sayed that association with fools lead to much suffering. Like the bandits encourage each other "don't be fool, they will not catch us. Why suffer and work".

"This is a man, your majesty, with no respect for mother, no respect for father [1], no reverence for contemplatives, no reverence for brahmans, no honor for the leaders of his clan. (e.g. wrong view) Let your majesty decree his punishment."

Dhammadhatu's concern in a discussion under his question:

My impression is it a common view in contemporary Buddhism that seeking heaven is ultimately vain because it is temporary. However, I have never read such a view taught to lay people in the suttas therefore by asking this question I hope to clarify the matter. It is a genuine question. Regards.

This Sutta might be useful for understanding: Gilana Sutta: Ill and This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:
A Gradual Training
Today there are many householder and also monastics, making materialist a favor running around on Dhamma-places, in forums... and dispraise the doing of merits and come up with wired "no-rebirth" and "no-doer no deed" approaches. With their "householder-equanimity" (see here) they fall from this heaven and that is why the normally tolerant Buddha was very resolved in rebuking their approches, because it is for the suffering of many.
And why do this "Devas" fall into hell later on? Because they teach to be unvirtouse, even to kill not seeing the impureness in their ways, having not understood the basics, yet believing that they are beyond...
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains.]


Does Buddhist's Time Dilation have something to do with Physics's Time Dilation? I've just seen Interstellar. And they say 1 year on the planet is equal to 7 years on earth. because it sounds familiar to the Buddhist text I used to read ,if they both refer to the same thing, how did the ancient people know it?

Time dilation due to special relativity happens because the speed of light is constant and is expressed using equations which include the Lorentz factor.

Time dilation due to gravitation is a related concept.

Assuming that "time dilation" is a concept in Buddhism, have you evidence that the theoretical/conceptual cause of that dilation is the speed of light being constant being all frames of reference, or, the acceleration of frames of reference e.g. due to gravity? Do Buddhist scriptures (mathematical equations) mention the Lorentz factor, somewhere? If the answer is "no" then I suggest that "they both refer to the same thing" is false, i.e. that Buddhism's "time dilation" and Physics' "time dilation" actually refer to different concepts.

I don't want to say that Buddhism in't helpful towards understanding Physics; but it was my experience that my learning Physics wasn't much help towards understanding Buddhism.

Working with, studying or applying Physics might count as a form of "right livelihood" in Buddhism.

I think it would be missing the point of Buddhism to see it as a way to get miraculous leaning/knowledge/insight/invention of the detailed models of (i.e. the hypotheses or theorems about) the universe which are used by physicists, chemists, biologists, engineers, doctors, etc.

If you read from the Pali canon for example then the Buddha is talking about something else entirely.