Cessation of Taṇhā through not giving a f*ck Sorry for the phrase 'not giving a f*ck'. I was thinking about using the word anger. But that doesn't cover what I am about to write.

Last weekend I noticed some strong internal movements. I was soo tired of seeking/craving/desiring brought forth by some imagined future goals and self, that a voice in my mind awoke that crushed every motion that was doing this seeking/craving/desiring. E.g. 'Shall I make a coffee', was responded to by 'I do not need to feel happy. F#ck happiness I am tired of this all'. The same with a hot shower. The "aahh... this is nice" moment of a hot shower that I used to have was not allowed by this voice. So the shower was ice cold. And more of this, no cookies anymore, f*ck the nice taste of chocolate, fat and sugar. I do not need it. There was a lot of hate and anger involved. Not towards people or the world around me, but directed to a part of my self.

I knew this was not equanimity. This could not last. Though there were moments where there was no craving, nor the presence of the voice that crushed them. And in these moments, although very briefly, I experienced a level of detachment and freedom I have never experienced before. And it was full of joy. Although the joy was quickly picked up by the craving crushing voice, which seemed to be afraid of any joy. While it should only target the (sensual pleasing) joy, like sugar, coffee, chocolate, etc, you get the point. I felt like I woke up, literally. No coffee anymore wakes the mind up to produce activity that induces wakefulness, because there is no other way. No eating just for pleasure drove me towards sports to feel content. No hot shower, but just an ice cold one, to get the job of washing myself done, woke by body up intensely, etc.

With everything newly learned, I see sort of a sinus wave moment, where there is almost all the time under- and overshoot. And with time, it stabilizes to an equilibrium because learning is involved.

Although the craving crushing voice is tiring me as well, it has a positive effect.

The question
I can't find any literature on this process. I can imagine that the process to reach the cessation of Taṇhā is quiet similar among people. In other words, the not giving a f*ck attitude is probably experienced by a lot of people before Taṇhā ceased. Is there any literature that zooms in on this? And with zoomed in I mean, not the noble eightfold path that covers a whole lot. But specifically this attitude?

The "craving-crushing voice" sounds like Nibbida, if that's what you're asking.

There's a lot written about it, including this introduction by Piya Tan.


other models analogue of the ''five aggregates'' what are the other models analogue of the ''five aggregates'' USED BY THE BUDDHA, and their references in the sutas used by the buddha that mentioned at the end of this video.
[YouTube] The Five Aggregates Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Oo0ad9Ptf-w#t=924

there is form and the the mind is:

feeling

perception

mental formation

conciousness of senses

but what are the other models for this ?

One = Life, Dukka, Samsara,

Two = Body and Mind, namarupa and vinnana,

five = 5 aggregate  (Skanda),

Twelve = 12 faculties,

Eighteen = 18 Dhathu,


Where can I find the earliest possible version of the Mahā Karuṇā Dhāraṇī ("Great Compassion Mantra")? I am looking for the earliest possible version of the Mahā Karuṇā Dhāraṇī ("Great Compassion Mantra") in Sanskrit or Pali as part of tracing it's origins. My hope is to find the Chinese contributions. I suspect it can be found in a book, either in print or not, but entirely in Sanskrit. As I am not literate in this language it hinders my task.

Can anyone recommend where I can find such a book or source containing the text of the Mahā Karuṇā Dhāraṇī ("Great Compassion Mantra") dating before the first Chinese translation of 627 AD? Is there a library that one could recommend that would have a good chance of having it?

Thank you so much for any help you can give.

Generally speaking the study of dhāraṇī has been sorely neglected until very recently. As such there is very little published information on the subject. For example Paul William's standard text on Mahāyāna Buddhism contains no reference to dhāraṇī.
As the article by the Lokesh Chandra says, the earliest extant texts of this particular dhāraṇī date from the 7th century Chinese translations (T1057 + Siddhaṃ). I see no sign of an independent Sanskrit text anywhere, and Chandra doesn't cite one either. So the Sanskrit texts that are floating around are from one or another of the Chinese texts. And be warned that these are almost certainly unreliable - particularly the Siddham script version (ironically).
The fact that in the text, Avalokiteśvara has already taken on some of Śiva's attributes means that it was probably composed not much earlier than the 7th century. Nīlakaṇṭha is a name of Śiva, as is Īśvara (from Avalokita-īśvara). In Alexander Studholme's book Origins of Om maṇipadme hūṃ he notes that the assimilation of Śiva into Buddhism is a theme in the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra which he dates to the 4th Century CE. I suspect that it must be a century or two later than this, just before the emergence of Tantric Buddhism. So the dhāraṇī in question is certainly no earlier than the 4th or 5th century CE.
The Sanskrit text looks to be mainly classical Sanskrit. Although this could just be the bias of editors who reconstructed the Sanskrit from the Chinese! Presuming that the transcription is accurate, it also argues for a date of not earlier than the 4th century CE, since before that time Buddhist texts were composed in Prakrit. Many dhāraṇī's, such as those included in the Saddharmapuṇḍarikā and Suvarṇabhāsottama Sūtras sometime around the 4th century CE, seem to have been composed in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit. There never was any text like this in Pāḷi, although Gāndhārī is a possibility since many early Mahāyāna texts were composed in that language. However, very few Gāndhārī texts have been found and not all of them have been edited and published. But see for example the article by Ingo Stauch "The evolution of the Buddhist rakṣā genre in the light of new evidence from Gandhāra: The Manasvi-nāgarāja-sūtra from the Bajaur Collection of Kharoṣṭhī Manuscripts" in the BSOAS issue listed below
So it seems to me that you have the earliest text already and that looking for the "original" is probably not going to turn up any more information.
A couple of publications that you might want check are:

Copp, Paul. (2014) The Body Incantatory: Spells and the Ritual Imagination in Medieval Chinese Buddhism. Columbia University Press.
Studholme, Alexander (2002). The origins of oṃ manipadme hūṃ: a study of the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra. Albany: State university of New York Press.

Also if you can get hold of it the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Volume 77 - Issue 01 - February 2014. The contents page is available here, and as you will see it has many articles on dhāraṇī.
There may be info in Esoteric Buddhism and the Tantras in East Asia
edited by Charles Orzech, Henrik Sørensen, Richard Payne. I don't have it to hand and the Google Books version has no previews, though the word nīlakaṇṭha is mentioned several times.


When is it okay to think? It seems like you're supposed to do the dishes, drive your car, etc. and always be mindful of the present moment, but when is it okay to think about something like a work project or a hobby or something besides the moment? Even when you're meditating you're supposed to not be thinking... It feels like the only time you're allowed to think about things is when you're sitting alone in a dark room.

"In the original Mindfulness Sutra, The Buddha described what he called the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. These teachings remind us to be aware of our bodies; aware of our feelings and emotions; aware of our thoughts; and aware of events, as they occur, moment by moment." Lama Surya Das, Awakening the Buddha From Within, pg 301-302. (Italics are mine.)

Obviously, mindfulness does not mean that we should not think, rather that we do not dwell on the past, and stay in the present moment. If the present moment means that you need to think about future plans, that is acceptable. Just realize that those future plans are not set in stone, are subject to change, and will be in the present moment when they are implemented in the future.

As for meditation, it sounds like you are describing Samatha, or Calm Abiding Meditation. This does indeed call for training the mind to not have as many conceptual thoughts during the meditation. If one arises, we are aware, and dismiss the thought by returning to the object of focus, such as mindful breathing. The following link may be of assistance to you.

Contemplation and meditation and thinking


What is perfect virtue? I know of the Buddha nature and I am familiar with the concept of reincarnation so I am not really looking for those two concept as a immediate answer but I seek more of a answer pertaining to practice and the theory of what the supposed outcome is. I seek a response in regard to ones inner being.

What is perfect virtue and what is the fruits or results of perfect virtue?

Here's an article which might answer exactly that.
A Treatise on the Paramis
The article is detailed. One paragraph from its introduction is as follows,

The "requisites of enlightenment" are the paaramiis themselves, the main topic of the treatise. The word paaramii derives from parama, "supreme," and thus suggests the eminence of the qualities which must be fulfilled by a bodhisattva in the long course of his spiritual development. But the cognate paaramitaa, the word preferred by the Mahaayaana texts and also used by Paali writers, is sometimes explained as paaram + ita, "gone to the beyond," thereby indicating the transcendental direction of these qualities. The list of paaramiis in the Paali tradition differs somewhat from the more familiar list given in Sanskrit works, which probably antedates the Mahaayaana and provided a ready set of categories for its use. Our author shows that the two lists can be correlated in section xii, and the coincidence of a number of items points to a central core already forming before the two traditions went their separate ways. The six paaramiis of the Sanskrit heritage are: giving, virtue, patience, energy, meditation, and wisdom. Later Mahaayaana texts add four more — resolution, skillful means, power, and knowledge — in order to co-ordinate on a one-to-one basis the list of perfections with the account of the ten stages of the bodhisattva's ascent to Buddhahood. The Paali works, including those composed before the rise of Mahaayaana, give a different though partly overlapping list of ten: giving, virtue, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, loving-kindness, and equanimity. Unlike the Mahaayaana, the Theravaada never developed a theory of stages, though such may be implicit in the grading of the paaramiis into three degrees as basic, intermediate, and ultimate (section xi).

And from its conclusion,

(xvi) What is their fruit?
Their fruit is, in brief, the state of perfect Buddhahood.  In detail, it is the acquisition of the form-body (ruupakaaya) resplendent with the multitude of meritorious qualities such as the thirty-two characteristics of a Great Man, the eighty minor marks of physical beauty, the fathom-wide aura, etc.; and, founded upon this, the glorious Dhamma-body (dhammakaaya) radiant with its collection of infinite and boundless meritorious qualities — the ten powers, the four grounds of self-confidence, the six kinds of knowledge not held in common with others, the eighteen unique Buddha-qualities, and so forth.[34] And so numerous are the Buddha-qualities that even a perfectly enlightened Buddha could not finish describing them, even after many aeons. This is their fruit.
And it is said:

If a Buddha were to speak in praise of a Buddha,
Speaking nothing else for an aeon's length,
Sooner would the long-standing aeon reach its end,
But the praise of the Tathaagata would not reach its end.

Other paragraphs, in the middle of the article, are more interesting (more practical, "petaining to practice"). They include:

(i) What are the paaramiis?
(ii) In what sense are they called "paaramiis"?
(iii) How many are there?
(iv) What is their sequence?
(v) What are their characteristics, functions, manifestations, and proximate causes?
(vi) What is their condition?
(vii) What is their defilement (sa"nkilesa)?
(viii) What is their cleansing (vodaana)?
(ix) What are their opposites (pa.tipakkha)?
(x) How are they to be practiced?
(xi) How are they analyzed (ko vibhaago)?
(xii) How are they synthesized (ko sa"ngaho)?
(xiii) By what means are they accomplished?
(xiv) How much time is required to accomplish them?
(xv) What benefits do they bring?
(xvi) What is their fruit?


Does everyone need to sit, even zen masters, especially according to Soto zen? Does everyone need to sit, even zen masters, especially according to Soto zen? Or are certain highly accomplished meditators incapable of experiencing scattered thoughts?

When you don't have "scattered thoughts" whenever you are doing something, you're doing it fully immersed. Everybody has had periods of absolute involvement.

Obviously everybody has thoughts, it's just a matter of Distance from them.

As a matter of tradition and to set an example to everyone, everybody sits. I think even the founder Dōgen Zenji, sat till the very end. I'd even go so far as to say, if some people sit and some don't need to, then there's something wrong with the tradition and has some biases.

Also some accomplished masters just sit peacefully/blissfully. Let's say you have mastered a good amount of distance between yourself and thoughts, you will be able to sit peacefully. And that would be a pleasure (not the material pleasure, just bliss). Hence you would just sit naturally. I hope I made myself clear.


Why is sniffing a flower considered to be stealing? According to the Gandhatthena Sutta (SN 9.14), a monk sniffing a flower in the wilderness, that was not given to him, is considered stealing, even if it's only a hair-tip's worth of evil.

Why is sniffing a flower in the wilderness considered to be stealing?
Does that apply to lay followers too?

  I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among
  the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, after his meal,
  returning from his almsround, he went down to a lotus pond and sniffed
  a red lotus.

  Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for
  the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses,
  approached him and addressed him with this verse:

  [Devata:]
  You sniff this water-born flower
  that hasn't been given to you.
  This, dear sir, is a factor of stealing.
  You are a thief of a scent.

  [The monk:]
  I don't take, don't damage.
  I sniff at the lotus
  from far away.
  So why do you call me
  a thief of a scent?

  One who
  digs up the stalks,
  damages flowers,
  one of such ruthless behavior:
  why don't you say it of him?

  [The devata:]
  A person ruthless & grasping,
  smeared like a nursing diaper:
  to him
  I have nothing to say.
  It's you
  to whom I should speak.

  To a person unblemished,
  constantly searching for purity,
  a hair-tip's worth of evil
  seems as large
  as a cloud.

  [The monk:]
  Yes, yakkha, you understand me
  and show me sympathy.
  Warn me again, yakkha,
  whenever again
  you see something like this.

  [The devata:]
  I don't depend on you
  for my living
  nor am I
  your hired hand.
  You, monk,
  you yourself should know
  how to go to the good destination.

  The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

I guess one possibility is that "steal" is an inaccurate translation, and that a better translation might centre more on the "conceal" and "stealth" meanings of the words (e.g. concealing or taking a scent by stealth, secretly ... and observed only by a deva).

Another possibility is that it's taking what is not given: what is given (by lay-people to bhikkhus) are "requisites" -- food, medicine. The scent of a flower is not a requisite; taking the scent might be considered a sensual craving.


Does the absence of the son of a barren woman truly exist? In Je Tsongkhapa's, Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path Volume 3 pages 343-344 we have this:

  Therefore, as I explained before, the sword of reasoning cuts through
  phenomena, revealing that they lack even a shred of the two selves,
  and brings forth certainty about selflessness. So if a thing possessed
  of the two selves does not exist, then how could the non- existence
  which is its negation be established in reality? The con- ception that
  the nonexistence that is the absence of the son of a barren woman
  really exists must be based on the observation of a barren woman and
  her son. If those two are never observed, then no one thinks to
  construct the expression, “The nonexistence of the son of a barren
  woman truly exists.” In the same way, when you see no truly existent
  thing anywhere at all, you also do not give rise to the conception
  that the nonexistence of that truly existent thing is something truly
  existent. Therefore, you stop all thoughts conceiving of signs,
  because if a thought conceives of true existence, it must be a thought
  that conceives of the true existence of either an existent or a
  nonexistent. So if the larger category is negated, then the
  subcategory is negated. This is what KamalaŸıla’s Stages of Meditation
  says.

The context of this passage is a debate on how to generate the direct perception of emptiness. To my understanding, Je Tsongkhapa is refuting the notion that the Path of Seeing can be attained by eliminating all conceptual thought after one has used reason (ie., conceptual thought) to thoroughly conceive of the truth of emptiness.

The above passage to me seems to be saying that we have to use analysis/reason/conceptual thought during meditation to establish that, "the nonexistence that is the absence of the son of a barren woman really exists." In other words, that emptiness (the nonexistence or negation of the existence of the son of a barren woman) truly exists is the conclusion of analysis directed at the ultimate. Is this so?

However, right after that it says to enter into signlessness you have to stop all thoughts (emphasis in the original) of true existence ie., even the true existence of emptiness.

I'm confused. Is emptiness a true existent (ie., not mistaken with regards to its appearing object)? I think it is. However, in order to enter signlessness do we have to stop thinking this?

What is the correct interpretation of this passage?

I think Je Tsongkhapa must be using "true existence" or "real" existence synonymously here with inherent existence rather than the alternative defintion of, "non-mistaken with regard to its appearing object."

Why? In the very next passage he says this:

  Thus, to achieve the nonconceptual sublime wisdom, you alter- nate (1)
  developing certainty, profound certainty, that there is not even a
  particle of true existence in any thing or non-thing whatso- ever, and
  (2) stabilizing your mind on the conclusion thereby reached. You
  cannot achieve such wisdom by simply constricting mental activity
  without any analysis of an object, because this ap- proach does not
  make it possible to eliminate the conception of true existence. This
  is because it is merely not thinking of true existence; it is not
  knowledge of the absence of true existence. In the same way, it is
  merely not thinking of a self, but is not knowledge of the lack of
  self, so cultivating it does not stop the conception of self. There-
  fore, you must distinguish between (1) not thinking about true exist-
  ence or the existence of the two selves, and (2) knowing the lack of
  true existence or the nonexistence of the two selves. Remember this
  critical point.

Thus, I think he must be using 'true existence' synonymously with inherent existence.

No, it does not.

One nice book on the topic that I encountered is Mario D'Amato's translation of Madhyāntavibhāga and its Vasubandhu’s commentary. In addition to providing an excellent translation, Prof. D'Amato does an awesome job retelling both texts in his own words, elaborating and clarifying the meaning. Another solid book on the topic is Mahāmudrā, The Moonlight, by Dagpo Tashi Namgyal.

Both books discuss the enlightened mind's perspective, particularly emptiness and signlessness.

In general, it is my understanding that emptiness refers to the fact that all conceptualized representations whatsoever are mere schematic models of the ontological reality and that signlessness refers broadly to the direct experience of reality beyond conceptualized representation, and specifically to direct ("intuitive") experience of emptiness thereof.

In Mahayana Buddhism there are many ways of inducing direct experience of reality beyond conceptualized representation -- most of them involve overwhelming or exhausting the discursive (conceptual) mind one way or another. The methods range from sleep deprivation, to teacher making sudden loud noise during student's meditation session, to koans, to analytical methods. The latter are particularly popular with Madhyamaka and Gelug students inclined towards intellectual speculation.

One particular pattern of demonstration involves showing the limits of basic descriptive constructs that pertain to "entity" - by deconstructing their underlying assumptions - which at that moment leaves the student with more or less clear idea of emptiness in their mind. However, in reality, the student is actually grasping onto the "sign" of emptiness (i.e. the handle of the abstraction) while mistakenly assuming to be experiencing the emptiness itself.

So the next step in the demonstration necessarily involves some sort of analytical debunking of the concept of emptiness itself, which hopefully leaves the student with no conceptual ground to stand on. The resulting experience of being "lost" is a door into signlessness.

In this passage, Tsongkhapa uses one particular technique for the second step of the demonstration, the debunking of the concept of emptiness. This particular technique employs simple logic that exploits the dependency between negation and negandum. If negandum does not exist, it says, how can its negation have any existence? The traditional example of a son of a barren woman is an example of a negandum. This impossible son metaphorically stands in for the svabhava of entities -- the intrinsic nature whose emptiness was demonstrated on step 1. This emptiness of the intrinsic nature of all phenomena (including all objects as well as the perceiving subject, "the two selves") is metaphorically compared with the non-existence of the son of a barren woman. The author says: if the son (the intrinsic nature) does not exist, how can its negation (the empty nature) not be a mere figure of speech? The purpose of this passage is not to discuss the intricacies of the notion of "existence" vs "true existence" vs "intrinsic existence" etc. - but to simply knock the concept of emptiness from under the student's feet.

Once the student lets go of the sign of emptiness and enters signlessness, he or she can hopefully see the emptiness of everything directly. This seeing involves actual direct and clear understanding of the limits of conceptual mind and the profound contrast between all models and reality. Hence in the next passage Tsongkhapa comments on the resulting state of "nonconceptual sublime wisdom", "developing profound certainty, that there is not even a particle of true existence in any thing whatsover", "eliminating the conception of true existence", "knowledge of the absence of true existence" and "knowledge of the lack of self".


Is listening to a Dharma talk while walking considered a form of walking meditation? Sometimes when I take a break from work and walk through a nature path, I listen to a podcast called Zencast which is a collection of hundreds of Dharma talks by dozens of teachers over the decades such as Thich Nhat Hanh and Gil Fronsdal spanning a wide array of topics, such as Five Hindrances, mindfulness, meditation, etc. I highly recommend it, it's a great way to consume teachings on an iPod. When I do this, I am present with body in nature and with mind in enlightened knowledge, but is this technically a technique for a walking meditation?

Yes, in walking meditation we can use any of the 40 objects of meditation.

Listening to Dhamma talks would put it under recollection of the dhamma  as it gave you a sense of appreciation of the truth of the dhamma, IMHO,rather than the investigation of Dhamma (Dhammavicaya).

  "Mahanama, you should develop this recollection of the Dhamma while you are walking, while you are standing, while you are sitting, while you are lying down, while you are busy at work, while you are resting in your home crowded with children.


If hatred rises, How far I am to Nirvana? I saw in Indian T.V. serial Buddha saying that if hatred rises then know that you are far from Nirvana, is it true?
 Is there any other way Buddha described a way where one can see his current position in the journey to nirvana?

I saw in Indian T.V. serial Buddha saying that if hatred rises then know that you are far from Nirvana, is it true?

When you attain Nirvana both unwholesome or wholesome roots do not arise, you have also have eliminated the Five hindrances. Therefore, if any roots or hindrances appear in your mind then you are not in Nirvana. If there is a increase of roots, particularly unwholesome roots and then this can be viewed as moving away from Nirvana, hence moving away from Nirvana may be the right way to put it. Hatred has the root of dosa and also linked to Ill Will (vyāpāda). More on this see The Roots of Good and Evil, by Nyanaponika Thera and The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera

  Is there any other way Buddha described a way where one can see his current position in the journey to nirvana?

There are many measures of progress but the most reliable is equanimity as if this is present then unwholesome roots of aversion and craving does not arise. More on this see this answer and this answer.


Infidelity and Forgiveness guidance My husband cheated on me after 3 years of marriage.  I've decided to stay for all the other things he is and does.  Buddhism has helped in all other facets in my life. What would the Buddha advise me to do, what tools would he suggest in overcoming the betrayal of trust, the lying and find my way back to a happy partnership with someone I believe deserves the forgiveness.  I no longer want to speak to him in a way which I feel that is punishing for his transgression.  Please help.

According to the Buddha, confessing one's misdeed, seeing the fault and blameworthiness in that misdeed, and resolving not to transgress again is considered a maturing, a growth in a person. So too is the ability to accept that confession, forgive the person and harbour no malice.

I hope your husband understands the hurt he has caused you after making a solemn vow of fidelity, and that he has resolved to never do that again.

Now that you have decided to continue stay married, the Dhamma would tell us to let go of thoughts such as 'he cheated on me, he lied to me, he betrayed me'. For holding on to such thoughts will not allow you to find peace and move forward. Re Dhammapada verses 3 and 4.

I did a search on Google a little while ago and according to the results the estimate is that 30% of married men will. Ofcourse the results will vary based on location. I am currently in Sydney.

Also some studies have shown that 1 in 4 or even 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce.

So relationships are risky business, but they can be rewarding too. People make mistakes. However having the maturity to, admit the mistake, have the insight to see the error in it, and forgive and continue to move forward together lovingly is the Buddhist way, but it takes two.

If one party is continually failing to hold up their part, the Buddha says it's better to live alone, our find suitable companions. Also even in relationships we are adviced to practice being an island unto ourselves. For all meetings end in parting.

I recall watching a talk by Ajhan Brahm on this topic some time ago. Perhaps you might find that useful.

No matter what you do, don't live in regret and with thoughts of anger.

In addition you will find it useful developing the practice of the 5 daily recollections recommended by the Buddha.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html

I wish you well.


How to make a decision based on Buddhist principles? I have been practicing Buddhism since a child, about twenty years.  Throughout my adult life I have been trying to combine my practical life with my Buddhist beliefs.  In some situations, however, I am not seeing how Buddhist principles apply to decision making.  For example, how do I apply Buddhist ideals in deciding which college to go to, what profession to do, and what job opportunity to pursue?  These are the mundane but unavoidable decisions for the layman.  Of course, I'd not pursue a career in military or defense industry due to my beliefs, but there's not always a clear choice between other professions, jobs, etc based on Buddhist beliefs.

A book by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula, Ph.D entitled The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity At Home, At Work, and in the World devotes a chapter to "The Buddha's View on Decision Making".

  I have seen no other cause than the presence of false views to block the origination of right thoughts in the mind and to corrupt the right thoughts already present in the mind. I have seen no other cause than the presence of correct view to inspire the right thoughts already present in the mind. ~ The Buddha, The Numerical Discourses

Venerable Dr. Rahula, outlines 10 kinds of fallacies in reasoning (from several suttas including the Kalama, Bhaddiya, Canki and others) that if one were to believe to be true could create such false view.

Fallacy 1. Reported information is true
Fallacy 2. Traditional values, beliefs, and practices are actual truths
Fallacy 3. Social truths are actual truths
Fallacy 4. The texts are true
Fallacy 5. Logical reasoning is always correct
Fallacy 6. Reasoning based on imagination and speculation is correct
Fallacy 7. Hypothesized reasoning is correct
Fallacy 8. One should accept a view because it is compatible with one's own way of thinking.
Fallacy 9. One's persuasive skill validates the message
Fallacy 10. Individual authority is a dependable criterion for making decisions

Each of the fallacies is explained in detail and the following chapter details "Correct Reasoning, Right Decisions".

  If you understand that this action is right, harmless, blissful, beneficial, and admirable, take that action and follow it. ~ The Buddha, The Numerical Discourses

The four forms of correct evaluation (from the Kalama Sutta) are:

Right Evaluation 1. Wrong motivations lead to wrong decisions
Right Evaluation 2. Absence of wrong motivation leads to right decisions
Right Evaluation 3. Consequences of a decision make it right or wrong
Right Evaluation 4. Attention to the views of qualified people lead to right decisions.

In summary, the Buddha spoke of the correct way to make decisions on many occasions. Due to the way discourses are categorized, it's not easy for the average person to pick out the teachings of the Buddha on such practical matters in any sort of an easy way. This book has done that and combines an easy to read style with the expected references to the suttas from which the information is taken. It's available from Wisdom Publications if you are interested in reading it in full.


Is it bad karma to disagree with an arhat? I just wondered, is it bad karma at all to disagree with an arhat? I'm not saying I would, I just wondered, because killing one is phenomenally bad!

What about disagreeing with a Buddha?

According to the Nibbedhika Sutta:

  "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect.

If you see this answer, bad karma or not, is related to the intentions of the individual. The story of the blind monk Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1 and the story of the hunter's wife in Dhammapada 124 would serve as good examples from the scriptures.

If the individual has intentions that is insulting, disparaging or malicious towards the Buddha or arahant, then that would be generating bad karma.

However, if someone respectfully disagrees with the Buddha or arahant because he does not have the same view or understanding, then this should not be bad karma. If someone talks to a Buddha or Arahant, he should not incur bad karma, if he does so based on the principles of Right Speech (samma vaca), even if he disagrees with the opinion of the Buddha or the Arahant.

As said in the famous Kalama Sutta by the Buddha, just because a certain person is your teacher, it does not mean that you should simply accept what he or she says. Rather, it is preferable that you should accept the teachings only after you have known for yourself that it is good.

  "So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
  this was it said.

  "Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
  scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
  agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
  'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
  that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
  these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
  & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
  & remain in them.

Despite this, SN25 does have a provision for "faith followers" to meet a good end simply by having conviction and belief in the teachings of the Buddha, because it would lead them down the right track.

  "One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
  called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
  rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
  plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
  which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
  of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has
  realized the fruit of stream-entry.

Nevertheless, the Buddha was a great teacher who managed to convince those who insulted and verbally abused him (see Akkosa Sutta), mocked him (see Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta) and intended to challenge or test him (see Dhananjaanii Sutta and Acela Sutta). Of course, there are also times when the Buddha knew when to give up trying to convince someone (see Kesi Sutta).

The Buddha also understood and empathized that the truth he discovered may not be easily understood by everyone (see Ariyapariyesana Sutta):

  "Then the thought occurred to me, '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 & 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."

Also, don't forget that it may not be easy for unenlightened individuals to know who the Buddha really is, just like the case in the Dona Sutta and also the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

  A second time... A third time, the group of five monks said to me, 'By
  that practice, that conduct, that performance of austerities you did
  not attain any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge &
  vision worthy of a noble one. So how can you now — living luxuriously,
  straying from your exertion, backsliding into abundance — have
  attained any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge &
  vision worthy of a noble one?'

  "When this was said, I replied to the group of five monks, 'Do you
  recall my ever having spoken in this way before?'

While the Buddha may be omniscient, the Arahants may not even recognize that the other is also an Arahant (see Bhaddiya Sutta). So, Arahants are not omniscient. They are only enlightened or freed from suffering.


What does delusion feel like? In his book Breath by Breath Larry Rosenberg writes about meditating on the three kleshas directly i.e. meditating on craving, aversion and delusion. He is talking in the context of the Anapanasati Sutta. I can understand how one could recognise aspects their own hatred or craving. But how could someone recognise their own delusion in that moment of meditation?

Specifically, I can see that anger would be very obvious and one would become very familiar with the burning, energetic, dominating quality of this. In the same way, one's own craving and desire could become recognisable - we are familiar with what wanting actually feels like. However what does delusion actually feel like. What bodily sensations are associated with it. What does the mental quality actually feel like.

I can imagine looking back and with hindsight been able to see that at that point in time I was very deluded and thinking some very strange things. But how can the deluded mind see itself as deluded in that moment? How can we meditate on this? What does delusion feel like and how can we learn to recognise it?

I think that 'aversion' and 'desire' are opposite/complementary extremes of each other.
Similarly I think that 'delusion' is (defined as) the opposite of 'truth' (sacca/satya, the four noble truths) and (I presume) other 'true dharmas' (for example, one delusion might be a wrong view about 'self').
So I guess that you can be 'aware of delusion' whenever (if ever) you're aware that you have forgotten 'right view' or 'right mindfulness'.
If it's the 'root' klesha, I suppose it has many manfestations, but one of those is presumably  any addictive behaviour: repeating the same harmful mistake.
You're right though that at the least the "The Four Frames of Reference" section of the Anapanasati Sutta only talks about "putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world". Maybe the parts of it after that i.e. "Awakening", "Knowing", and "Release" are describing the opposite of "ignorance".

Also, in The Taste of Freedom Bhikkhu Bodhi writes,

Three kinds of feelings have been pointed out by the Buddha: pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neutral feeling, i.e., feeling which is neither pleasant nor painful. These three classes exhaust the totality of feeling, and one feeling of one class must be present on any given occasion of experience. Again, three mental factors have been singled out by the Buddha as the subjective counterparts of the three classes of feeling and described by him as anusaya, latent tendencies which have been lying dormant in the subconscious mental continua of sentient beings since beginningless time, always ready to crop up into a state of manifestation when an appropriate stimulus is encountered, and to subside again into the state of dormancy when the impact of the stimulus has worn off.
These three mental factors are lust (raga), repugnance (patigha), and ignorance (avijja), psychological equivalents of the unwholesome roots of greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha). When a worldling, with a mind untrained in the higher course of mental discipline taught by the Buddha, experiences a pleasant feeling, then the latent tendency to lust springs up in response — a desire to possess and enjoy the object serving as stimulus for the pleasant feeling. When a worldling experiences a painful feeling, then the latent tendency to repugnance comes into play, an aversion toward the cause of the pain. And when a worldling experiences a neutral feeling, then the latent tendency to ignorance — present but recessive on occasions of lust and aversion — rises to prominence, shrouding the worldling's consciousness in a cloak of dull apathy.
[...]
Under the dominance of lust he is drawn to the pleasant, under the dominance of hate he is repelled by the painful, under the dominance of delusion he is confused by the neutral. He is bent up by happiness, bent down by sorrow, elated by gain, honor, and praise, dejected by loss, dishonor, and blame. Even though he perceives that a particular course of action can lead only to his harm, he is powerless to avoid it; even though he knows that an alternative course of action is clearly to his advantage, he is unable to pursue it. Swept on by the current of unabandoned defilements, he is driven from existence to existence through the ocean of samsara, with its waves of birth and death, its whirlpools of misery and despair.

So the three poisons (lust, anger, ignorance) correspond to three types of feeling (pleasant, painful, and neutral); and delusion therefore is associated with a "neutral" feeling, and "consciousness shrouded in a cloak of dull apathy" and "confusion".


Should one give to beggars? I'm very fortunate to live in an affluent part of the world. Even so, it is a common site to see people begging for money in the street. In our town there are posters up asking people not to give to beggars as it just encourages people to beg more. However habitually walking past people begging does not feel like the compassionate thing to do.

Is it possible to bring Buddhist ethics and philosophy to bear on this? Should one give to beggars in this circumstance? It would be good if answers could include textual references to illustrate the point however all answers gratefully received.

I have worked with homeless persons through non-profit agencies for over twenty years, therefore my answer is based on much experience. You are wise to seek the compassionate response. There is tremendous judgement about people who beg: assumptions are made that they are addicts, or unwilling to work (prefer to beg), or uninformed about available social services, or simple-minded, or mentally ill, or lazy, or falling through the cracks, or __________ (fill in the blank with your thoughts about them).

You know what? Any or all of these things might be true of the next beggar you see. Or none of them might be true. Which is why it is wise to just rest in your compassion. The beggar you see is a human being first. Say hello. Smile. Give that person your full respect and do not assume for a minute that you know what is best for them. Do not assume you can gauge their capacity. Do not assume that you know anything About their past or present, or that you can predict their behavior (such as assuming they will buy liquor if you give them money).
Compassion validates human worth. Compassion listens. Compassion sees each beggar as an individual human being who is a very important person.

I believe that when you embrace your compassion, you will see the person. The person. And when you see the person, and have some conversation (or just simple eye contact and a nod), that your compassion will direct your actions. When you see the person, and listen, and pay attention to them, you will be positioned to help should you choose to do so. Perhaps Money. Perhaps bus fare. Perhaps food. Or perhaps a handshake and small-talk well-wishes.

There is no one-size-fits-all when we talk about people and their needs. It is wrong to put up a sign that points to a group of people as less-than, which is the essence of the  "don't give money to beggars" sign... It is giving the message "do not feed the animals". It is taking away their human dignity.


What is meant by "Practice the truth thy brother is same as thou"? We are different. Our upbringing is different.Our sanskaras are different. We are made up of sanskaras therefore every self must be different. Yet Buddha says Practice the truth that thy brother is the same as thou.
It would be great if someone can explain what is meant by the above statement of Buddha?

He is simply affirming as a truth/truism that your brother is the same as you. It's reminiscent of Jesus' "love your neighbour as yourself" -- possibly because of the (originally) Christian background of the writer Paul Carus (who wrote the 1894 The Gospel of Buddha which you're quoting).


What could I say to someone when they ask me "why do you meditate?" I was talking to someone about my morning routine, which includes meditation. They asked me why do I do it. I didn't know what to say. Finally I said "you should find out yourself" with a smile. I don't know how to answer this question. I don't want to explain, don't want to preach and don't want to come off like I'm hiding something by not explaining myself. And it's rude to not answer the question. I felt what I said was not the right way to respond. Suggestions?

Some suggestions:

You might phrase it as an invitation ("you could find out yourself") instead of as an order ("you should find out yourself"); and then if they ask more, try to help with their next question.
You might have a normal reluctance to be preachy; but because in this case someone asked (or invited) you to tell them, maybe it's OK for you to get over your normal reluctance and, instead, go ahead and tell them
You could give a short (one-sentence) reply and then wait for their response: "I do it because (state your reason here)". If the reason makes sense to you then maybe it'll make sense to them too; or if not then they can choose to ask (or choose not to ask) more about it.
You could turn it into a dialog or discussion (instead of being preachy) by adding a question at the end; for example "I do it because (here's my reason). Am I right? :-)"
You could give an less-personal answer: instead of saying why you personally meditate, you could reply, "Actually there are some good answers to that: venerable Yuttadhammo posted a 'top five reasons why everyone should meditate' to Youtube" (alternatively whatever or whoever else inspired you)
You could explain your feelings (which might be like discussing your relationship) with the person: for example, "I don't know how to answer that; I wish I could, but ... I don't want to sound preachy."
You could also turn the question around, "Oh! Why do you ask: do you meditate?" Try to see why they're asking or what they know already (because knowing that might help you to answer them).


Attachment is a poison. Why is attachment to the Buddha and to Buddhist philosophy not a problem? Attachment (aka craving or greed) is one of the Three Poisons.  Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison?  Perhaps it's related to the Tibetan Buddhist lojong "Don't make gods into demons"?

Sez who?

Attachment to Buddhism and to Buddhist philosophy is a very serious problem, which every practitioner should be careful about, since it's so seductive: it's easy to be perceived as progress, whereas it's the very opposite of progress.

To counter this hazard, some Zen schools recommend that "if you come across the Buddha on the road, kill him!" (Not to be taken too literally.)


What do you wish you knew when you started down the path of buddhism? This stack exchange actually lead me towards the path of finding a lama and becoming a Buddhist. Thank You!
This got me thinking, what would you tell sentient beings new to the path of Buddhism? Is there something you wish you knew when you started down it? Conversely is there something that could've been better explained now that you have been pursuing the path?
EDIT:  Given the great responses thus far I want to open this up to all forms of Buddhism. Not just Tibetan, I think there are valuable learnings in all approaches.

what would you tell sentient beings new to the path of Buddhism?

Be sceptical towards a strangers advice on the internet.


How is craving the practice that leads to the origin of feeling? SN 36.23 translated by Bhikkhu Sujato says:

  Then a mendicant went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side,
  and said to him:

  Atha kho aññataro bhikkhu yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā
  bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā ekamantaṃ nisīdi. Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho so
  bhikkhu bhagavantaṃ etadavoca:

  “Sir, what is feeling? What’s the origin of feeling? What’s the
  practice that leads to the origin of feeling?

  “katamā nu kho, bhante, vedanā, katamo vedanāsamudayo, katamā
  vedanāsamudayagāminī paṭipadā?

  What’s the cessation of feeling? What’s the practice that leads to the
  cessation of feeling?

  Katamo vedanānirodho, katamā vedanānirodhagāminī paṭipadā?

  And what is feeling’s gratification, drawback, and escape?”

  Ko vedanāya assādo, ko ādīnavo, kiṃ nissaraṇan”ti?

  “Mendicant, there are these three feelings:

  “Tisso imā, bhikkhu, vedanā—

  pleasant, painful, and neutral.

  sukhā vedanā, dukkhā vedanā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā.

  These are called feeling.

  Imā vuccanti, bhikkhu, vedanā.

  Feeling originates from contact.

  Phassasamudayā vedanāsamudayo.

  Craving is the practice that leads to the origin of feeling.

  Taṇhā vedanāsamudayagāminī paṭipadā.

  When contact ceases, feeling ceases.

  Phassanirodhā vedanānirodho.

  The practice that leads to the cessation of feelings is simply this
  noble eightfold path, that is:

  Ayameva ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo vedanānirodhagāminī paṭipadā,
  seyyathidaṃ—

  right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.

  sammādiṭṭhi … pe … sammāsamādhi.

  The pleasure and happiness that arise from feeling: this is its
  gratification.

  Yaṃ vedanaṃ paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṃ somanassaṃ, ayaṃ vedanāya assādo;

  That feeling is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its
  drawback.

  yaṃ vedanā aniccā dukkhā vipariṇāmadhammā, ayaṃ vedanāya ādīnavo;

  Removing and giving up desire and greed for feeling: this is its
  escape.”

  yo vedanāya chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṃ, idaṃ vedanāya
  nissaraṇan”ti.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation is more accurate, here:

  There are, bhikkhu, these three feelings: pleasant feeling, painful
  feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. This is called feeling.
  With the arising of contact there is the arising of feeling. Craving
  is the way leading to the origination of feeling. With the cessation
  of contact there is the cessation of feeling. This Noble Eightfold
  Path is the way leading to the cessation of feeling; that is, right
  view … right concentration.

In the above sutta and often elsewhere, it is said" "With the arising of contact there is the arising of feeling". Also, other suttas say: "With the arising of feeling there is the arising of craving".

This being so, how is craving the practice that leads to the origin of feeling?

The Mahayana answer would be that Vedana does not refer to feeling arising from an actual contact with an actual external object. Instead, Vedana is a subjective experience of feeling attributed to a subjective experience of contact with a subjective idea of an object. Basically, Vedana is a thought: "that thing that was over there, now that I have it right here, gives me this feeling of comfort (or this feeling of discomfort, or this neutral feeling)".

So, while Vedana depends on a subjective experience of contact as its immediate cause, more fundamentaly it depends on that idea of a desirable external object.

According to Mahayana interpretation of Twelve Nidanas, the process of dependent origination is actually cyclical, not linear. It's explained in twelve steps for ease of presentation but in actuality it represents a spiral of a self-enforcing tendency. The elements that later become Craving and Vedana are present in rudimentary/latent form even at the Formations(Tendencies) stage (the second Nidana) and get stronger as things get more concrete.

So at the root of the process is ignorant tendency of the basic mind to get settled into certain experiences which are then considered comfortable, and their opposites are considered uncomfortable. As the mind develops it learns to seek those comfortable experiences and avoid uncomfortable ones. This tendency to seek and avoid develops into ability to delineate entities (objects and the subject) and attribute qualities to them based on one's attitude. The experience of those qualities at the time of subjective "contact" is Vedana.

So Vedana, both comfortable (but transient, and therefore eventually uncomfortable) and directly uncomfortable, depends on this tendency to seek comfortable experiences attributed to external entities. That's what Craving refers to in short. After all, craving is always craving for an external something because of its implied promise to bring an internal experience of the right nature.

That's why Buddha says Craving is a practice (or path) that leads to Vedana. Because we attribute qualities arising in our mind to external entities, then we crave and pursue those entities (or avoid them), then we experience something as result, then we identify that experience as coming from the entity. This is Vedana.

Attributing perceptual qualities that in fact come from our mind to entities we have delineated out of totality of our experience, and then forming attitude to those entities, of either craving or avoidance, is the activity that leads to the illusory experience of pain and happiness.


Did the Buddha ever mention the Upanishads or the Vedas? I don't know a lot about those two, but I hear that they are full of wisdom. Since they date farther back than buddhism, I was wondering if the Buddha ever mentioned them.

What did he think of them?

If he didn't mention them as such, he probably mentioned some concepts that are contained in them; Apart from obvious concepts contained in those two that also are within Buddhist thought (E.g. Karma).

The original Vedas themselves have little that a Buddhist would consider "wisdom", I think, being comprised mainly of battle hymns, sacrificial procedures, and ceremony.  They are mentioned often in the Pali texts, e.g.:

13.‘Well then, Vaseṭṭha, what about the early sages of those Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas, the makers of the mantras, the expounders of the mantras, whose ancient verses are chanted, pronounced and collected by the Brahmins of today, and sung and spoken about — such as Atthaka, Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhāradvāja, Vāsettha, Kassapa, Bhagu - did they ever say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahmā appears”?’ ‘No, Reverend Gotama.’
14.‘So, Vāseṭṭha, not one of these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas has seen Brahmā face to face, nor has one of their teachers, or teacher’s teachers, nor even the ancestor seven generations back of one of their teachers. Nor could any of the early sages say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahmā appears.” So what these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas are saying is: “We teach this path to union with Brahmā that we do not know or see, this is the only straight path...leading to union with Brahmā.” What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Such being the case, does not what these Brahmins declare turn out to be ill-founded?’ ‘Yes indeed, Reverend Gotama.’
--DN 13 (Walshe, trans)

Since the rest of the Vedic literature, including the Upanishads, grew up around the time of the Buddha himself, it isn't mentioned as such, but the above quote is actually more applicable to the Upanishadic tradition than the original Vedas.
The texts also make various references to the five Vedas, e.g.:

the Three Vedas with their vocabularies, liturgy, phonology, and etymology, and the histories as a fifth.
-- MN 95 (Bodhi, trans)

Though I'm not sure this has anything to do with the Upanishads.
Short answer, yes, the Buddha mentioned the Vedas often, but the word "upanishad" was probably not yet in common use during his lifetime. It appears in the name of one of the Brahmanas (the Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana) composed before the Buddha, but probably wasn't used to refer to an entire genre of literature until much later.
As to what he thought about them, here's a passage from the Jatakas that exemplifies his thoughts while still a Bodhisatta (and rhymes, too):

"These Veda studies are the wise man's toils,
The lure which tempts the victims whom he spoils;
A mirage formed to catch the careless eye,
But which the prudent passes safely by.
The Vedas have no hidden power to save
The traitor or the coward or the knave;
The fire, though tended well for long years past,
Leaves his base master without hope at last.
Though all earth's trees in one vast heap were piled
To satisfy the fire's insatiate child,
Still would it crave for more, insatiate still,—
How could a Nāga hope that maw to fill?
Milk ever changes,—thus where milk has been
Butter and curds in natural course are seen;
And the same thirst for change pervades the fire,
Once stirred to life it mounts still higher and higher.
Fire bursts not forth in wood that 's dry or new,
Fire needs an effort ere it leaps to view;
If dry fresh timber of itself could burn,
Spontaneous would each forest blaze in turn.
If he wins merit who to feed the flame
Piles wood and straw, the merit is the same
When cooks light fires or blacksmiths at their trade
Or those who burn the corpses of the dead.
But none, however zealously he prays
Or heaps the fuel round to feed the blaze,
Gains any merit by his mummeries,—
The fire for all its crest of smoke soon dies.
Were Fire the honoured being that you think,
Would it thus dwell with refuse and with stink,
Feeding on carrion with a foul delight,
Where men in horror hasten from the sight?
Some worship as a god the crested flame,
Barbarians give to water that high name;
But both alike have wandered from their road:
Neither is worthy to be called a god.
To worship fire, the common drudge of all,
Senseless and blind and deaf to every call,
And then one's self to live a life of sin,—
How could one dream that this a heaven could win?
These Brahmins all a livelihood require,
And so they tell us Brahma worships fire;
Why should the increate who all things planned
Worship himself the creature of his hand?
Doctrines and rules of their own, absurd and vain,
Our sires imagined wealth and power to gain;
"Brahmins he made for study, for command
He made the Khattiyas; Vessas plough the land;
Suddas he servants made to obey the rest;
Thus from the first went forth his high behest ."
We see these rules enforced before our eyes,
None but the Brahmins offer sacrifice,
None but the Khattiya exercises sway,
The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey.
These greedy liars propagate deceit,
And fools believe the fictions they repeat;
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma one th’ injust among,
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
Those men are counted pure who only kill
Frogs, worms, bees, snakes or insects as they will,—
These are your savage customs which I hate,—
Such as Kamboja  hordes might emulate.
If he who kills is counted innocent
And if the victim safe to heaven is sent,
Let Brahmins Brahmins kill—so all were well—
And those who listen to the words they tell.
We see no cattle asking to be slain
That they a new and better life may gain,—
Rather they go unwilling to their death
And in vain struggles yield their latest breath.
To veil the post, the victim and the blow
The Brahmins let their choicest rhetoric flow;
"The post shall as a cow of plenty be
Securing all thy heart's desires to thee";
But if the wood thus round the victim spread
Had been as full of treasure as they said,
As full of silver, gold and gems for us,
With heaven's unknown delights as overplus,
They would have offered for themselves alone
And kept the rich reversion as their own.
These cruel cheats, as ignorant as vile,
Weave their long frauds the simple to beguile,
"Offer thy wealth, cut nails and beard and hair,
And thou shalt have thy bosom's fondest prayer."
The offerer, simple to their hearts' content,
Comes with his purse, they gather round him fast,
Like crows around an owl, on mischief bent,
 And leave him bankrupt and stripped bare at last,
The solid coin which he erewhile possessed,
Exchanged for promises which none can test.
Like grasping strangers  sent by those who reign
The cultivators' earnings to distrain,
These rob where’er they prowl with evil eye,—
No law condemns them, yet they ought to die.
The priests a shoot of Butea must hold
As part o’ the rite sacred from days of old;
Indra's right arm ’tis called; but were it so,
Would Indra triumph o’er his demon foe?
Indra's own arm can give him better aid,
’Twas no vain sham which made hell's hosts afraid.
"Each mountain-range which now some kingdom guards
Was once a heap in ancient altar-yards,
And pious worshippers with patient hands
Piled up the mound at some great lord's commands."
So Brahmins say,—fie on the idle boast,
Mountains are heaved aloft at other cost;
And the brick mound, search as you may, contains
No veins of iron for tile miner's pains.
A holy seer well known in ancient days,
On the seashore was praying, legend says;
There was he drowned and since this fate befell
The ocean's waves have been undrinkable.
Rivers have drowned their learned men at will
By hundreds and have kept their waters still;
Their streams flow on and never taste the worse,
Why should the sea alone incur the curse?
And the salt-streams which run upon the land
Spring from no curse but own the digger's hand.
At first there were no women and no men;
’Twas mind first brought mankind to light,—and then,
Though they all started equal in the race,
Their various failures made them soon change place;
It was no lack of merit in the past,
But present faults which made them first or last.
A clever low-caste lad would use his wit,
And read the hymns nor find his head-piece split;
The Brahmins made the Vedas to their cost
When others gained the knowledge which they lost.
Thus sentences are made and learned by rote
In metric forms not easily forgot,—
The obscurity but tempts the foolish mind,
They swallow all they're told with impulse blind.
Brahmins are not like violent beasts of prey,
No tigers, lions of the woods are they;
They are to cows and oxen near akin,
Differing outside they are as dull within.
If the victorious king would cease to fight
And live in peace with his friends and follow right,
Conquering those passions which his bosom rend,
What happy lives would all his subjects spend!
The Brahmin's Veda, Khattiya's policy,
Both arbitrary and delusive be,
They blindly grope their way along a road
By some huge inundation overflowed.
In Brahmin's Veda, Khattiya's policy,
One secret meaning we alike can see;
For after all, loss, gain and glory, and shame
Touch the four castes alike, to all the same.
As householders to gain a livelihood
Count all pursuits legitimate and good,
So Brahmins now in our degenerate day
Will gain a livelihood in any way.
The householder is led by love of gain,
Blindly he follows, dragged in pleasure's train,
Trying all trades, deceitful and a fool,
Fallen alas! how far from wisdom's rule."
-- Jat 543 (Cowell, trans)

As a Buddha, he seems to have become a bit more diplomatic, but still has little good to say about worship of fire, brahma, or the Vedas in general.


Mahayana and Non-dualism Would it be true to say that cultivation of a non-dualistic view is more important in Mahayana Buddhism than Hinayana?

The two traditions are different in that Mahayana uses a transformation process, that is, we try to "be" a bodhisattva which means incorporating their virtues and their mind. So we try to have a non-dualistic view. We don't get it in the beginning so we continue to refine our views. Question what do we do with hate and craving in Mahayana?

In the Theravada (which is similar to, but, is not hinayana) tradition it is a development process which means we deal with greed, hate and delusion until we eventually automatically come to posses a non-dualistic view.

Some people find transformation easier, rewarding and enjoyable, while others find development easier, rewarding and enjoyable.

Which do you prefer tea or coffee to quench your thirst?

nb similary with Vajrayana.