North American: Where Can I Ordain Under The Tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw? I am a Theravada Buddhist living in North America practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. My queries (regarding Theravada monasticism) are the following:

1) Can anyone recommend a or more than one bhikkhu monastery anywhere in
North America that I can ordain in that follows the tradition of or a
tradition similar to the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition?
2) Does anyone know if I would be able to practice (as an ordained bhikkhu) the tradition I am under (the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition) while in a monastery practicing a tradition other than my own (e.g. the Thai forest tradition)?

Thank you!

Good householder,
Sadhu, at first, for general desire in going forth.
Good to let go of consumer-behaviour at first place and approach ordination like a backpacker a new journey idea, or a worker his next holiday... good householder. One who closes the doors behind, at his home, with right adpiration, will be opened the gates by the Devas along his way for seeking the join the sages and trace the path to Unbound.
In regard to 1: Best ask Bhante Yuttadhammo, as he dwells in Canada, personally. Usually one approaches a Bhikkhu in proper way, and ask's for going forth. The rest would be careful organiced by the Bhikkhu, approaching the Sangha. He might ask if good householder has a Nissaya, teacher. So seeking for a Bhikkhu accepting one as disciple, is propably first to make.
Generally it's not so straight toward homeless state to ask in regard of going forth in lay communities and have geografical, national (identification with home, house, group) preferances, wishes, as such is merely seeking for another home rather that desire the going forth, good householder.
What does householder expect to hear from householders, or to household returned, in regard of going forth? Like to ask about work on the rice-fields in a city coffee-shop, or to google wikipedia...
See also: Q&A How to ordain as a monk of the Buddha?
In regard of 2: Usually traditions upholding Vinaya accept each other, althought sticking to wrong views can be everywhere a hindrance. How ever: it actually does not really depend on Branch or near relation but on personal Upanissaya with particular communities, individuals and kamma of beings is all different. So useless to make founded predictions. Good theacher, knowing one, knowing others, would know if fitting together in regard of Vinaya, way of conducts for pleasing dwelling for Sekhas.
Mudita and may good householder make good use of all his good condition and past merits for fast reaching security in the homeless - state.
(...and there is not such as "my tradition" idea on a journey to liberation. Good to seek for the Buddhas and Noble ones tradition, making such never ones own before it actually is by reaching Arahat-hood)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other home-binding trades but for release from this wheel]


Does "stream enterer" simply mean "devout Buddhist"? I have read about technicalities of stream entry, but just wanted to ask, to see if I understand the "big picture": If we step outside and try to describe it in plain English, is a "stream enterer" simply a "devout Buddhist"?

Let me offer an analogy with a more typical use of this word: a devout Catholic is a person who practices Catholicism not because of his upbringing/pressure from the society/habits of following the rituals/suspicion that God may exist, but because he knows that this is the right thing to do, and he knows that God exists (perhaps because of some experience that completely conviced him and left no doubt). So, is a stream enterer, analogously, somebody who knows that suffering is the problem, and knows that the Buddhist path is the solution (etc.)?

I'm only asking about the concept, and I don't want to get into discussion whether things that a devout of a particular religion knows are may be true or not.

No, a stream enterer is much more than that. A stream enterer has experienced Nibbana first hand and is changed in a permanent way because of it. Stream entry totally destroyes the first three fetters of self view, doubt about the validity of the teachings, and clinging to rites and rituals.

A person who knows the teachings of the Buddha are true and sincerely follows them to seek enlightenment but hasn't yet attained stream entry would be called a kaliyana putthujana, or good worldling.

(Added later)

Some other terms that might be what you are looking for are the terms Faith-follower and Dhamma-follower, which refer to individuals who have come to have come to an acceptance of the Dhamma either primarily through the quality of faith or of wisdom, but have not yet been able to directly perceive the truth of the Dhamma for themselves. For example, the Vinnana Sutta says:

  At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable,
  alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness...
  Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness
  is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

  "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.

  "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted
  that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-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.

  "One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a
  stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
  headed for self-awakening."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.003.than.html


Did the Buddha believe in the existence of soul? Did Gautama Buddha believe in the existence of soul in human body? If not, why?

What is a "soul"?

In the Christian New Testament, the "soul" is most often described as the human conscience that becomes defiled or purified, similar to the mind-heart ("citta") taught by the Lord Buddha.

In later-day-Buddhism, the idea of "relinking consciousness" was manufactured; which is similar to the meta-physical idea of the Hindu soul that leaves one physical body at the end of life and enters into a new physical body. This idea is alien to the Lord Buddha.

The Lord Buddha himself was not concerned with meta-physics but with ending suffering. Therefore, the Lord Buddha was not concerned with a meta-physical soul but with the egoistic covetousness & possessiveness that creates suffering.

While the Buddha's teaching of not-self (anatta) is a natural reality; the important reason it was taught is it ends suffering. If anatta did not end suffering, the Buddha would not have taught it.


Do the english user translate "monk making it his object to let go" as "monk knowing nibbāna", right? I ask this question because in pali, "to let go (nibbāna)", in this context, is known by monk. It is not just a target. The (ariya) monk thinking of nibbāna in his concentration, in this context.

I just wanna make sure that english translation is right, because when I translate that english sentence, by my terrible english, it look like "to let go " and "object" means "target", not "something is known by monk".

In the pāli: ārammaṇa means "something is known by consciousness", "something is thought by consciousness", "external sense-fields". It doesn't means target/object.

  "And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html

Edited:

It should to be:

  "And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making "to let go" as his mind's focus, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.

it look like "to let go " and "object" means "target", not "something is known by monk".

Yes, I think the English is a bit ambiguous, and it could be understood to mean either (or both).

The word "object" has many meanings, of which two are:

  a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.
  "disease became the object of investigation"
  synonyms: target, butt, focus, recipient, victim
  "he became the object of fierce criticism"
  a goal or purpose.
  "the Institute was opened with the object of promoting scientific study"
  synonyms: purpose, objective, aim, goal, target, end, end in view, plan, object of the exercise

So an English reader might understand it as the focus of meditation (what you're attentive to), or as the purpose of meditation (what your aim or ambition is).


Zazen for metta reasons Is it OK to use zazen for the purposes one would use metta meditation? Because I don't want to do any meditation except zazen.

Generally, zazen has no content - only emptiness.  That said, I'm not sure why you'd limit yourself like that.  If you feel you need to do metta meditation, do metta meditation.  If you feel you need to say amitabhas, say amitabhas.  Zen training has no boundaries.  Adherence to a strict set of practice rules isn't the point.


What is the meaning of "a ray of light which illuminates thousands of buddha fields in the east" in the Mahayana Lotus Sutra? The Lotus Sutra implies light came from Gautama Buddha, which connected to " illuminating thousands of buddha fields"; can anyone enlighten me as to what that could mean?

The Buddha first poses 56 stanzas to Manjushri in the beginning of the Lotus Sutra, some of the last stanzas mention fields:

(49). O how powerful is the Leader of men! how extensive and bright is his knowledge! that a single beam darted by him over the world renders visible so many thousands of fields!
(53). That one ray extending from him all over the world makes visible many thousands of fields. It must be for some purpose that this great ray has been emitted.
(55). There must be a weighty reason why so many thousands of fields have been rendered visible, variegated, splendid, and shining with gems, while Buddhas of infinite sight are appearing.

Stanza 55 in Chinese renders:
示諸佛土，
眾寶嚴淨，
及見諸佛，
此非小緣
So 佛土 (Literally: Buddha-soil or Buddha-earth) is rendered literally English as "field" (the same characters are used in stanzas 49 and 53).
However, in Buddhist literature, these are the characters used for buddhakṣetra which is equivalent with Pure Land in East-Asian Buddhism. In the Mahayana sutras, there are many buddhakṣetras.Bodhisattvas such as Avalokiteśvara and Manjushri would obtain pure lands after they attained buddhahood.
In the Lotus Sutra, Buddha's close followers such as Śāriputra, Mahākāśyapa, Subhuti, Maudgalyāyana and Buddha's son Rāhula would also have pure lands.
The literal meaning of "field" is not lost in the Lotus Sutra though. Manjushri answers a bit below the stanzas:
The aforesaid Lord Kandrasûryapradîpa, the Tathâgata, &c., when a young prince and not yet having left home (to embrace the ascetic life), had eight sons, viz. the young princes Sumati, Anantamati, Ratnamati, Viseshamati, Vimatisamudghâtin, Ghoshamati, and Dharmamati. These eight young princes, Agita, sons to the Lord Kandrasûryapradîpa, the Tathâgata, had an immense fortune. Each of them was in possession of four great continents, where they exercised the kingly sway. When they saw that the Lord had left his home to become an ascetic, and heard that he had attained supreme, perfect enlightenment, they forsook all of them the pleasures of royalty and followed the example of the Lord by resigning the world; all of them strove to reach superior enlightenment and became preachers of the law. While constantly leading a holy life, those young princes planted roots of goodness under many thousands of Buddhas.
So reading this as either:

allegorical, light shining on a field symbolizing the basic agricultural ingredients for seeds (of attainment) to grow
"Pure Land interpretation" of countless Buddha-realms, granted on attainment

is possible.


Does evolution contradict Buddhism? According to the Agganna Sutta we humans beings from Abbhassara Brahma world.  They are mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious. So basically a much more advance species than humans. Because of desire they deteriorated to what we are right now.
But evolution on the other hand basically talks about the reverse of this. That out ancestors were primates/chimps who had less developed intelligence. While the evidence to support the theory of evolution has been compelling still it remains unproven, however, still is widely expected as the most plausible explanation for the beginning of man kind.
 Is there anyway that both of these can mean the same although it seems to contradict on the surface?

I have not yet read the sutta you are referring to but i'm aware of both teaching (biological & Buddhist evolutions). So i am going to answer the last part of your question.

Evolution vs Buddhism

Sometime ago i had the same question as Buddhism does not explain animal evolution along with the human evolution. It took me sometime to understand a certain point that i have been missing from the beginning.....

As we all know that biology treats Humans and animals in the same manner while Buddhism does it very differently.

As Buddhism understand the world the animal realm is not a part of human realm. So in English, animals are not a Non-matured kind of humans. Animals are animals according to Buddhism.

As science suggest Evolution happens because of some beings being able to adapt to the environment and being able to reach good enough supply of nutritious foods & being able to hold on to that particular conditions for a long time.

But

As Buddhism teach Human birth is caused By good Karma and Animal birth is caused by bad karma. And when humans first started in earth there were no animals.

This statement make sense because as the universe is new there is no animal form left to give birth to beings in bad realms. But when Humans are born the circle is set.

You might want to know what Lord Buddha said about the life expectancy of early humans.

As to Lord Buddha......

Early humans had no health problems (The earth is new so it makes
sense).
Early humans were so healthy they called Hunger a disease
Early humans live 65,000+ years

(This is not the collective lifetime.This is the life expectancy of a single one like we live 65 years now)

So it is wrong to think that Darvin's Evolution is the same with Buddhism's Evolution. But it is clear that Buddhism is the only religion that actually proposed Evolution among all other faiths (2600 + years ago). Buddhism has its own version of evolution and i doubt that we will live long enough to see either one of these evolutions get proven by physical facts.

May the triple gems bless you!


How to enter the second Jhana? I know you must abandoned applied & sustain thought. Getting rid of applied is easy it's gone once the first Jhana is established. But how to you get rid of sustain thought? I have ready many books & articles but i don't understand them to well. They say once you reach the 1st Jhana review them and see how gross the first really is. But wouldn't that break concentration & push me back to square one?

From The Questions of King Milinda (translation mine):

  ‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vicāra?’

  ‘The characteristic mark of vicāra is pondering/mulling over (anumajjana), Your Majesty.’

  ‘Give me an example.’

  ‘For example, Your Majesty, if you strike on a copper vessel, it then rings for a while, it responds with a sound. Here, Your Majesty, the strike is a simile for vitakka and the reverberation is a simile for vicāra.’

So the "sustain" will cease all by itself when you stop "striking", there is no need to do anything separate.

As for your question about "review and see how gross the first jhana really is", this idea of "review and see as gross" comes from an entirely different context that was designed to explain Jhanas as steps of gradual removal of (initially coarse and then progressively finer instances of) Craving/Kleshas/Asavas towards cessation of dukkha and achieving perfect suchness. The first two Jhanas in this sequence can be further illustrated with a following allegory:

Let's say there once was a boy, who heard about this Luna Park coming to town that was rumored to have the best rides and the tastiest ice-cream. Everyone in town was talking about it, buying the tickets, and getting ready to enjoy. Just like the other people, the boy really wanted to go to that Luna Park and try the rides for himself. However, it happened so that he could not obtain the ticket and ended up staying alone in an almost empty town.

At first he was upset at his apparently bad luck, but then he said to himself: look, I can imagine how it is like at that Luna Park. It must be extremely crowded, with people pushing each other, hot and sweaty. The lines to the rides are probably very long. There is a lot of noise and screaming children are everywhere. The rides are nothing special, just going up and down, and the ice-cream is not different from what I can buy here any day. I, on the other hand, get to enjoy this entire town all to myself. I can walk in the park. I can gaze at the statues. I can sit on the benches. I can even walk into a city hall and sit on the mayor's chair - because everyone's gone to the Luna Park. How much better it is to not be at the Luna Park! How happy am I to have this quiet and peace all to myself. Can any Luna Park in the world be better than this quiet and peace? No, that would be logically impossible. It's a mathematical impossibility that something could be better than this quiet and peace. A Luna Park can be exciting at best, with lots of ups and downs - but it can't ever feel as sublime as this quiet and peace. And since I understand this fact, I'm not just lucky, I'm also wise. I understand what other people do not understand, and I can enjoy at a whole other level than they can.

-- As he thought so to himself, the boy immediately felt relieved, and the more he replayed these thoughts while going around the empty town, the more joyful he felt. Whenever he felt the joy was subsiding, he would look around and think up another reason for being glad. "Look!" he would say - "people at Luna Park are waiting in line to go to a toilet, while I have all toilets in town available to myself". He would then keep walking around, smiling to himself at that thought.

Until at some point the very effort of convincing himself started to feel redundant. "Why am I even repeating these thoughts to myself?" -- thought the boy. "This empty town is clearly much more enjoyable than the Luna Park, it's just a fact. Why don't I stop convincing myself and enjoy this beautiful town in peace?" -- and he did just like he said, stopped convincing himself and enjoyed the town in quiet and peace.

In this allegory, the boy is a meditator. The Luna Park is an idea of success. Enjoying the empty town is the first jhana. Thinking up another reason for being glad is vitakka. Pondering and smiling to oneself about that reason is vicara. Letting go of the effort of convincing oneself and just enjoying the town in quiet and peace - is the second jhana.

As you can see, in the First Jhana vitakka-vicara plays the role of a "peg" used to "push out" the unskillful mindstates:

  Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice would use a small peg to knock out, drive out, and pull out a large one; in the same way [...] when he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts [about "the Luna Park" and "one's bad luck" -AV] — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
  (from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)

The resulting withdrawal from the unskillful mindstates gives birth to "rapture and pleasure", and this process is repeated until "the entire body" is "pervaded" with it:

  Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal [from the thoughts about "the Luna Park" and "one's bad luck" -AV]. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...
  (from AN 5.28)

...once the defilements of mind have been washed away with joy to a sufficient degree, vitakka-vicara itself is seen as unskillful/redundant and is eliminated in turn:

  Just as the thought would occur to a man walking quickly, 'Why am I walking so quickly? Why don't I slow down?' So he slows down.
  (from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)

the resulting state is called the Second Jhana:

  ...with the stilling of vitakka & vicara, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from vitakka and vicara — internal assurance.
  (from AN 5.28)

and then the other jhanas:

  Then the thought occurs to him, 'Why am I walking? Why don't I stop?' So he stops. Then the thought occurs to him, 'Why am I standing? Why don't I sit down?' So he sits down. Then the  thought occurs to him, 'Why am I sitting? Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. In this way, giving up the grosser posture, he takes up the more refined one.
  (from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)


Does (bad) karma have to be depleted to be able to attain enlightenment? This question came to me from over thinking the "Angulimala" story. He had to "repent" to some extent for the murders he committed, by being scolded an hit by stones. However, the effect of the karma seems to be quite mild for 999 murders and even the intention to kill the Buddha.

So my question is this: Does your karma have to be neutral or positive to become enlightened?
And if not, what happens to the negative karma after attaining enlightenment?

While some of the past karma may fruit as obstacles to liberation, not all karma has to fruit before liberation, as even Buddha himself famously experienced results of his past karma after his enlightenment (e.g. when Devadatta wounded the Buddha's foot with a rock).

As I explained in https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1672/43 Buddha rejected the theory of intentionally "burning" past karma through exertion and austerity. Instead, liberation is achieved by "abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now".

Basically, Buddha's advice to people of difficult backgrounds has usually been to leave the past in the past, and focus on the choices to be made and the state of mind to be maintained from now on.


What is the proper etiquette when greeting/meeting a Venerable? Am completely new to the practice. What is the custom/proper etiquette when meeting a Venerable, in this instance for the first time but still applies overall? Further, is one to bow to the Buddha first and then greet? Please be as detailed and specific as possible. Example, If one is to bow, how and how many times, when, etc.

You bow one time when you meet the monk and you bow one time when you depart. You bow to the Buddha statue when you offer flowers, incense sticks, oil lamps etc. or when you chant some verse in front of the statue.


What are Buddhist perspectives on psychedelic drugs? I have head psychedelic drugs described as a gateway that can lead people to Buddhism, and to very powerful meditation practice. I have also heard the drugs were frowned upon by ancient Buddhist teachings. What do you know about the ancient and modern Buddhist attitudes toward these drugs?

John Hopkins is currently doing a boatload of research in this area (e.g.).  While I personally find all this very interesting and cannot possibly argue against the use of psychedelics in palliative care, I don't think they are appropriate in the context of Buddhist practice.  This is especially true for beginners; maybe not so much for advanced practitioners.  The experience of jhana or any mystical experience isn't nearly as important as the journey that gets you there.  As profound as the insights that issue from a bright, malleable mind can be, they are absolutely secondary to the transformation that is won through the sweat, effort, failure, patience, and resolve that characterizes long term meditation practice.  The bumps and bruises are what transform us.  They also better prepare us to receive and make use what wisdom is to be had in the jhana state.


If Kombucha Tea (trace amounts of alcohol) is used as medicine, is it considered a breach of conduct? I drink kombucha, a fermented and very slightly alcoholic tea, in order to ease recurring gastrointestinal distress. Although I use this drink as a tool, is it considered a breach of the fifth precept?

The purpose of that precept is to prevent loss of heedfulness through intoxication.

If your reason to drink tea of some kind with very little alcohol in it, is for medicinal purposes, and if it does not cause the loss of heedfulness through intoxication, then there is no violation of the precept in my opinion.


In Buddhas Time Did Kings give Freedom to His Sex Wives(Anttappura Wives)? in lord Buddhas time their was many kingdoms in India. these kingdoms had many kings. kings had many wives. some kings had 500, 1000 (Antappura) wives but they all have main 1 queen & other wives used for sex uses.most of these kings became followers of Buddhism & Buddha & they obtain nirvana (1st 3 stages as below)

The First Stage – Skt srotaapanna (The stream-winner)
The Second Stage – Sakridagamin
The Third Stage – Anagamin (The non-returner)

so my question is after these became Buddhist & obtain nirvana did these kings given freedom to these Wives who use for sex uses?

One such instance was King Bimbisara giving freedom to Khema to enter the order. Many more may be found in the cemeteries and many may not even be documented!


Is there a "canon" of Zen Koans? There are lots of Koans on the internet, but I am not sure if there is some sort of process that a Koan must go through, or if there is some sort of list of Koans that are taught and that new ones are not added.

Meaning, if a Koan is just made up on the spot by some random person, and the Koan is unrelated to the core principals of Zazen, I presume it wouldn't be taught by a Japanese Zen master. Which leads me to believe that there are some sort of "canon" of Koans.

Sure - the Blue Rock Collection, the Mumonkan, the Book of Serenity, etc.  We mostly stick to those because, frankly, they're freaking fantastic and have been leading people to enlightenment for over 1200 years.  Why reinvent the wheel?  Of course, just about every teacher will often make up a koan on the spot to help a student with a specific obstacle.  Some of these remain in circulation among some lineages, but they rarely (if ever) rise to the prominence of something collected in the afore mentioned texts.


Early life of the Buddha's references Many accounts of the Buddha's life describe Śuddhodana preventing his son from leaving the palace to avoid a prophecy said by Asita. For example, this site says:

  Suddhodana was determined to see his son become a king so he prevented him from leaving the palace grounds. But at age 29, despite his father's efforts, Siddhartha ventured beyond the palace several times.

In what sutta (of any canon or tradition) the Asita prophecy and the above events are described? The only sutta I know about Asita is Snp 3.11 but it does not mention the alternative prophecy for his future, and most suttas I know have the Buddha describing the palaces he lived in, but not his father's plans to prevent him from becoming a Buddha.

Also, it's commonly said that, after going outside the palace, he saw a sick, an old, and a dead person. Is this in the pali canon? DN 14 says Vipassi was the one who encountered these people. I only know of suttas such as AN 3.39 where it says that the Bodisatta reflected on sickness, old age and death. Do these stories got conflated?

In what sutta (of any canon or tradition) the Asita prophecy and the above events are described?  ...

.

  Asita apparently see the child Bodhisattva either on the very day that he was born, or within
  three days thereafter. The Buddha,vaṁsa Commentary mentions the 5th day as the “head lustration” and
  naming day, when 108 brahmins were invited. If these, 8 of them—beginning with Rāma
  (J 1:56, v270)
  —were versed in reading the 32 marks of the great man. Seven of them raised two fingers, predicting that
  the child would become a wheel-turner if he lived a household life, and become buddha if he renounced
  the world.

  The youngest of them, Koṇḍañña, was certain of the child’s future, and raised one finger, proclaiming
  the he would surely become the Buddha. Koṇḍañña later becomes the eldest of the group of 5 monks who
  attended to the Bodhisattva before his awakening. However, Asita is not mentioned amongst these brahmins.

Source: Introduction to Nālaka Sutta by Piya Tan

    ...  he saw a sick, an old, and a dead person. ...

  Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person, himself subject to aging, not beyond aging, sees another who is aged, he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he too is subject to aging, not beyond aging. If I — who am subject to aging, not beyond aging — were to be horrified, humiliated, & disgusted on seeing another person who is aged, that would not be fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the [typical] young person's intoxication with youth entirely dropped away.

Source: Sukhamala Sutta, Four sights

  And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.

Source: Ariyapariyesana Sutta, Four sights


Can the dharmakaya buddha be manifest as human? It occurred to me that some human life has immeasurable value. Not just is very very valuable, but cannot, in principle, be contrasted with the value of another sentient life.

I think that the term for this immeasurability is the dharmakaya.

Do any traditions claim that the dharmakaya is never manifest in a human being?

I am writing from the point of view of Tibetan Buddhism. Your question actually has two aspects. The only thing that can set humans apart from other sentient beings is realization of "precious human life". This is the desire,ability,and opportunity to take refuge in the Three Jewels of Buddha,Dharma,and Sangha.
The second aspect is the understanding of the three kayas (bodies) of the enlightenment of a buddha.
Dharmakaya represents mind,and as such has no bodily form. It is always present,yet does not change or transform. It is not the conceptual daily mind that we are all familiar with, but rather primordial, pure and clear mind, hence unchanging. It is the basis for determining sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya.
Sambhogakaya represents speech. It is the speech that manifests wisdom in a verbal and nonverbal aspect. In other words, thinking and speaking with wisdom from the Buddhist point of view. It is the ability to communicate wisely on all levels.
Nirmanakaya represents the body. This is the physical aspect of one who is enlightened. It is the literal body that communicates and relates, changing constantly as it purifies karmic influence and residue. This continues until purification to the point of being one with extraordinary ability to work for the benefit of others.
As a sentient being with precious human life,the three kayas work together as one to produce an enlightened buddha.
These topics and many others are covered in Khenchen Konchog Gyaltshen Rinpoche's very easy to understand book,"A Complete Guide To The Buddhist Path".


How to practice mindfulness How to practice mindfulness during the day?

I have been know known to be absent minded and forgetful but perhaps it's due to my Karma. The problem is so bad that is someone else makes the mistake due to their mindlessness I am automatically blamed without knowing the facts!!!!!

I have been told that meditation clears out ones' Karma and that mindfulness during the day is another form of meditation (I already sit on the floor Burmese pose 30 min twice daily and breathe in, breathe out)

How to gradually start being mindful? It seems rather overwhelming .... Thanks!

Start by adding Walking Meditation to your practice.

Next, when you finish your meditation and are about to go on with your day, make a resolve to be mindful and try to keep that mindfulness as you leave the meditation.

Then start setting aside key times during the day when you will accomplish some activity mindfully.  For instance, it could be meal-time, or a break in which you take a walk or do your exercise.

Gradually expand that mindfulness practice to include other parts of your day.

You could also carry a mindfulness timer or app that will chime at regular intervals to remind you to be mindful.

Most important: don't get discouraged.  Getting distracted or falling back into old patterns is natural.  Mindlessness is a habit, and like all habits, it takes work and there is backsliding.


During meditation how do I focus What is the best way to focus?

And also how can I stop passing judgment on myself during? Its really difficult.

To focus, you remember to keep the mind on the meditation object (breathing) &, when the mind strays, just bring it back to the object.

When the mind strays, it is not "you" that is intentionally straying but the mind itself therefore it is not logical to judge "yourself" since the mind is the problem rather than "yourself".

If the mind is straying a lot and you are judging yourself a lot, you may have to train the mind new ways of acknowledging the straying, such as mentally noting: "The mind is straying"; "the mind has craving"; "the mind has anger"; "the mind is restless"; etc or simply: "straying"; "craving"; "anger"; "restlessness", etc.

In this way, instead of judging "yourself" & attributing blame upon "yourself" unnecessarily & unwarrantedly, the mind is judged or the states of mind are judged.

There are preliminary meditation techniques for beginners such as the popular Mahasi Sayadaw method that use this  kind of mental noting. You may check out these methods or, otherwise, read about how the Buddha dealt with his straying mind in the sutta on Two Kinds of Thinking.


Did the Buddha according to the suttas mean anything else by the word "self" beyond simply the aspect of control/power? It looks like according to [the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta][1] one aspect that is considered "self" by the Buddha is power or control. Why did he use the word "self" instead of just "complete control/power"? Was/is there more to it than just power/control?

Was there anything more meant by the Buddha according to the suttas by the usage of the word "self"?

This is a very famous line of argumentation in Buddhism, especially in Theravada, about no-self. The basic idea is that according to common sense, we can control ourselves by the power of will - move our limbs etc. - but we can't control external objects. From this it follows that this notion of control can be used to help clarify the boundary between "me" and "not me". Buddha then uses reductio ad absurdum to show that, in fact, according to this definition, nothing is truly in our control, therefore nothing is me (or "self").

Mahayana builds up on this basic point to show a deeper meaning the Buddha implied. Since nothing is fully in our control and things are always in flux (including our mind), said the Buddha, let's stop expecting that things can ever be perfect in some imaginary state of (conditional) Nirvana. This very expectation of perfection itself, says Buddha, is what creates the mental mismatch that we experience as psychological suffering.

In fact, our definition of perfection that we have internalized, our idea of how things should be, is exactly the core of our sense of self. This mental point of reference is what we measure the world against, and as long as we measure it, we will find things to be imperfect, causing the painful feeling of wrongness, dukkha. Only by doing away with any sense of territory, any idea of how things should be, which is the core of Self, can we open to seeing things as they are.

Therefore Buddha says, do not identify with anything, physical or mental. Identification leads to dukkha. First, because it (=whatever we identify with, e.g. body) will eventually break up and it's not in our power to stop that. Second, because it (=all external things, but also even the mind) is in flux and never fully in our control, therefore fundamentaly unreliable; impossible to guarantee. Third, because it (a hard position or view) leads to conflicts, arguments, and even violence.  And fourth, because it (i.e. an idea of how things should be) serves as a basis of comparison and setting of expectations, which is inherently conducive to dissatisfaction.

Therefore, a wise man, a rational man, a practical man seeking to stop dukkha, would be right to conclude that identifying with anything, any entity or concept, is simply a bad move, because it would inevitably lead to suffering.

Cessation of identification leads to cessation of dukkha. Realizing this, letting go of identification, and achieving the unconditional suchness (perfection without comparison) is the solution that Buddha offers.

This is the meaning of this passage, in my understanding.


How to identify Pada Parama Persons? As preached by Buddha there are four types of people in the world, they are ugghaṭitaññū, vipañcitaññū, neyya and padaparama. The last person is definition is here. Can anyone please guide me how how to identified the pada-parama type people.

Update

Based on the comments, I was looking for the definitions of above four types of people and finally found that in Sutta Pitaka -> Kuddaka Nikaya -> Nettiprakaranaya -> Desanāhāravibhaṅga. And the english translation is not yet done, but you can find the pali here.

I've highlighted the important words in below quoted section from above sutta.

  Tattha bhagavā ugghaṭitaññussa puggalassa nissaraṇaṃ desayati,
  vipañcitaññussa puggalassa ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca desayati,
  neyyassa puggalassa assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca
  desayati.

nissaraṇaṃ = deliverance
ādīnavañca = danger
assādañca = attractiveness
puggalassa = person
desayati = lecturing / teaching

So here are three main things in Buddhism which are assādañca, ādīnavañca and nissaraṇañca. And the details of how it relates to the path can be found in [Sotapanna Sutta][3] as below.

  And when, monks, the Ariyan disciple understands as they really are
  the arising and the passing away, the attractiveness and the danger,
  and the deliverance from the five groups of clinging, he is called an
  Ariyan disciple who is a Stream-winner, not liable to states of
  woe,1 assured of final enlightenment.

So in summary, out of the the four persons three has defined the based on what to be taught.

ugghaṭitaññussa -> Teaching deliverance is sufficient.
vipañcitaññussa -> Teaching danger and deliverance is sufficient.
neyyassa -> Has to teach all three which are attractiveness danger and deliverance.
Pada parama ->  Can not attain Nivana as he is the one for whom the words are the utmost attainment'.;Whoever, though having learned much, speaking much, knowing many things by heart, and discoursing much, has not penetrated the truth. (this is extracted from here)

I wish i knew more about what sutras say about this. Also, some things on the top of my head:

You observe whether a persons teachings are congruent with how that person acts.
By direct experience. You try out the teachings for yourself to find out whether they work for you or not.
By asking for clarifications to see if initial claims can be substantiated further. (A wise person once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence).


Is the force of Kamma like a God for Buddhists? We know Buddhism doesn't have a creator God like most religions, however there is the law of Kamma, a law we cannot see and also we cannot prove, in other words, a law that requires faith and cannot be measured like gravity or electromagnetism.

Once a Theravada senior monk said that: "Buddhists should not say they don't believe in God, because they believe in the laws of nature and Kamma, it works like a God, a higher force, only not a creator God, not a being we pray to"

So, Is kamma "like" a god?

Sure, there is a way that karma could be understood as being "like" a god. It is one of the forces that controls the whole of the universe; it has the world in its power:

kammunā vattati loko
The world goes according to karma
-- MN 98

In that sense, it could be understood as sharing a similarity with the concept of god. That's about as far as the similarity goes, though.
The law of karma isn't an entity, it is a regularity of interaction between moments of experience, that certain types of experience (ethically intentional ones) have a creative force, for either good or bad. It is important to remember that the word "karma" just means "action". So, in a way you are asking "Are actions like gods?" which of course is silly. Nonetheless, the law of karma does act a bit like a god would, only a lot more logically.


What is the quality and status of the Tripitaka texts at tipitaka.org? I am looking for high quality etexts of the Tripitaka and so far after weeks of search, the best place seems to be tipitaka.org.
However, when looking at the texts, the punctuation and writing style is doesn't seem high quality to me, and I wonder how it compares to the "originals".
For example, look here:

කතමෙ ධම්‌මා කුසලා? යස්‌මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්‌තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්‌ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්‌තියා විවිච්‌චෙව කාමෙහි…පෙ.… පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්‌පජ්‌ජ විහරති දුක්‌ඛපටිපදං දන්‌ධාභිඤ්‌ඤං ඡන්‌දාධිපතෙය්‍යං…පෙ.… වීරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං…පෙ.… චිත්‌තාධිපතෙය්‍යං…පෙ.… වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්‌මිං සමයෙ ඵස්‌සො හොති…පෙ.… අවික්‌ඛෙපො හොති…පෙ.… ඉමෙ ධම්‌මා කුසලා.

There are ellipses … everywhere, Latin punctuation like the question mark ? and period . everywhere. Some things are centered, some things are in bold, and not being a native reader, I am not sure what the significance of all these "features" are.

Things are aligned in several different ways as in the last image. Again, why so much random bold? And there's quotes ".
I am just collecting these texts for later learning, and want to clean them up. What do I really need out of these texts? Do I need to keep the bold and centering and such (i.e., what information does it contain/encode?), or can I get rid of it? Are these ellipses some sort of signifier that the text is incomplete, or is it a list they are iterating over or something? Basically, can I remove the ellipses too?

OP: There are ellipses … everywhere

This is a Tipitaka writing method called peyyala (p) [පෙය්‍යාල (පෙ)] to omit repetitive phrases or paragraphs in order to prevent Tipitaka becoming unfeasibly lengthier. In peyyala writing method, ellipsis (...) with or without p (පෙ) used to indicate an omitted phrase or passage.
e.g. The following paragraph written with peyyala.
කතමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා? යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි...පෙ...පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං...පෙ...වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති...පෙ...අවික්ඛෙපො හොති...පෙ...ඉමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා.
If we write the same paragraph without peyyala it would become lengthier like this;
කතමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා? යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ ඵස්සො හොති.
යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං ඡන්දාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං විරියාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං චිත්තාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති. යස්මිං සමයෙ ලොකුත්තරං ඣානං භාවෙති නිය්‍යානිකං අපචයගාමිං දිට්ඨිගතානං පහානාය පඨමාය භූමියා පත්තියා විවිච්චෙව කාමෙහි පඨමං ඣානං උපසම්පජ්ජ විහරති දුක්ඛපටිපදං දන්ධාභිඤ්ඤං වීමංසාධිපතෙය්‍යං, තස්මිං සමයෙ අවික්ඛෙපො හොති.
ඉමෙ ධම්මා කුසලා.

OP: Latin punctuation like the question mark ? and period . everywhere.

Your first quote is from "Dhammasaṅgaṇī" and it is written in a question and answer pattern. So the latin punctuation question mark (?) has its usual meaning (used at the end of an interrogative sentence). Period (.) is used to indicate the end of a sentence.

OP: Things are aligned in several different ways as in the last image.

I cannot see much importance of the alignment of the sentences.

OP: Again, why so much random bold?

I'm not sure why some of the sentences and words are bold apart from the titles.

OP: And there's quotes ".

Quotes (") are usually used as speaker tags.

OP: What do I really need out of these texts? Do I need to keep the bold and centering and such (i.e., what information does it contain/encode?), or can I get rid of it?

My suggestion is to keep all the formatting except different alignments. (Most importantly the ellipses should be kept). I'm not sure whether the bolds should be kept as they are or not.
Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong, but not Dhamma.


In Yogacara Buddhism, is discontinuity an illusion, and does change arise? Buddhists talk about discontinuity

  ordinary consciousness consists of the discrete cetas

and illusion

  all is illusion and the external objects are nothing but the creations
  of our mind

In Yogacara, are all moments discontinuous -- the idea that nothing is ever the same thing twice and no two times meet -- and an illusion?
Does that mean that durations -- even-though consisting of impermanent events -- only seem to arise persist decay or cease? Why?

I can intuitively see a link between 1 and 2, and I am in effect asking about that. Put another way: is the flow of time we psychologically experience itself permanent?

Like Andrei says, this isn't something normally taken up by yogacara.  Nevertheless, if you wanted to pull this system into the discussion, it would seem that yogacara argues in favor of continuity at least in respect to the unenlightened mind.  One of the characteristics of the alaya vijnana is that it gives a false notion of consistency to the self and the thrice transformed objects of consciousness.  Specifically in regards to mind consciousness, the cetas are superimposed by the alaya in a consistent way.   I don't know of any instance where yogacara makes the argument that all consistency is vacated upon enlightenment, but it stands to reason that once the transformations are abandoned, each sense object and mental construct becomes fully discrete and not warped by residual mental seeds in the alaya.


Why is desire the root of suffering? I fail to understand how this teaching would ever help man become productive. Please help me understand this.

Not everyone seeks nirvana and some people want to better the world, not only for themselves but for their family and countrymen. They do so either out of desire to reduce others' suffering or by seeking alleviation for their own sufferings. I've read a lot of self help books which emphasize the need for desire as such, and faith in oneself to achieve that desire. Is that not how every living being functions - driven by desire?

Every business that is built is motivated by a desire. Every material possession is obtained through desire. We can extrapolate that to the spiritual realm by saying that man travels, meditates and watches his thoughts driven by a desire to attain spiritual peace and fullfilment.

Thus I ask, how can desire be the enemy? Shouldn't it be greed instead?

Working on your hobbies, advancing your career, growing a business, developing a family, nurturing a child, improving your health through good diet and exercise, going on vacations, increasing your wealth, using your money for the enjoyment or development of yourself and others, raising your status in the world, attaining fame in society etc. could all make you happy.

It would not just make you happy, but also your family and people around you. If you start a business, you might create jobs for others. If you buy goods and services, you sustain others' income.

All these types of worldly happiness definitely need sensual cravings (kama tanha) and cravings of becoming something (bhava tanha).

Buddhism teaches the pursuit of happiness and the elimination of suffering (dukkha). The short term happiness goal in Buddhism is worldly happiness, when it is achieved through virtue, merit, charity and harmony. Also see this answer to the excellent question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?".

Here's another example of a sutta where worldly happiness is preached in Buddhism. From AN 5.58:

  He always does his duty toward his parents;
  he promotes the welfare of his wife and children.
  He takes care of the people in his home
  and those who live in dependence on him.

  The wise person, charitable and virtuous,
  acts for the good of both kinds of relatives,
  those who have passed away
  and those still living in this world.

  He benefits ascetics and brahmins,
  and also the deities;
  he is one who gives rise to joy
  while living a righteous life at home.

  Having done what is good,
  he is worthy of veneration and praise.
  They praise him here in this world
  and after death he rejoices in heaven.

However, worldly happiness is a short term type of happiness. Nothing ever lasts.

Your health and youth would not last forever. Your loved ones or friends may forsake you. Your career or businesses may dwindle. Your money and possessions may get stolen. Your peaceful life in your country may be replaced by civil unrest.

No one knows this better than the Buddha, who was a prince who had everything. Realizing that worldly happiness would not last forever, he set out to find permanent happiness and eventually found it. To achieve permanent happiness, you must uproot craving.

There are three types of craving (tanha): craving for sensual pleasures, craving to become something (that makes someone have ambition) and the craving to not become something (that makes one suicidal or withdrawn).

If you crave for food, and eat some tasty food, you may cling to it or become attached to it. You think and fantasize about it even when it's not there. That's clinging or attachment. Craving gives rise to clinging and clinging gives rise to greed or lust to acquire it.

If someone prevents you from getting the tasty food that you cling to, then you feel angry. That hatred or aversion arises because you were denied what you cling to.

If this anger makes you enraged that you go and harm this person who prevents you from getting what you want, this is delusion. Delusion clouds your better judgment.

The craving to become something is similar. Examples are like wanting to get a gold medal or to get a promotion or to become doctor or professor or get recognition etc.

If you crave to get recognition and get it once, you may cling to it and want it even when it's not present. This leads you to do things to get recognition as you have greed (or lust) for it.

If you don't get recognition, but someone else does, you become envious. That's aversion.

If continuously not getting recognition leads you to become depressed, which clouds your normal healthy state of mind, then that's delusion.

That is how craving is the root of all suffering. When you uproot craving, you will uproot suffering.

Of course, it is not a MUST that you seek the permanent happiness of Nibbana. If you are only seeking the short term type of happiness, that is worldly happiness, make sure you include virtue, merit, charity and harmony. At the very minimum, the practice of the five precepts is needed.


Seongcheol's parinirvana gatha Seongcheol's parinirvana gatha reads:

  Deceiving people all my life, my sins outweigh Mount Sumeru.

  Falling into hell alive, my grief divides into ten thousand pieces.

  Spouting forth a red wheel,

  It hangs on the blue mountain.

Has anyone written about what this means? I see that Seongcheol had this explanation

  I've lived my entire life as a practitioner, and people have always
  asked me for something. Everyone is already a Buddha, but they do not
  try to realize that fact and only look towards me. So, in a way, you
  could say I've deceived people all my life. I've failed to get this
  message across to everyone so I'm suffering in a kind of hell.

But I wonder if it is definitive?

You read people who think it's an admission that he's wasted his "entire life", whereas I thought it could be a statement about "saving all sentient beings".

My understanding of this is as follows;

Illusion is impure, but a water wave is beyond purity and impurity;

May I be reborn in a hell to purify it and save the living beings there.


Is it wrong-view to think there might be more than 5 aggregates? Although the 5 aggregates seem to fully explain my experience, is it wrong view if I think that there might be more?

There are only two realities: saṅkhāra (dependent origination such as aggregate) and asaṅkhāra (no dependent origination such as nibbāna). All others are paññatti (concept;imagine;not reality) because saṅgkhāra must have tree sub-characteristics and asaṅkhāra must have not tree sub-characteristics. But paññatti has nothing, it can't arise like saṅkhāra and can't cease saṅkhāra like nibbāna.
By VN Parivāra of upāli-etadagga:

Aniccā sabbe saṅkhārā, dukkhānattā ca saṅkhatā; Nibbānañceva paññatti,
anattā iti nicchayā.
Saṅkhāra, which means saṅkhata(effect-saṅkhāra)*, is
anicca&dukkha&anattā; But only nibbāna&paññatti which are explained
as only anattā.
(*Saṅkhāra, which means cause-saṅkhāra, use in more fixed meaning word, such as saṅkhāra-khandha, saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda. You can notice it
in each context, because it is already appear clearly.)

And by KN Paṭisambhidāmagga of sāriputta-mahāsāvaka:

sabbe  saṅkhārā  aniccā  sabbe  saṅkhārā  dukkhā sabbe     dhammā     anattāti
All saṅkhāra are anicca, all saṅkhāra are dukkha, and all dhammā are anattā.

There is no saṅkhāra which is not aggregates (Khandhavinimuttako hi saṅkhāro nāma natthi.)
Below, the second group is the conclusion of the first group, Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷasaccakasuttaṃ:

"Aggivessana, 2 the Blessed One disciplines his disciples in this way; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples: ('Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant.)
Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. (All fabrications are inconstant.) All phenomena are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which the Blessed One disciplines his disciples; this part of the Blessed One's instruction is generally presented to his disciples."

However, "All phenomena are not-self" in above context include more than "Form is inconstant", because it include more two, nibbāna and paññatti, as I have described above.
Abhidhamma and atthakathā have this same explanation as well.


Is the term " mind " another way of describing awareness? Ok for starters allot of talk is about the mind in Buddhism... So the question I'm posting is there only really (truthfully ) awareness ? For example thinking has awareness.. Feeling has awareness... Seeking ..studying all have awareness as the common factor ...if there was no awareness non of the above is possible so is it really awareness in a conclusive form that is there and mind is just a term for it?

"Awareness" is a very poor or inaccurate word to use in relation to Buddhism, despite the fact that so many Buddhists use it. This is because, in English, "awareness" has many meanings, such as:
(i) mere sense awareness; e.g. He was aware of the sight of the plane in the sky
(ii) knowledge; e.g. He is aware that drugs are dangerous.

1. Having knowledge or discernment of something: was aware of the difference between the two versions; became aware that the music had
stopped.
2. Attentive and well informed: "Most scientists are thoughtful, liberal-minded and socially aware people" (Armand Marie Leroi).
3. Archaic Vigilant; watchful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/awareness

In Buddhism, there are different words for the different types of mentality (nama), such as:

consciousness ('vinnana'); that which 'experiences' sense objects via the sense organs

'citta' ('mind-heart'); that which generates emotions (greed, anger, love, etc) & thoughts

'mano' ('intellect'); that which makes decisions, generates intentions, develops wisdom

Therefore, to answer the original question, feeling, thinking, studying, etc, have consciousness ('vinnana') as the common factor.
Buddhism defines the composition of a human life into five aggregates, namely:
(i) body;
(ii) feelings (pleasant & unpleasant sensations);
(iii) perceptions (labels);
(iv) mental forming (emotions, thoughts, images, etc) &
(v) consciousness.
It is consciousness that allows each aggregate, including consciousness itself, to be experienced or known. Thus the common factor, in terms of 'experience', is consciousness.
However, if we take a scientific approach, in terms of how these different mental functions exist, we would say the common factor is the brain or neurology.


What are the soteriological aims of different traditions? From this answer ...

  I would suggest dropping this line of inquiry or at least treading very carefully as you seem quite confused about what is being taught by the differing traditions and their soteriological aims.

... which I read as saying that differing traditions have differing soterioloical aims.

All I've seen of that before was:

The list in item 2 of this answer (which seemed to me a good answer, though what do I know?).
Also Wikipedia's Soteriology (Buddhism) which is fair enough but not detailed.
And occasionally a post about a specific tradition (for example Shin).

What are the aims (plural)? And can you summarise what the the doctrine or practice or discipline is, towards achieving those aims?

If it helps you answer, please assume I'm more familiar with the Pali suttas than other traditions -- so I might be principally asking about other traditions, perhaps you needn't quote the suttas.

If you are interested in comparative religion, it is worthwhile to ask American or other Westernized Buddhists, precisely because they are probably converts who were raised with another religion.  It is easier for us to compare Buddhism (rationally) to other faiths.

In Protestant Christianity (of the evangelical variety) there is deep emphasis on "salvation by grace, not works".  You go to heaven because Jesus allows you to go to heaven, in spite of you not deserving it.  "Lest any man should boast."  There are, of course, other takes on soteriology within Christendom, and there are faith-based doctrines as well as works-based doctrines enshrined in Christian scriptures.

What I find appealing about Buddhism is that it is entirely works-based; there is nothing un-earned about progress, transformation, and enlightenment in the Buddha Way.  In Buddhism, there is no shortcut around the law of Karma.  Everybody who deserves to go to hell, will go to hell, and will stay there until they learn the appropriate lessons.

But the doctrine of hell (in Buddhism) is different than the doctrine of hell in Christianity (or Islam for that matter).  In Christian teachings, hell is a place where souls are tortured and tormented after having received a well-deserved prison sentence from a judgmental Higher Power.  In Buddhism, you are not going to be sent to burn in hell; you are "in hell" already.  "Hell" is temporary happiness.  "Hell" is a mental state of anguish, ignorance, hatred, confusion, regret, loneliness.  "Hell" is your future lives, your past lives, and your present life where you believe that happiness comes from sensory pleasure, flattery and praise, the absence of difficulty, accumulation of more for oneself at others' expense -- when that is absolutely not the case.  Happiness cannot come  from any of those things.  This is the meaning of hell.  This is the cause of suffering.

And, whether you believe it or not, you are going to continue to relive the same pointless struggles over and over again until you learn what happiness actually is.

While enlightenment is entirely based upon our own merit, the Way to enlightenment was offered as a free gift, from the Buddha... lest any man should boast.  For the Buddha to teach us the dharma, it was necessary that he be born into this world, full of suffering and death and decay, with a human body that would necessarily get old and die like ours.  He had sufficient merit to be born in a much better world, but he endured the suffering of this life for our benefit.  In that way, the Christian can readily see how the Buddha's birth and death was like a crucifixion, but at the same time he did not "pay the price" for us to actually attain enlightenment.  We must pay that price ourselves.


Forced suppression of all cravings including harmless ones Let's say a person has a craving to eat a slice of cheesecake. This is obviously a sensual craving (kama tanha). The mental defilement (kilesa) to get a slice of cheesecake and eat it, is greed (lobha).

However, eating a slice of cheesecake (that was not stolen) does not break any of the five precepts. It also does not violate Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood, to the best of my understanding.

Questions:

Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why?
Should lay people forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why?
Should monks forcibly suppress all their cravings (which includes the craving to eat a slice of cheesecake) or only those that violate the five precepts, Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood? And why?
For questions #2 and/or #3 above, if your answer was "no" to forcibly suppressing all cravings, then I guess entertaining and fulfilling such a craving (to eat a slice of cheesecake) is ok. Is that so?
Are there any negative consequences with respect to forced suppression of all cravings (including harmless ones)?

Are there any karmic consequences from the harmless consumption of a slice of cheesecake? And why?

Cheesecake is just food. All sentient beings are sustained by food. Sentient beings are not sustained by wishes. Suffering is sustained by wishes. So don't wish for the cheesecake, just eat it if it's there, sharing it kindly with others.

Should ... forcibly suppress all their cravings

Generally speaking, suppressing a craving just makes it stronger.

But you can restrain or relinquish. Just observe the rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates: form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness.  That craving is impermanent and is not your self, it is not yours, it is not you.

...however...

If you cannot muster any skillful thought, then desperate measures are called for as described in MN20:

  With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the roof of the mouth, they should squeeze, squash, and torture mind with mind.

Perhaps that would be overkill with...cheesecake?


Difference between "Becoming" and Anicca To preface my question, I will add that I am very unfamiliar with Buddhism.  My knowledge consists of some historical anecdotes, and I also know some of the basic tenets.

That being said, is there a difference between "Becoming" and Anicca/Impermanence?  The former is a philosophy that originated in the West, and is nearly as old as Buddhism itself.  Are they essentially the same thing, but stated differently?  Or am I overlooking a huge fundamental difference which delineates the two?

My answer assumes you are specifically referring to the ideas of Heraclitus (the originator of Western ideas of Becoming). There are some interesting correlates between the origins of the Western idea of flux or becoming which was first articulated by the Greek philosopher Heraclitus and the Buddha's idea of Impermanence (Anicca). For Heraclitus ...

  Everything flows and nothing stays.
  Everything flows and nothing abides.
  Everything gives way and nothing stays fixed.
  Everything flows; nothing remains.
  All is flux, nothing is stationary.
  All is flux, nothing stays still.
  All flows, nothing stays.

  No man ever steps in the same river twice.

There is subtle distinction between the Buddha and Heraclitus on the mechanism of change. For Buddha the process of change is driven by dependent origination - the idea that every phenomena exists entirely dependent on the causes that proceed it. Heraclitus had more of a transformative concept of change - that phenomena are the result of the tension and flux of the opposites. The end result is the same however - constant change.

So essentially there is very little difference between the Buddha's concept of  Annica and Heraclitus's ideas of Becoming.

Other interesting similarities between Heraclitus and Buddha:

Both were born into aristocratic families and were first in line to inherit.
Both rejected their inheritance and chose rather to pursue a life of contemplation instead.
Both their philosophies rejected the prevailing eternalism of their respective cultures and chose rather to rely on reason and personal experience to arrive at the truth.
They were fairly contemporaneous with each other - Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE) & Buddha (6th century BCE)

There are many articles and books dedicated to investigating the similarities between the views of Heraclitus and Buddha on the internet. Nice summary here -  Heraclitus and the Buddha on Impermanence


How does Karma works? Will happen same with me the way I had build my bad Karma?
e.g If I've stolen money then will I face same, will someone steal my money?
Or do I've to pay more than that?

Karma is dependent on:

intensity of your volition and number of thoughts involving the action
purity of the subject of the action

So if you seal from a very good person the the karma will be strong likewise you take time to execute with a lot of effort and /or you feel very strongly overcome by greed then this will cause more strong Karma.

Now to overcome this Karma if you make a donation the same apply. In this case the motivation is not strongly rooted in greedlessness hence Karma may be week. Hence giving many time over what you stole may not defunct this Karma.

Also note your roots of good are generally weaker than roots of good. This again means unwholesome action (stealing) and counteraction (donation) in the balance of probability might be heavier.

All this is balance of probability. There are rare cases where people who have done a loot of good and little bad have got bad results and people who have done a loot of bad and little good have got very good results, hence this is also a motivator to get out of the cycle of birth than accumulating Karma may it be good or bad. Whenever you face a situation alway try your level best to accumulate good karma and not the bad though.

Also if you perceive someone to be good to do something against them you need stronger volition regardless of the person being good or bad. Also you repent and regret the action more increasing your Karma. Regardless of the level of volition of perception if a person is good he is like a mirror. If you steal from such a person the Karma will be greater.

Also see: The Working of Kamma, 2nd ed, by Ven. Pa Auk Tawya Sayadaw


Did Buddha walk on water? Was Jesus trained as a Buddhist? In this video it is said that Buddha walked on water. Is that true and written down? And why did he do that?

It also says that Jesus might have been trained in the ways of Buddhism? Is there evidence to support this?

There have been books supporting the idea suggested in your question ("Jesus might have been trained in the ways of Buddhism?").
Christianity was a religion not generated from a teaching and converted to text. If you study Christianity's origins as an outsider from a historical perspective you will see that Kings,Clergy & some other influential figures modified the religion to suit the needs and even the birth of modern Christianity is a bit of a untold story.
As Buddhists we do not speak bad of other people's faiths so what needs to be said about the suggestion you make is that there  hasn't been direct proof of any kind to support the idea. And even if Jesus was a Buddhist he would not go around offering food and walking on water because Lord Buddha forbid the acts of miracles unless it was an extremely necessary task.
Let me tell you a story for why i'm saying this.....

One day a Shepard boy saw a monk walking towards him while going to work. He saw that this is a good opportunity for him to gain some good karma and he stooped the monk and offered his lunch to the monk. After he was on his way back to work but he was bit by a snake only after taking few steps.
The monk saw this and thought to himself "This kid could die any moment,the best help i can give is to be more worthy of his offering". So he sat down and started meditating just few feet away from the child. He was able to reach nirvana Before the boy died. The boy died happily looking at the monk. He opened his eyes in the higher realm called "Deva realm" (Buddhist version of heaven). He returned to earth to tell the Arahat monk his story.

As you can see for a true Buddhist monk the real suffering is not hunger,slavery or poverty. It is "Samsara" and he only care to help a being's Karmic circle to end so he would be closer to Nirvana.

Walking on water....
Walking on water is a piece of cake compared to what Buddhist monks and Lord Buddha has done.

The best one of all miracles that only a  Lord Buddha can do is called "Ama maha pratiharya" which is basically spraying both fire and water at the same time from  the whole body.

Here are some very unique miracles Arahat monks have performed.
Optical illusions - Making moon or sun appear closer and show as if he or she is touching the surface.
Walking through mountains.
Making waves from solid objects like earth.
Sinking in to earth like oil and appearing from a desired location.
Transporting things trough space (Almost like teleportation)
Shrinking body size to fit through a keyhole of a door lock.

Lord Buddha's view on levitating upon water...
One day Lord Buddha and a group of monks were waiting next to a river until the boat arrives. A monk or a sage from another religion saw this and he immediately levitated off the ground and crossed the river. This was a mocking.
Lord Buddha asked "How much does it cost to reach across on this boat?". That is how much his practice is worth.

Lord Buddha said this because the ability to levitate can save him from the fee but that ability does not help him at all on his long journey of "Samsara".
Lord Buddha saw Miracles as a non important thing and never encouraged anyone to follow them. Because Lord Buddha's work is not to teach people how to do miracles, Lord Buddha knew that there is no need of Buddhism to give people super powers because those existed before Lord Buddha even though Buddhism unlocks some unique ones of its own.

One day in the early age of Buddhism Lord Buddha saw a misguided group of sages and went to make them understand the wrongful way of their understanding.
Lord Buddha saw that the leader of the group is full of ego and the best way to make them understand is to get the leader to a correct understanding.
So lord Buddha decided to spend some time among them.
One day Lord Buddha went to have a bath and thought "It would be easier if there was a branch to hold onto when getting in and out of water" then the King of Gods ("Sakra Devendra") came and bent a branch nearby. After having the bath Lord Buddha thought "It would be nice if there was a stone to wash my cloths on", and the King of Gods came and created a large stone.

Not only Lord Buddha was capable of miracles everyone was willing to assist Lord Buddha in any way possible knowing the power of Karma they could gain. That's why you see a "King of gods" acting like a personal assistant.

Truth about Jhanas and miracles...
You do not need Jesus to walk on water even you can. But as Buddhists we do not pursue such worldly goals. And there is no necessity of Buddhism to do miracles. Id you go to india you can finds many sages and monk who never knew the first thing about Buddhism and doing pretty amazing stuff. But they all do it to be praised or to gain a following. That is exactly the reason Lord Buddha forbid the showing off part of the practice.
Because soon as you feel special and more capable than the normal humans what you do is very simple. You go out there and say "Look at me vermin, i' the god".read the following to see why...

Here is a good example from lord Buddha's time....
One day a monk and his apprentice monk went to worship a temple and the teacher said "I would love to offer some flowers to this great stupa.".So the apprentice monk took off to the sky and disappeared, Soon he came back with a bucket full of flower from the "Himalayas forest". The flowers were offered and the elder monk gave advice to the younger "Be careful with your mind because if you don't you will be looked after by a one eyed woman".
One day the younger monk (Apprentice) was going somewhere through a jungle levitating in the air. Then the monk heard a nice song sung by a lovely voice. He lost his "Jhana" and slowly descended to earth. He has lost all of his powers because of the attachment he made up within seconds to that voice.
After few days he married the girl who sang and became a householder he was a monk no more. He had become a monk very young and had little knowledge about the life of a householder. After starting a fight with his wife he threw a knitting needle at his wife which ended up piercing her eye. He did not intend to do that but suddenly he realized the teacher's advice.

The is an event monks to this day teach to us and to apprentice monks to remind us the temporary nature of all things including powers.


Confession in Buddhism Growing up in the Roman Catholic tradition, we were encouraged to go to confession (penance) on a regular basis for reconciliation and to be absolved of sins. In Buddhism, the only mention of confession I've seen is in regard to a practice for monks prior to the reciting of the patimokkha. I understand there is no idea of absolving sins in Buddhism, but why is it considered benefical or useful for monks to confess but not for lay people to do the same? I'm assuming there is some sense of unburdening in the confession process and wondering what serves that function for lay people? Thank you.

This is a good question; if the monks can confess their "sins", why can't lay people?

On the one hand, monastic confession is a product of the rigidity of monastic practice, which requires some formal means of realignment. But on the other hand, reaffirming one's determination to keep precepts is a great practice for all Buddhists.

The standard practice for lay people in Theravada Buddhism to correct a broken precept is to simply retake the entire set of precepts (five or eight). There are standard religious formulae for this, so that might be a similar concept to a confession.

Beyond that, though, I think there is less need for Catholic confession since there is less sense of "sin" in evil deeds; since our concept of morality is utilitarian in the sense of "it's evil because it brings suffering", there isn't the sense of intrinsic "sinfulness" of a deed, and hence there seems to be less of the shame and guilt associated with evil in Catholicism.

So, the practical equivalent to confession in our tradition is probably just talking with a teacher about your problems; e.g., rather than confessing you drank alcohol, you would discuss your alcohol addiction or your view that alcohol brings happiness.


What meditation is best to learn to "control" your mind? I want to learn to in a sense control my mind. By this i mean focus on the thoughts and mindsets that are beneficial. And not focus on the harmful, negative thoughts. I always believe that we are who we are base on are thought patterns and it will be very helpful to in to learn to focus on the thoughts and gain the traits you want and become the person you want. I am learninf jhana meditation. But is this a good fit for this?

Any thoughts, including negative thoughts, are triggered by some stimuli, and have a sensation associated with it.

The best would be to deal with them as per in the Suttas. Suttas like: "Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta", "Titth’ayatana Sutta", "Bahu,vedaniya Sutta", "Pañcak’aṇga Sutta", "Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta", "Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta" mentions "18 mental explorations / examinations". This says, essentially, look at the 3 types of sensations (which are, "pleasant", "unpleasant", and "neutral") which comes through each sense door. This helps in prevent the arising of the unwholesome roots due to any stimulus from any sene door. You just have to be equanimous towards the sensation, knowing that they are:

conditioned, and therefore subject to the 3 universal characteristics (or the Pacalā Sutta and Meghiya Sutta imply that it's enough to see impermanence, because if you see impermanence you see the other characteristics)1
dependently arisen based on contact
sustained by the nutriments, contact and mental activity
conditioned by fabrications, of past and present (breath, volitional activity)
tainted by ignorance
etc. see Sammaditthi Sutta

  ... impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction,
  subject to passing away, subject to fading away, subject to ending ...

Mahā,nidāna Sutta

  ...  conditioned, gross, dependently arisen ...

Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta

  ... impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen ...

Parileyya Sutta

You should not do any verbalisation, sub verbalisation, visualisation, etc. when doing the above as this will create verbal fabrications and hinder true and deep insight and cause undesirable results.

Needless to say to examine the mind you need some level of mastery over the mind, hence is a prerequisite before you practice the Vipassana technique above, since Panna is built on a strong foundation of Samadhi which in tern is build on Sila.

  1
  Aniccasaññino hi, Meghiya, anattasaññā saṇṭhāti, anattasaññī asmimānasamugghātaṃ pāpuṇāti diṭṭheva dhamme nibbānaṃ.

  In one, Meghiya, who perceives impermanence, the perception of selflessness is established. One who perceives what is selfless wins the uprooting of the pride of egotism in this very life, and thus realizes nibbāna.

  Source: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna by VRI


Is another person necessary to produce merit? Can someone produce merit without impacting directly another person? For instance: Meditating alone.

I appreciate all answers but I'm more curious about Theravada view. While meditating with Tibetan teachers (Mahayana) they did mention meditation alone can create merit.

From Iti 60:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three grounds for meritorious activity. Which three? The ground for meritorious activity made of giving, the ground for meritorious activity made of virtue, and the ground for meritorious activity made of development [meditation]. These are the three grounds for meritorious activity.

And with just meditation alone, the generated peace and serenity could very well benefit many other beings with form or without form living nearby..


Step siblings and relationships Lord Buddha once said

"The future humans will have unusual lusts and temptations"

So when i saw a this in a TV series i couldn't define the line,

If two step siblings form a romantic relationship is it against the five precepts?

So what if we say they are independent individuals,What then?

As per the 20 unsuitable women listed, it could break the precept, depending on if one or both are in care of parents/relatives/guardian or if the king/government prohibits such relationships or if it's prohibited by tradition.

But one should keep in mind that taboo & obviously vulgar behaviors are not discussed under the 3rd precept. That doesn't mean that they don't fall under sexual misconduct.


Dhammapada questions on craving When I picked up a version of the Dhammapada (Parallax Press) and read through I came across an interesting verse in this specific book it was Chapter 24: Craving. Forgive me for not knowing the verses, I'm new to the text.
The verse says:

A man will be swept along
By the thirty-six streams of sensual pleasure,
Borne on the strong currents
Of his craving toward tempting objects.

What are the 'thirty-six' streams of sensual pleasure? Is it some arbitrary enumeration, or is there some further writings detailing the 'thirty-six' streams of sensual pleasure?

"Monks, I will teach you craving: the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations. Listen well, and I will speak."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And which craving is the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations? These 18 craving-verbalizations[1] dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ... 'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being 'I am because of this (or: by means of this),' there comes to be 'I am here because of this,' there comes to be 'I am like this because of this' ... 'I am otherwise because of this' ... 'I am bad because of this' ... 'I am good because of this' ... 'I might be because of this' ... 'I might be here because of this' ... 'I might be like this because of this' ... 'I might be otherwise because of this' ... 'May I be because of this' ... 'May I be here because of this' ... 'May I be like this because of this' ... 'May I be otherwise because of this' ... 'I will be because of this' ... 'I will be here because of this' ... 'I will be like this because of this' ... 'I will be otherwise because of this.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.
"Thus there are 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. These are called the 36 craving-verbalizations. Thus, with 36 craving-verbalizations of this sort in the past, 36 in the future, and 36 in the present, there are 108 craving-verbalizations.
"This, monks is craving the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.199.than.html


Lust arises every time I am alone Similarly as this question When I started vipassana with my room mate and we both meditate peacefully, but now he left and I am alone, I have noticed lust in mind that it goes less me to wrong websites and in result in negative deeds.

I have tried to observe but just could not control self, I have read many related answers from all time favourite “Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena“, but regarding this answer all answers sounds very theoretical.

May I know something powerful, I know it will be difficult for me, living with another person will stop my mind, but i think that is not a solution as thoughts can again come when I am alone.
The real victory over lust should come when i am alone.

Kindly help, I really want to get rid of this.

lets me to wrong websites

When I quit smoking cigarettes, one of the techniques I used was to make it more difficult for me to have a cigarette.
For example, if I owned a packet of cigarettes, and the craving occurred, then it was easy for me to have one and I did.
One technique for making that more difficult was to not have a packet of cigarettes. So when the craving occurred, I didn't have one available, and to get one I would have had to walk to the shop etc. That walk (which would have lasted many minutes) gave me time to rethink my craving, or enough time for the craving to go away. It was more of an effort, and gross motor rather than fine motor activity. Although I could not control whether the craving arose, however I could control whether I acted on it or gave into it: I could decide or remember that there was a reason (that I had had a reason) why I didn't own any cigarettes, and I was able to decide not to put my coat on and go outside and walk to the shop and buy more and smoke more and continue that cycle.
There were some times, while I first quit, when I literally couldn't think about anything else except for wanting to have a cigarette, and (having decided not to go to the shop and buy some) I just had to stand there and wait for that craving to pass and for a next thought about something/anything other than that to arise.
So if you want to stop visiting some web sites, perhaps you can do the same, i.e. ensure that those web sites aren't easily available to you: for example install or enable "parental control" software on your computer, or edit the etc\hosts file (see e.g. here and here) to make the site unreachable from your computer. It's true that if you change your mind, if you decide that want to access the web site, then you can undo whatever you did to block the site ... but the fact that you need to undo/unblock it makes it a little bit harder, and acts to remind you that you had blocked it for a good reason.
I suspect that's true for most addictions: for example if you're a drug addict, it's easier to quit (and harder to continue) if you decide to move to a different environment where drugs and drug-using fellows don't exist.
In summary you might find it helpful to create a safe/insulated environment (or web browser setup) for yourself where temptation is less available or completely out of reach.
Two other suggestions: one is you might find it useful to log how you use your computer (for example, look at your browser History some times) ... that's on the theory that "you can't manage what you don't measure" so you measure/monitor your use of the web in order to manage it better; the second is that it's not a bad idea to do things with good friends ... they're likely to inspire or lead you towards virtue (e.g. you might think, "he is good and behaves well, I too can do what he does").
These are mechanical/physical suggestions, not just an idea to keep in mind, because you said you you want a practical solution for even when "thoughts come again".

I think you were hoping for an answer which didn't "sound very theoretical"; but you might wonder how this answer related to Buddhism.
Firstly, when I wrote the answer I was reminded of this topic: “Guard the sense doors”- What does this mean, and what is it's application?. That topic include, for example:

Guarding the sense doors is a way of protecting ourselves from being overcome by passion for the sensed object (which leads to dukkha). In his video Yuttadhammo mentions three ways to do this.

Physically avoiding the object (in relation to your example, when on alms round monks may keep their eyes facing down to avoid lust from seeing a beautiful woman).

So a mechanism which physically "hides your eyes", puts a barrier in place, might be an effective solution.
Secondly, there's a Buddhist doctrine of the "Twelve Nidanas", which teaches that what you think and feel and become attached to is conditioned by your senses, and specifically by contact between the sense-organ (eye) and sense-object (web site on a computer screen). Again that suggested that if you can't control your thoughts and attachments (which are conditioned by or which arise as a result of contact), perhaps you can control whether there's contact (again, by putting more of a barrier or filter between the sense-organ and sense-object).
Thirdly, Buddhist often choose or recommend seclusion or "a retreat": to avoid distraction etc. You might want to adopt a similar attitude -- especially on Uposatha days.
Lastly I'm reminded of this sutta, which describes how to overcome torpor -- not the details of it, but the strategy, the structure: "Do this: maybe this will work. But if doing this doesn't work, then do that. And if doing that does work, then ... and if that doesn't work, then ..." and so on, 7 or 8 different methods. So, whatever you previously tried (e.g. contemplating the body as a Bag of Bones), if that was too theoretical, then try something else!
Back to my personal experience, my experience is that it might be easier to control your (my) behaviour than thoughts: thoughts happen (uncontrolled) but you may be able to control (or decide to not act on) your reaction subsequent to those thoughts. Similarly it may be easier to control large movements of body over a longer time period (e.g. do you or don't you go for a walk) than small (hand or face) movements which you might do without much thought.
You're right though, it's kind of alarming to discover that you "can't control yourself". Buddhism sort of warns you about that, saying for example, "don't call thoughts my 'self' because if they were my 'self' then I'd be able to control them". Still it is possible to change, to learn to change, a habit (habitual behaviour).


Does anyone have High resolution Buddha wallpapers for computer? Please feel free to delete this question if not relevant.
I want to find peaceful Buddha statue wallpaper (Drawing or Statue). I wish to see lockscreen and my desktop with a spiritual wallpaper of lord Buddha. I feel peace in mind whenever I see lord Buddha. But across the google, etc. search engines point me to commercial sites. If any of you have good high resolution wallpaper, please share the location to download. much appreciated. Thanks.

Have you tried these links pinterest, guoguiyan, desktop-screens


Why isn't Buddhānussati more popular in the West? From what I understand in the suttas, unless you renounce the household life and desire almost entirely, chances are you won't eliminate the necessary fetters to achieve nibbana in this life. For someone who has to take care of a family, work a job, and be social, stream-entry seems like a more realistic goal, which is achieved through faith and virtue (AN 10.92, SN 55.7). Despite the importance of these topics, I can hardly find any instruction on cultivating faith and virtue outside of the suttas and Visuddhagga. Is interest in the devotional practices really so scarce?

I doubt faith, virtue & devotion to the Buddha (alone) can bring stream-entry because these suttas include penetration of lokuttara dhamma as one of the four factors of stream-entry, namely:

  He is endowed with verified (avecca) confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'

  avecca absol. understanding, having penetrated (see aveti)

This surely must mean enlightenment to the noble truths & liberating anatta, which ends the fetters of self-belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) & doubt (vicikicchā). It also appears to negate beliefs in reincarnation as factors of stream-entry because the dhamma to be verified is to be seen here & now, etc.