Self-Compassion and Wisdom I have questions linked with wisdom and self-compassion.

(1) Does self-compassion arise from wisdom?

(2) Does self-compassion imply accumulating joys and happiness in a context of detachment and non-craving? I.e. what is the nature of the wise person's self-compassion?

Thank you.

(1) Does self-compassion arise from wisdom?

Yes! And out of compassion for all others. An all included wisdom & compassion.

➱ 1th stage of wisdom, serious honesty:

   Rājan Sutta: The King

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"

  "No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"

  "No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."

  Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself.'"

  Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

  Searching all directions
  with your awareness,
  you find no one dearer
      than yourself.
  In the same way, others
  are thickly dear to themselves.
  So you shouldn't hurt others
      if you love yourself.

➯ 2nd Stage:

   Piya Sutta: Dear

  At Savatthi. As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi Kosala said to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Who are dear to themselves, and who are not dear to themselves?' Then it occurred to me: 'Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct are not dear to themselves. Even though they may say, "We are dear to ourselves," still they aren't dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as an enemy would act toward an enemy; thus they aren't dear to themselves. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct are dear to themselves. Even though they may say, "We aren't dear to ourselves," still they are dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as a dear one would act toward a dear one; thus they are dear to themselves.'"

  That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct are not dear to themselves. Even though they may say, 'We are dear to ourselves,' still they aren't dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as an enemy would act toward an enemy; thus they aren't dear to themselves. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct are dear to themselves. Even though they may say, 'We aren't dear to ourselves,' still they are dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as a dear one would act toward a dear one; thus they are dear to themselves."

  That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:

  If you hold yourself dear
  then don't fetter yourself
          with evil,
  for happiness isn't easily gained
      by one who commits
      a wrong-doing.

  When seized by the End-maker
      as you abandon the human state,
  what's truly your own?
  What do you take along when you go?
  What follows behind you
      like a shadow
      that never leaves?

  Both the merit & evil
      that you as a mortal
      perform here:
  that's      what's truly your own,
          what you take along when you go;
  that's      what follows behind you
      like a shadow
      that never leaves.

  So do what is admirable,
  as an accumulation
      for the future life.
  Deeds of merit are the support for beings
      when they arise
      in the other world.

.

 (2) Does self-compassion imply accumulating joys and happiness in a context of detachment and non-craving? I.e. what is the nature of the wise person's self-compassion?

➯ 3rd stage, supramundane wisdom: real compassion with all

It's already given under one, but maybe a ballade give wisdom for success of being really dear to oneself and so naturally to every being by leaving the states of demerits as well as merits behind:

   The Ballad of Liberation from the Khandhas

  Once there was a man who loved himself
  and feared distress. He wanted happiness
  beyond the reach of danger, so he wandered
  endlessly. Wherever people said
  that happiness was found, he longed to go,
  but wandering took a long, long time.
  He was the sort of man who loved himself
  and really dreaded death. He truly wanted
  release from aging & mortality.
  Then one day he came to know the truth,
  abandoning the cause of suffering &
  compounded things. He found a cave of wonders,
  of endless happiness, i.e., the body... ❋

➯ 4th stage: the practice out of compassion:

   Sedaka Sutta: At Sedaka

  The Blessed One said, "Once upon a time, monks, a bamboo acrobat, having erected a bamboo pole, addressed his assistant, Frying Pan: 'Come, my dear Frying Pan. Climb up the bamboo pole and stand on my shoulders.'

  "'As you say, Master,' Frying Pan answered the bamboo acrobat and, climbing the bamboo pole, stood on his shoulders.

  "So then the bamboo acrobat said to his assistant, 'Now you watch after me, my dear Frying Pan, and I'll watch after you. Thus, protecting one another, watching after one another, we'll show off our skill, receive our reward, and come down safely from the bamboo pole.'

  "When he had said this, Frying Pan said to him, 'But that won't do at all, Master. You watch after yourself, and I'll watch after myself, and thus with each of us protecting ourselves, watching after ourselves, we'll show off our skill, receive our reward, and come down safely from the bamboo pole.'

  "What Frying Pan, the assistant, said to her Master was the right way in that case.

  "Monks, a frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after oneself, one watches after others. When watching after others, one watches after oneself.

  "And how does one, when watching after oneself, watch after others? Through pursuing [the practice], through developing it, through devoting oneself to it. This is how one, when watching after oneself, watches after others.

  "And how does one, when watching after others, watch after oneself? Through endurance, through harmlessness, and through a mind of kindness & sympathy. This is how one, when watching after others, watches after oneself.

  "A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after oneself, one watches after others. When watching after others, one watches after oneself."

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


Electric blood, electric breathe, electric ball and one beam I have done meditation for 6 week now. My pulse has now become so electric even not when I am meditating, before i was Activated my pulse used to pulsating back and forward but now its more alive. When i make a triangle/pyramid with my hands, i can make one electric ball inside and if really focus it will become a beam of electricity that feels like Oneness. When i breathe i feel a cold layer of electricity on my skin, the breathing is controlling my electricity.
My feelings are growing everyday i feel like i am getting strong for each day
I have very little experience with this so if anybody know anything please talk to me.

You started meditating. If you're having strange experiences, you're doing it right. The "truth" is coming into view and your ego is dying. When your ego is loosing control, he will do everything to gain that control back. Thus, your ego is giving you pleasant experiences. Your ego wants you to crave for these experiences. He wants you to play with them until your death. If you play with the experiences, you'll never see what's behind your ego, thus you'll never gain control of it, never see the "truth" and no liberation from suffering will follow in this life.

If these experiences are interesting to you and you crave for more, then explore the experiences you described, don't fight them or search them, if they arise just play with them. Sooner or later you'll reach a point where there will be nothing new to explore in these experiences. Nothing new to play with. When you reach this point, start asking yourself "Why these experiences arise? What's behind these experiences? What's the cause?". Explore your mind and search for the cause. You'll find the "truth" and liberation from suffering will follow.

If you're willing to let go of these experiences now, then let go of them. If they arise, just relax, empty your mind, do nothing, and let them cease without trying or wanting anything. When you'll reach a point where you'll be able to just observe your mind, without reacting, without craving, clinging or aversion arising in your mind, these experiences will stop. Then, you'll be able to explore your mind further and you'll find the "truth" and liberation from suffering will follow.


Is there a separate word for pain (in Pali) which the Buddha used to differentiate pain from suffering? Re: The common saying ... "Pain is inevitable but suffering is a choice".
Wherein by "dukkha" is meant everything from mild discomfort to intense suffering ...
It occurs to me that the "pain" we experience when the "first arrow" penetrates the heart is a separate phenomenon from the dukkha we experience when we react unskillfully to this first arrow.
Logically, therefore, if one's aim were to create a path of practice leading to the end of dukkha, one might expect a different word to be used to clearly discern between the concepts of (1) pain and (2) dukkha and for that word to be used repeatedly throughout the suttas.
I mostly listen to Dharma talks rather than read the suttas. But, strangely, I have never heard a Dharma teacher use a separate word for pain.
Does such a word exist?
Is it used commonly in the suttas?

The Buddha taught 3 types of dukkha:

Dukkha-dukkhata, the actual feeling of physical or mental unpleasantness.
Sankhara-dukkhata, the inherent unpleasantness of the formations.
Viparinama-dukkhata, the inherent unpleasantness of change.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.165.wlsh.html
Dukkha is principally defined as the aggregates:

Natthi khandhasamā dukkhā
no pain like the aggregates
https://nanda.online-dhamma.net/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en-chap15/

They are also called aggregates of clinging [upadana] because they are what is being clung to [upadana] as one focuses on the allure of the aggregates which are the 5 classes of past, present & future phenomena (form, feeling, perception, formation & consciousness).
Craving is a requisite for Upadana which is in turn a requisite condition for becoming.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.052.than.html
An Arahant does not cling but is not to be said to be without the aggregates. Even tho his mind is made straight, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain.
To differentiate between physical and mental pain one can use 'kayika dukkha vedana' and 'cetasika dukkha vedana' or more specifically ie domanassa which is sadness or grief and thus a type of cetasika [mental] dukkha.
The Sutta mentioned in the op uses kayika and cetasika to differentiate between mental and physical pain.

They experience two feelings:
So dve vedanā vedayati—
physical and mental.
kāyikañca, cetasikañca
https://suttacentral.net/sn36.6/en/sujato


Can One Evaluate the Effects of Meditation? I have been doing compassion meditation for a bit (about 13h of sitting meditation). I think perhaps I haven't meditated enough to see benefits, but I wonder:

When beginning, is it possible to have benefits, but not see them? In other words, that one's behaviour or attitude changes despite no conscious awareness of this?

Is sitting practice at the beginning less fruitful but still establishes the basis for (in this case) compassionate attitude?

Meditation is like a knife. Every use it wares out but you only notice it one fine day.

So you are making progress which you do not notice until some later date.


How is the pendulum understood in Buddhism? I've seen the pendulum is widely used as an illustration for finding a neutral, balance point between the extremes. Its movement is also periodic which shares the same characteristic with samsara. It seems that the allusions are mostly used in Taoism text, but one can see it in this site too. I think that it may be hard to find (if not possible) in the sutra, as pendulum is more well known in the West. But I've seen it and the swing used in poems influenced by Zen in my language (Vietnamese) to describe mood changing.

So is there a viewpoint of Buddhism over the pendulum? Any references, even personal opinion is fine, but it should depict the philosophy of Buddhism within in.

The only thing I heard about pendulum in Buddhism was a metaphor used by my first teacher. He said, in the past people used to fluctuate, like a pendulum, between being extremely spiritual in one life and extremely materialistic in another life. He said, in ancient times the pendulum swung a lot slower, maybe over the course of 50 lives. But in our times, the pendulum is so fast that it is effectively in a quantum state - in both extremes at the same time. This is why, he said, now it is appropriate and even desirable to be both spiritual and successful in the world.

Never heard of any other mention of pendulum in any Buddhist context.


The Animal Plane & Evolution? (Please Theravada perspective if possible)

NAMO TASSA BAGAVATO ARAHANTO SAMMA-SAMBUDDHASA (I am not fluent, forgive errors)

These are my following questions:

  Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an instinctual level only?
  What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?
  How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?
  How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

Metta to all!

Do animals feel emotions just like us or do they feel emotions on an
  instinctual level only?

AN 3.61 says "for those who feel, I teach the Four Noble Truths". Animals do not "feel". If animals could "feel", they would not be controlled by their cravings & emotions. They would employ mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact & feeling. But instead of "feeling", animals are driven by their emotions rather than "feel" their "emotions". If animals could "feel" their emotions, they could practise vedanupassana & cittanupassana and stop the arising of craving.

  What makes animals different from humans according to their planes of existence?

In Buddhism, the word translated as "animal" is "tiracchāna", which means to "move horizontally" or not evolve on a spiritual level; to merely be guided by instincts of reproduction, sex, territorialism, etc. For example, "worldly talk" by monks in Buddhism is called "animal talk".

The word translated as "human" is "manussa", which means "high minded". Suttas such as SN 56.47 define the "human state" as moral righteousness, non-harmful & realised the Four Noble Truths.

For example, animals believe pornography, sexual promiscuity & other forms of liberal sex are OK. Where as "humans" see the danger, degradation & dysfunction of sexual liberalism. The Lokapala Sutta says:

  Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the
  two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
  teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of
  other honored persons.

  Lokapala Sutta

  How can an animal get out of their plane? Is it by working off Kamma by suffering?

Animals leave the animal plane by realising the Four Noble Truths, as taught in SN 56.120, SN 56.47, etc, and abandoning instinctual lusts. This video (in English here) shows the animal named Angulimala realising the Four Noble Truths and having rebirth in the human realm due to abandoning violence.

  How does evolution work in terms of animals/humans cause I hear it works with Buddhism?

Buddhism is about 'spiritual evolution' rather than 'physical evolution'. Sutta, such as MN 8, says wholesome states 'lead upwards'.

  The Way Leading Upwards

  Cunda, just as all unwholesome states lead downwards and all wholesome states lead upwards, so too:

  (1) A person given to cruelty has non-cruelty to lead him upwards.

  (2) One given to killing living beings has abstention from killing living beings to lead him upwards.

  (3–43) One given to…to lead him upwards.

  (44) One given to adhere to his own views, who holds on to them tenaciously and relinquishes them with difficulty, has non-adherence
  to his own views, not holding on to them tenaciously and relinquishing
  them easily, to lead him upwards.


Does Zen distinguish between concentration and insight meditation? Both the Theravada and Tibetan systems distinguish between two aspects of meditation -- concentration (aka shamata, serenity, calm abiding, shiney or zhiney (Tib.)) and insight (aka vipashyana, lhatong (Tib.)). (Some call them types of meditation, but I prefer aspects, since you need your concentration skill while doing insight work -- in fact, that is what concentration is for -- but you can at different times be aiming at one or the other.)

The question -- does Zen make a similar distinction?

I realize Zen is not monolithic, so answers for specific schools are fine.

I'm far from an expert and even more far from knowing all the technical words, but I sit in Soto tradition.

As @enenalan already mentioned, Soto has a more shamatha approach, called shinkantaza, or just sitting. (@enealan: there is your answer, even if I just acknowledged to not answer another answer ;-) )

The meditation in Soto, at least in the tradition of my lineage, is an aimless meditation. It is not only aimless in terms of no insight, no solving koans, no tinkering with truth and such stuff, but also in terms of not meditating for any benefit. We are not supposed to sit to become better people, get insight, be calmer or whatsoever.

While you are in (Soto-)Meditation, you are supposed to watch or notice [was: examine, see comment] our mind. Therefore there is a component of insight. But we should do so as a spectator, not as a judge. The insight comes naturally, over time, and is a side-effect and not thought to be the goal of the practice.

On the other hand, to stay focused, not to let your thoughts wandering, not to start daydreaming or become sleepy. To watch and not not judge our thoughts, how they emerge and vanish, requires a huge amount of concentration.

As a Conclusion: Soto knows (as far as I am Soto) only on kind of meditation, and that covers the concentration aspect. Insight grows over time naturally and is not active fostered during meditation.


About suffering, expectations and unfalsifiable beliefs I've been wondering if it's possible to "progress" towards enlightenment if one has certain set of beliefs which may (or may not) be false (or illogical), but which do not generate conflict between expectations and experience. If we understand dukkha as the result of a dissonance between worldview and experience, one could a priori think that unfalsifiable theories may not generate such dissonances (and therefore, may not contribute to the perpetuation of the conditions of dukkha), because there's no experience that can disprove such notions.

For example, if one says that "our true self is formless, without comprehensible features", how could this view be a hindrance in the path? After all, that belief does not seem to necessarily contradicts the essence of anattā, because no khandha can be considered that alleged "true self", and so, non-attachment to khandhas may also be the path to attain that "true self".

Being more general: can someone attain Nibbana while still holding some false notions about self or reality?

Kind regards!

The Buddhist problematic isn't about whether beliefs are true or false, or provable or unprovable. It's about whether we cling to beliefs, because the clinging itself creates dukkha.

So for instance, let's take your statement: "Our true self is formless, without comprehensible features." You adopt this belief, and like it, and it doesn't seem to interfere with your meditation or other practices. Fine. But then along comes another Buddhist, who says: "No, no no: that's not right.  What I believe is this...". Suddenly you find yourself involved in an intellectual dispute, wrestling (good-naturedly) with another practitioner about whose perspective is better, and which of you has more experience to back up their view. One way or another (unless you're very careful) someone's ego is going to get bruised. And then along comes some decidedly less enlightened person who says: "You two are a pair of blowhards and it's all a crock of sh*t anyway, so stop pretending you're so high and mighty." So not only did your statement make you a target for abuse, it gave this poor guy something concrete to vent about.

Fixed beliefs — even innocuous-seeming ones, and particularly ones that are not otherwise decidable — are focal points for conflict. Just think about the Christian faith, where a fixed, undecidable belief in a loving God indirectly fills the world with anger, resentment, and hate. I'm not going to go so far as to say that a belief like this is an obstacle, because beliefs like this are useful tools at certain stages of spiritual development. But in the end, even beliefs like this will have be released.


Do metta practices and anatta contradict each other? When I was taught the Metta Bhavna meditation practice it was suggested that I repeat the following to myself

  May I be well
  May I be happy
  May I be free

Then again repeating the same again to other people. As the practice goes on then this can be dropped for more subtle methods. But this formulation and the practice in general has always struck me as been at odds with the idea of no fixed self (Anatta). If I am wishing well to myself and others - who exactly am I wishing well to? Who is this 'I' that I am wishing well to?

In general do these kinds of metta practice conflict with the annatta doctrine. I am assuming that they don't conflict as they are both fairly central in Buddhism. Given that, how are the two practices reconciled?

"In general do these kinds of metta practice conflict with the annatta doctrine. I am assuming that they don't conflict as they are both fairly central in Buddhism. Given that, how are the two practices reconciled?"

I think this is something of a linguistic issue mixed with prescription/description issues -- and often discussions about "conventional" and "absolute" terms come up, etc.

For example, I can see a conflict through an ordinary/abstract approach (eg. if one disregard all that is context sensitive and assume words and meanings are fixed across the texts). Thus, the following show conflict (disregarding translation traps):

  May I be well
  May I be happy
  May I be free

And:

  To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'

  -- SN 22.47:

This is a dead end. I think the issue is much like vaccine having the appearance of a contradiction: a person is cured by making her ill. The details that are important to make a better sense of it are implicit or words are too overloaded.

On a different approach, consider again an instruction to repeat the metta quote above:

If one repeats it without actively manifesting anything these words denote, one is probably exercising little more than memory by doing the repetitions.
On the other hand, if one directs the mind towards "giving" wellness, happiness and freedom, then a metta exercise is going on, in that it is expected the associated faculties to get stronger.
Now, if whatever is done while repeating, a reinforcement of a doctrine of "self" takes place, a reinforcement of wrong view happens, I guess this is the "contradiction".

So, even though the target of metta alluded to is "yourself", I believe it should be taken in the conventional sense (much as "you" and "I" are used by the Buddha), without reinforcing an illusory notion of "self". And it certainly is an important practice. For example, many struggle with self acceptance, remorse and lack of compassion towards oneself, which is not only a source of suffering but a crosscutting obstruction (may affect how one treats others, affects all kinds of things like health, humor, energy, obfuscate our views, makes it much harder to get into deeper meditation, or to jhana states, etc).


'Impermanence' during vipassana practice Thoughts stopped when seen them. Either happy or sad feelings of mind disappears by seen them. Is this impermanence?

Yes. This is impermanence, at the experiential level. You are getting the hang of the fact that experiences come and go, and they get affected by mere looking at them.

There is also impermanence at a deeper or subtler level, where every sensation becomes ripply or vibratory - that can be seen when mind is trained to see impermanence at a deeper/subtler level.

edit: I don't know a better term to use than ripply to describe it, anyways my usage of the term comes from Shinzen Young's meditation manual, page 41. (A beautiful illustration of meditation path up to the arising and passing away stage can be found in pages 40-45)


Which is this sutta, which describes a monk prepared to travel and to experience violence? A reference-request question. Which sutta contains the following story?

It starts with a monk who will travel to a far land (perhaps to a state on the west coast of what's now India, and perhaps as a missionary). The Buddha asks, how will he react if he's attacked?
It ends with the monk's saying that he will reflect that death is something which some (other) people seek, that these people have to arrange to find a murderer who will kill them, and that the people killing him have saved him this trouble! And in that way, he'll keep a mind of good-will.
The Buddha approves.

I remember it as similar to the parable of the saw; perhaps a much shorter sutta.

It is the Punna Sutta: To Punna (SN 35.88)

In a nutshell the story goes like this.....There was a rural village called Sunāparanta. No one went to this village because the people of Sunāparanta were fierce and rough, but a Bhikkhu volunteered himself to go visit that village. That Bhikkhu’s name was Punhnha. He requested the Buddha’s permission to go to that village. The Buddha told him the nature of the villagers in Sunāparanta. The Buddha showed him that if he goes to that village, even his life could be in danger. Punhnha Thero happily accepted that challenge and went to that village. After only few days, the whole village was changed. Those dangerous villagers took refuge in the Triple Gem. Some of them entered the monkhood and developed virtuous qualities… How did that happen? Even though those villagers were known to be vicious people, they had skills in them. When they started to listen to the Dhamma, those skills started to develop in them. If someone realizes the Dhamma after listening to it one day, that person’s skills start to develop gradually. This Sunāparanta could be the present day Saudi Arabia.


How does the Bhavanga State relate to the Jhanas? When we sit down and practice samadhi we would naturally want to enter absorbtion.But what if by practicing samatha we manage to calm and refine all the five senses,to the point where all five senses dissapear.

What's left would only be the mind sense with no outer stimuli from the five senses.

If this happens then won't the mind grasp the Bhavanga State? So my question is How does the Bhavanga State relate to the Jhanas?Are you suppose to go through one before entering the Jhanas.Or are you suppose to avoid lapsing into one in the first place.

Jhana is more than just the giving up of the five senses. Each of the jhanas is the result of very strong samadhi, and has specific factors that go along with it. For example, the first jhana has five factors: rapture, pleasure, initial application of mind, sustained application of mind, and oneness of mind. As one goes deeper into the second jhana, one leaves behind initial application and sustained application of mind, and so on.

Bhavanga is very different than this however. Bhavanga is like a blank slate. All it has are the mental factors that are necessary for mind to be there and nothing else. It only occurs in the space between other kinds of mindstate. None of the jhana factors are present at all, and there isn't even any meaningful degree of awareness in it.


Awakened Great Zen Master Seung Sahn - is it possible he lost the state of Nibbana? From my understanding of awakening (and also according to answers here like Is it possible to become UNenlightened?), it is an irreversible process. It makes sense in theory as, once one awakens, realises the way out of all the dukkha, it's such a wonderful state. Why would one replace it with anything else?

It is told that Great Zen Master Seung Sahn has reached awakening in 1949. However, later on in life, Master Sahn has had sexual relationships with students, which he publicly admitted and did two repentance ceremonies. Even though it seems that the affairs had not been hurtful to the students, the first thing which comes to my mind is: in order to engage in sexual relationship, one must have some lust - some unsatisfactoriness or dukkha - which contradicts the state of nibbana.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? Some of possible explanations that I can think of:

Is it possible that engaging in sexual relationships was what the situation requested, that it was right-action? After all, precepts are guidelines and, if situation requires so, they are ought to be broken. If so, why did Mater Sahn do repentance ceremonies? Was it also right-action?
Perhaps different buddhist traditions lead to different state of nibbana. I am relatively new to buddhism and all the traditions so I don't quite understand if this is even possible? (though I doubt it)
It is possible to become "un-awaken" after all?

Perhaps different buddhist traditions lead to different state of nibbana
Even within one tradition there are different stages or degrees of enlightenment -- see for example Four stages of enlightenment.
I think that this answer implies that the "awakening" which you quoted, i.e. ...

According to his book Dropping Ashes on the Buddha, he came to the understanding that “the rocks, the river, everything he could see, everything he could hear, all this was his true self. All things are exactly as they are. The truth is just like this.” In 1949, at the age of twenty-two, he attained enlightenment. This was confirmed by the great Korean Zen Master Ko Bong, who gave Zen Master Seung Sahn “inka” or transmission of the dharma. Ko Bong’s transmission publicly certified and authenticated Zen Master Seung Sahn’s enlightenment experience, giving him the authority to teach and train students.
Following his enlightenment experience, Zen Master Seung Sahn spent three years in silence, strengthening his Zen practice. He then became active in etc.

... is not "complete enlightenment".
I think there are instances of misbehaviour -- a teacher having affairs with students is not unheard of -- some people (or groups) even claim that's a good thing, getting over inhibitions or something, maybe Tantric justification, I don't know. To quote one example (and maybe not the best example):

On this level, if we are capable of seeing something pure in every human being, our sexual lives can be tools to create enormous joy. If it happens on the level of purity, if we have respect for each other, if we experience ourselves and others on a beyond-personal level, then enlightened energies can move and we learn something in the process—it’s totally amazing!

Others (outside the group, or ex-group-members) may condemn it (e.g. as exploitative ... or perhaps as hedonistic). See also "Celibacy in the Vinaya" in this article, Celibacy in Buddhism.
I read once -- see here -- that there may be quite a difference between what different people or different schools perceive as enlightened or nearly-enlightened or perhaps blameless behaviour (but beware that summary may be wrong, based on a misunderstanding, not well-explained, etc.).
Also (to get back to the question) I think that different schools may have slightly different doctrines about what nibbana is and whether it is (once attained) permanent. Instead of speculating, or "going by reports", perhaps it's important to experience for yourself what is "skilful", effective (what are the results of this or that), and ethical.


Vedana - feelings or sensations? I understand feelings as feeling happy, sad, elated, down -  more like an emotion.

Sensations I understand as hot, cold, tingly, numb, all kinds of body pains or pleasant sensations in the body.

Which ones does the Buddha refers to in the Suttas?

I believe they are the sensations in the body and not feelings.

For example is I see a beautiful woman, eye and form, contact -> pleasant sensation in the abdomen -> craving(lust) -> clinging -> becoming and at this stage feeling happy with the beautiful woman form and then a bit sad when I dont see her and prompted by craving I start looking for another beautiful form to cling to and then happy, sad, repeating the cycle again and again.

In my understanding sensations are vedana and not feelings.

This question is about words. The Pali words are 'vedana' ('feelings') & 'sankhara' ('formations').

Happy, sad, elated, down - more like an emotion = sankhara ('formations'). To quote:

  When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built
  up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal
  of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and
  that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s
  bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers
  increase and one experiences bodily and mental suffering (kāyadukkhampi cetodukkhampi paṭisaṃvedeti). MN 149

Hot, cold, tingly, numb, all kinds of body pains or pleasant sensations = 'vedana'. To quote:

  And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling (vedanaṃ)? ‘It feels (vedayatī),’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It
  feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. ‘It
  feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. SN 22.79

But some body pains are formations, such as when due to anger, stress, anxiety, etc. To quote:

  When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built
  up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal
  of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and
  that—increases. One’s bodily and mental troubles increase, one’s
  bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers
  increase and one experiences bodily and mental suffering (kāyadukkhampi cetodukkhampi paṭisaṃvedeti). MN 149

The core feature of 'vedana' ('feelings' or 'sensations') is they arise from sense contact. To quote:

  ‘The six classes of feeling should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and
  forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact;
  with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the ear and
  sounds, ear-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact;
  with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the nose and
  odours, nose-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is
  contact; with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the
  tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; the meeting of the
  three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling.
  Dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; the
  meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is
  feeling. Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness
  arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition
  there is feeling. So it was with reference to this that it was said:
  ‘The six classes of feeling should be understood. ’ This is the fifth
  set of six. MN 148

Where as formations arise from defilement (craving) & thinking (sankhara). To quote:

  What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
  Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of
  objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present & future
  forms cognizable via the eye. MN 18


What is Buddhist doctrine on the question of counterfactual definiteness? Counterfactual definiteness is, "is the ability to speak "meaningfully" of the definiteness of the results of measurements that have not been performed."

The classic question to illustrate is, "When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and no animal is near by to hear it, does it make a sound? Why?"

Another classic example is Einstein asking Bohr whether he really believed that, "the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it?"

What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all?

The standard procedure for understanding anatta is to investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined. However, doesn't this procedure implicitly rely upon the supposition that existing things can be found if one investigates and looks for them? That which can't be observed must not truly exist?

Couldn't someone relying upon counterfactual definiteness just say that even though we can't observe the self that it still truly exists just like an unobserved tree in the forest that falls still makes a real sound?

What does Buddhism have to say about these questions if anything at all?

That's easy to answer: the only good use of mano ("mind") for anybody who want to stop dukkha is the yoniso manasikara ("appropriate attention"), which is, in one word, phrasing sati (awareness, mindfulness) and what you do with sati, in terms of mano. This is the first step of the path (after, of course, hearing the doctrine to remember) -- the famous "proper attention" on the source and ending of whatever is dukkha, from the reply "you need a good friend and proper attention" of the buddha, when he was asked what is required to reach nibanna.

Also, The standard procedure for understanding anatta has nothing to do with "investigate and look for the self and upon not finding it concluding that the self does not exist as we imagined." Leave drawing conclusion to the toxic puthujjanas (wordlings): the logicians, the daydreamers, the creators of views, the people who love to argue about views.

Use mano only for ascertainment, for attestation, for witnessing, of the source and fall of phenomena, of vedana (feelings), of sanna (perceptions) and so on -- and of course, for the ascertainment of the failure or the success, from the activities you have done so far, of your practice (then you pursue successful activities and you abandon failing activities).

Here is what happens when a puthujjana uses mano for something else than yoniso manasikara:

  Ayoniso-manasikara Sutta: Inappropriate Attention (SN 9.11)

  I have heard that on one occasion a certain monk was dwelling among the Kosalans in a forest thicket. Now at that time, he spent the day's abiding thinking evil, unskillful thoughts: i.e., thoughts of sensuality, thoughts of ill will, thoughts of doing harm.

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

  From inappropriate attention
  you're being chewed by your thoughts.
  Relinquishing what's inappropriate,
      contemplate
      appropriately.

  Keeping your mind on the Teacher,
  the Dhamma, the Sangha, your virtues
  you will arrive at
      joy,
      rapture,
      pleasure
      without doubt.

  Then, saturated
      with joy,
  you will put an end
  to suffering & stress.

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

Here is the proper use of mano:

Natumha Sutta -- Not Yours (SN 12.37)
Channa Sutta -- With Channa (SN 35.87)

Use mano for striving to find the sources of what comes to be, and the ending of what came to be -- of how things arise and how they pass away (and not "see things as they really are", contrary to the worst translation ever, created by a puthujjana craving to cram the word "real").

Now, tHe standard procedure to "understand anatta" is the one to become an arahant -- and the standard procedure to become an arahant is for the citta to have samadhi, and once the citta has stable samadhi, to use sati to focus on anatta through the sequence anicca, dukkha, anatta -- or to just hear the discourse by a Buddha which will be about this sequence anyway.

Since the bikkhus  do not know what is anicca, but are already more or less good at getting the citta in samadhi by being good ascetics, they once more rely on a discourse, this time directly from the Buddha, like the second one (Anatta-lakkhana-sutta -- The Not-self Characteristic) where as usual the five aggregates that any human knows and experiences are anatta -- so no need to go deep looking for anatta.

Now atta is  only a word, so what experience is there behind this word?
Well as usual the answer is given, and it is:

  This is mine, this is I, this is my self

... and what does this apply to? The 5 aggregates -- which is the sakya-ditthi (i.e. the view that the aggregates are self) and the only ditthi (view) that you must care about and reject, once you want to stop dukkha --- which of course has nothing do with eternalism or annihilism, and the fantasy of some puthujjanas that the dhamma is some middle way between the two, because those people love to (very dubiously) tack their favorite  words like "existence", "real", "self" on their experience and these words are even more meaningless when they are used to talk about the Buddha.

The (non-ascetic) lay people who stop being puthujjanas do so by listening to the Buddha, and they become stream-enterers. After that the remaining work no longer concerns views. Instead the remaining task is to destroy various lusts, and the energy spent fueling those lusts. A puthujjana is done with views as as soon as the puthujjana become a sotapana.


Help me with a paradox One Day i was thinking about the "Thrikoti parishuddha sila" (The ultimate version of five precepts)

Let me give an example how this version works....

You can't kill
You can't aid killing
You can't hire to kill
You can't order to kill
You can't admire / promote killing
If you can stop a killing you must stop it

These can be applied to all of the precepts...

So while i was thinking about this and this came into my mind.

If i see an animal getting eaten by another animal what should i do?

If i see a someone having an extramarital affair what should i do?

and so on....

My question is some of these are without doubt only result in a good way but some will give suffering or pain to that person or animal so doesn't that generate bad karma for me??

I am familiar with the term “pārisuddhi-sīla”, but this only relates to monastic practice (restraint according to Vinaya, restraint of senses, purification of livelihood and restraint in use of the four requisites). I have not heard of the "ultimate version of the five precepts"... where are these mentioned?

Your first five bullet points are mentioned in the Atthasālinī under courses of immoral action (also mentioned in the Vinaya), but I have not encountered “If you can stop a killing you must stop it”. Is this from a Mahāyāna text?

Your questions seem to be around this final bullet point.

Please help me to better understand and I may be able to offer an answer.


Differences between U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka Are there (small) differences between the vipassana meditation technique of U Ba Khin and S.N. Goenka?

From many of S.N. Goenka's writing it is implied that U Ba Khin gave explicit instruction not the change anything regarding to the technique and I believe this is the case. Also many times in this writing S.N. Goenka has expressed profound and deep respect to his teacher. So it is unlikely there would have been any changes.

Since U Ba Khin died some time back, while S.N. Goenka taught based in India while U Ba Khin this would only be known to someone who was a student of both masters if at all who might be surviving would be very few who would know the this for sure.

Also see: U ba Khin / Goenka Vipassana putting stress only on vednanupassana


Concept of Vedana as expounded in Theravada Buddhism Throughout canonical discourses (Sutta Pitaka) the Buddha teaches that there are 3 modes of Vedana.

Where in Pali canon do we find 6 classes of Vedana?

How is Vedana related to Nibbana?

Vēdanā is conventionally translated as “feelings”, but it is much more than just feelings. The Buddha said that vēdanā can be analyzed in many ways, with simple or deeper meanings. Though you have been told that there are six types of Vēdanā  there are actually 9 types of vēdanā.

A vēdanā can be a dukha vēdanā (due to a past bad kamma), a sukha vēdanā (due to a past good kamma), or a neutral sensation — like feeling the wind on the body — called an upekkha vēdanā. However, normal humans go far beyond that and generate three additional types of their own mind-made “samphassa ja vēdanā”.

A normal human being will mentally generate three more type of vēdanā due to those sukha, dukha, and neutral vēdanā that initially arise due to kamma vipāka via all five physical senses. If it is dukha vēdanā (due to a headache, getting injured, etc. ), one is likely to start worrying about it and add more suffering. Those are dōmanassa vēdanā or āmisa dukha vēdanā.

If it is sukha vēdanā (getting a massage, lying in a luxurious bed, etc. ), one is likely to start generating thoughts about how good it is and how one can enjoy similar sukha vēdanā in the future. Those are sōmanassa vēdanā or āmisa sukha vēdanā ; one could also be generating them by remembering past such sukha vēdanā. These are also added in by the mind. Sōmanassa means “mind-made joyful”. Dōmanassa means “mind-made misery”, which is basically a depressed mindset.

When one stays away from generating too many “samphassa jā vēdanā” of both kinds, one will start feeling three more types of vēdanā. These are called nirāmisa vēdanā, because they arise due to staying away from cravings (and repulsion) to worldly objects. When one prevents the mind from heating up by comprehending the adverse effects of “san” and staying away from them, one’s mind starts “cooling down”. This is the nirāmisa sukha vēdanā. This is what is emphasized by “ätäpi sampajäno” in the Mahā Satipatthāna Sutta; it means “remove the fire or heat from one’s mind by being aware of the ‘san‘ or “immoral tendencies”.

Then there are vēdanā that one experiences when proceeding on the Noble Eightfold Path. Sometimes, one gets a bit discouraged by not advancing “fast enough” on the Path.  Those are not dōmanassa vēdanā (because they are devoid of patigha anusaya); they are nirāmisa dukha vēdanā.

The Sutta references are many, and I will refer you to one – the Ananda Sutta: Leading to Awakening (SAMYUTTA NIKAYA 12:10).

How vēdanā is related to Nibbana will call for a lengthy explanation, and you will not understand it if explained it in a paragraph or two. One day you will get to understand it proper, if you try to make sense of the following:
“Sukha and dukha vedana arise due to kamma vipaka. Somanassa and domanassa vedana arise due to sankhara, which in turn arise due to our gathi and asavas. The more sankhara we do, the stronger a given gathi (habit) becomes, which in turn become asavas (cravings) and fuel the sansaric journey (rebirth process). This vicious cycle can be broken only through comprehending the anicca nature of this world.”


Signless Meditation • 8th Jhana We find in Thig 3.3 the following verses :

I attain the meditations on emptiness and signlessness whenever I
want.
I am the Buddha’s rightful daughter, always delighting in quenching.

How, dear friends, would you relate the attainment of the signless to the jhana of neither perception nor non perception ?
Thank you for your most appreciated insightful comments. May you all be well and safe.

As explained in many suttas, for example in MN121, in the gradual training approach the signless concentration is the next step after "neither perception nor nonperception" and the last step before The Final Liberating Realization.
If you search this site for the words signlessness, signless, nimitta, animitta, and semiotics - you will find many of my detailed answers on these topics.
For a detailed analysis of Pali sources, see this nice article: "Signless" Meditations in Pali Buddhism.
This topic is of the utmost importance because it connects the Early Buddhism and Mahayana into one teaching.


What does it mean when something has "no self-nature"? I was reading on some later Buddhist and Mahayana sutras and kept seeing the principles along the lines of "all phenomenon have no nature of their own and are thus empty." I've studied on scriptures like this before, like the Heart Sutra, but I don't think the Pali Canon or Tripitaka mentions anything about this doctrine. I'm curious what exactly later Buddhists meant by this, and if the Buddha actually taught this doctrine or if Sunyata has basis in the original sutras. Thank you to all.

The Pali phrase in the Suñña Sutta is,

suññam idaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā

... which Wikipedia translates as,

this world is empty of self or anything pertaining to self

The word attena is a declension of Attan, which is Ātman in Sanskrit/Hinduism:

Ātman is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.

... which is cognate to (or opposed to, to be contrasted with) the Buddhist Pali term Anatta:

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings. It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism, and along with Dukkha (suffering) and Anicca (impermanence), it is one of three Right Understandings about the three marks of existence.
The concept of Anatta or Anatman in Buddhism, is a major difference from the Hindu concept of Atman (self, soul).

Maybe that helps to explain what "self-nature" might mean, or whence it's derived, in "the original sutras".
See also topics which are tagged anatman.

Furthermore, the term bhava appears a lot in "the original sutras" in that it's one of the 12 Nidanas and thus part of the theory of dependent origination.
In Svabhava (or the Pali sabhāva) there's the word Bhava plus the root Sa which means "own", a reflexive pronoun cognate to the Latin sui, suus.
In the Pali, "becoming" is dependently originated. The whole wheel of becoming is about how various things which shouldn't be considered 'self' sustain or feed each other, so I take it that (independent) self-becoming is a paradox, a contradiction, which explains the quote in the OP "all phenomenon have no nature of their own".
If this isn't clear, and/or this appears to contradict other answers, perhaps that's because there are (or there are posited) several categories of self-nature (see e.g. Tri-svabhava-nirdesa).
Wikipedia says,

In the Pāli canon, "sabhāva" is absent from what are generally considered to be the earliest texts.[a] When found in later texts (e.g., the paracanonical Milindapañha), it generically refers to state (of mind), character or truth.
In the post-canonical Abhidhamma literature, sabhāva is used to distinguish an irreducible, dependent, momentary phenomenon (dhamma) from a conventionally constructed object. Thus, a collection of visual and tactile phenomena might be mentally constructed into what is conventionally referred to as a "table"; but, beyond its constituent elements, a construct such as "table" lacks intrinsic existence (sabhāva).

I think that this example (of the non-self of a table) is analogous to the parable of the chariot from the Milinda Panha. Wikipedia dates the Milinda Panha to about 100 CE, which I contrast with the lifetime of the Buddha in about 400 BCE.
As you progress (forward in history) into the foundations of Mahayana you get to Nagarjuna (150 to 250 CE). The SEP says this about Emptiness and svabhāva,

The central concept around which all of Nāgārjuna's philosophy is built is the notion of emptiness (śūnyatā). Emptiness is of course always the emptiness of something, and the something Nāgārjuna has in mind here is svabhāva. Different terms have been used to translate this word into English: “inherent existence” and “intrinsic nature” appear etc.

Fwiw Wikipedia says of Svabhava,

In the Mahāyāna Buddhadharma tradition(s) it is one of a suite of terms employed to denote the Buddha-nature


Most effective meditation techniques to develop empathy, love and compassion for others? I feel like a very cold and sensual person. Easily attracted to sensual pleasure but very cold and numb when it comes to bonding with other human beings. I want to change, and therefore I want to make a meditation plan in order to develop empathy, love and compassion for other human beings, and possibly extend it to all sentient beings in general. However, I'm not sure about how to make such a meditation plan. Based on your experience / knowledge, which meditation techniques are most effective to develop these emotions?

There are different ways of going about this goal.

A problem with merely reciting the standard formula could be that it may feel like internally, you are actually experiencing the opposite intention.

Not being satisfied with oneself, even feeling aversion towards oneself, is quite common, especially in many Western cultures, and to extend metta from that position can be very difficult. The same thing is true when there are people you do not actually like, or even feel strong aversion or hate towards.

Personally, I suspect just reciting, going against one's actual experienced intention in the present moment could be counter-productive.

There are other methods to try.

You may first want to consider if there is anything or anyone that actually does bring up a sense of compassion and a wish for well-being inside of you.

Ajahn Brahm provides various suggestions: perhaps babies? Perhaps kittens or puppies? Some other animal? Perhaps somebody who showed you love and care when you were a child - one of your parents, one of your grandparents, etc.

Whatever or whoeever it is, is not so important, with the caveat that somebody you have been sexually attracted to is probably not the best choice.

The point is to find the feeling and amplify it as much as you can, before you start to extend the metta.

You can also use logic to strengthen your resolve. You can imagine what your situation would be like, and by extension, what the world could be like if people genuinely wished everyone else well.

Finally, there is a "backwards metta hack" that a kind monk taught me.

He explained that for him, metta had been the biggest challenge in his practice. He had a miserable upbringing and major problems with depression, even suicidal ideas, before he was introduced to Buddhism. So when he started out, he simply could not do it. He just couldn't find the feeling within himself.

However, as he started to learn how to calm the body and mind through meditation, he would experience increased peace and well-being within himself, and had a breakthrough at one time, as he was coming out of a very peaceful meditation and felt very calm, very soft and yet very clear and bright. At that moment, something inside of him clicked: 'What if I can radiate this state?' - and then he started the metta meditation. Immediately, it felt genuine.


Recommendation for Suttas I have been practising Vipassana for quite a while (2 and half years). Now, I want to also dwell into the teachings of Buddha as presented in Suttas and apply those teaching in my everday life. I have read a bit about Majjhima Nikaya and Samyutta Nikaya but bit I'm in dilemma and not sure whether other Nikayas are suitable for a beginner or not.
With which Sutta (Nikaya) should I start with?

Well DN and Mn are long copies of suttas from AN and SN. The problem with AN and SN is their size.

Since people today say that the suttanipata [=Snp] chapter 4 and 5 are the oldest texts, and that They are read in a few hours tops, you can start here:

http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN391.pdf

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/index.html

So the order would be about starting with short texts and collections, then the big collections, then go back to DN for a summary: sutta nipata chapter 4, 5, then 1, 2, 3, then MN, people like the dhammapada too so why not,  Then SN and AN in no order, Then DN,  then all the little added stuff in KN. Of course, there is the vinaya and the abidhamma too....

Here is a picture of all the catalog

The famous Bikkhu Sujato has written a few guides about all those Nikayas

A Reader’s Introduction to the Pali Nikāyas
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/a-reader-s-introduction-to-the-pali-nikayas/11507

more guides here https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/reading-guides

Instead of reading, There are also records of MN, AN, Snp, KN, SN, DN
https://bodhimonastery.org/online-dharma-lectures

https://www.youtube.com/user/venbodhi/videos

http://www.suttavinaya.com/list-of-topics/

https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/videos

It will take a while to read or hear all that, especially if you do not spend the whole day doing that, so it is even better to begin with the short texts.


Which text does the four sights story come from? One of the most famous stories of the Buddha is that of the four sights in which the Buddha sees old age, sickness death and a monk for the first time. However I read that this story doesn't actually occur in the Pali Canon. Can anyone give the reference for the text or texts that this story does occur in.

Also since it doesn't appear in the Pali Canon is it reasonable to suppose that it might have less historical accuracy then other events in the Pali Canon. After all if it had of occurred wouldn't the Buddha have told Ananda at some point who would have then recounted when the storied were been collected after the Buddha's death. This is of a side point really - and probably unnecessarily contraversial.

Possibly a later development based on AN 3.39. In that sutta, the Buddha didn't explicitly mention He saw those signs but the ideas were there:

  ...Amid such splendor and a delicate life, it occurred to me: ‘An uninstructed worldling, though himself subject to old age, not exempt from old age, feels repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when he sees another who is old, overlooking his own situation. Now I too am subject to old age and am not exempt from old age. Such being the case, if I were to feel repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when seeing another who is old, that would not be proper for me.’ When I reflected thus, my intoxication with youth was completely abandoned...


Karma and the creation of the earth I believe I've heard that the earth, after periodical destruction, comes into being because because beings with unexpiated karma exist - some of them will need to be born as humans, some as animals. The earth therefore is necessary, and appears.

Does anyone recognize this description? References will be greatly appreciated.

Please note that my question is not about any absolute beginning of being or the universe (that issue firmly remaining unanswered I believe?)

i know of one sources on this which is the Agganna Sutta   from the digha nikaya 27

‘At that period, Vāseṭṭha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness. Neither moon nor sun appeared, no constellations or stars appeared, night and day were not distinguished, nor months and fortnights, no years or seasons, and no male and female, beings being reckoned just as beings.827 And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savoury earth828 spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with colour, smell and taste. It was the colour of fine ghee or butter, and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey.
‘Then some being of a greedy nature said: “I say, what can this be?” and tasted the savoury earth on its finger. In so doing, it became taken with the flavour, and craving arose in it.829 Then other beings, taking their cue from that one, also tasted the stuff with their fingers. They too were taken with the flavour, and craving arose in them. So they set to with their hands, breaking off pieces of the stuff in order to eat it. And [86] the result of this was that their self-luminance disappeared. And as a result of the disappearance of their self-luminance, the moon and the sun appeared, night and day were distinguished, months and fortnights appeared, and the year and its seasons. To that extent the world re-evolved.

http://www.palicanon.org/en/sutta-pitaka/transcribed-suttas/majjhima-nikaya/142-mn-88-bhitika-sutta-the-cloak.html


Is Enlightment ultimatelly up to you (Karma and Freewill)? According to the traditional Buddhist dogma the fourth noble truth or eight-fold path is the way to attain Enlightenment then again some sects in Buddhism accept karma as a factor.
Not knowing (gnosis) what your karma was in your previous life and how it affects your current life to attain Enlightenment makes you wonder about the illusory nature of karma or Buddhism itself.

What's the view Buddhism has on your own chances to obtain Enlightenment?
Is it because Enlightenment is just like truth and there are different degrees of Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is like a path or direction you take in existence like a boat that heads west but the wind (karma) sometimes prevents you from moving forwards? Is it because Enlightenment is just like a riddle the Buddha plays to tell you about that characteristic of perception that makes you realize something that was always there but you were unaware of, or perhaps Enlightenment is the ultimate version of that? Or perhaps there is no Enlightenment and it's just the pursuit of it that gives us purpose in life and therefore less suffering (as long as we take the middle way of course...)?

  "There is no spoon" The Matrix

Enlightenment comes as a natural result of the meditation practise. When you practise meditation with proper effort you'll realize very quickly that this is path of freedom from suffering. So with experience a person realizes the benefits of meditation and that realization can lead the person to get involved with meditation more deeply.

It is "not" possible for a person to not become enlightened If s/he is able to get rid of his physical and mental addictions, learns to practise mindfulness correctly and practises mindfulness and meditation for long periods of time. But modern life's requirements, the person's attachment to wrong ideas/beliefs and the possible mental or physical problems limits a person's conditions to do what is necessary in the path of freedom from suffering. So the chances to have success in the path is not just about freewill or karma. It's about both of them.

You don't need to be a Buddhist or subscribe to any religion or tradition to have benefits from spirituality. Also Buddhism really leads people to become Non-Buddhists If one follows Buddhism correctly. Just like Thich Nhat Hanh said "Buddha is made of non-Buddha elements".

If you want to start to walk in the path, this map can be helpful to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN4a5qvxok


Supplication in buddhist practice Does any Buddhist practice consists of supplication, or is there too much merit being exchanged for that?

  Supplication (also known as petitioning) is a form of prayer, wherein
  one party humbly or earnestly asks another party to provide something,
  either for the party who is doing the supplicating (e.g., "Please
  spare my life.") or on behalf of someone else (e.g., "Please spare my
  child's life.").

If there was a practice like that in Buddhism, it doesn't come from the Buddha's teachings. One practices loving-kindness by making a wish(not a prayer) such as "May I be happy" or "May the world be at peace" or "May my enemy be well" and so on. The purpose of this practice is to help negate states of anger in the practitioner thus benefiting everyone. No God, Buddha or anyone grants the wish. It all happens in our own minds. If one doesn't understand this then one might mistake practice for ritual as well. For example, one doesn't pray but pays homage to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha in mindful rememberance. This practice is for the benefit of the practitioner by way of building humble states of mind and when one is humble, that will benefit others as well.

All practices that come from the Buddha's teaching are like this: Benefiting both the practitioner and the beings the practitioner comes into contact with. We practice to build wholesome states for ourselves. The less we are unwholesome the less others will suffer because of us and the more they will be happy when they come into contact with us. We help others by helping ourselves. This is a good kind of selfishness :)


How does Buddhism refute the inherent existence of sub-atomic particles? (1) According to Rob Burbea in Seeing That Frees, "both the neither-one-nor-many reasoning and the sevenfold reasoning are among the practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels."

Regarding the neither-one-nor-many practice, he goes on to say:
"Even if we imagine down to the level of subatomic particles, these will necessarily have parts facing in different directions, or interacting with other particles in this or that direction. Anything that occupies space must have parts.

Postulating the existence of a partless particle that would be truly singular will not work. It would be impossible to arrange or amass such particles in order to form any thing from them. Having no differentiable sides, other particles could not be arranged either side of it. Such a particle would not be able to bond or interact with other particles in any direction. All the surrounding particles would contact the central particle at the same point, and all effectively occupy the same space. Nothing with any extension could ever come to be."

When I imagine a partless particle, I simply think of a sphere. I can't see how the reasons he states refute that possibility. He seems to think that a partless particle could not possess mass, or would just be an infinitely small point. Why could it not just be a sphere that can't be divided any further?

(2) Two of the quotations he uses:

"The element of earth has no nature of its own." (Prajnaparamita Sutra)

"Matter itself is void. Voidness does not result from the destruction of matter, but the nature of matter is itself voidness." (Vimalkirtinirdesa Sutra)

What are the other "practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels?" Specifically this belief in the inherent existence of the "element of earth", i.e. sub-atomic particles.

In this paragraph:

  Postulating the existence of a partless particle that would be truly
  singular will not work. It would be impossible to ... Having no
  differentiable sides, ... Such a particle would not be able to ... All
  the surrounding particles would ... Nothing with any extension could
  ever come to be.

The author is, in my estimation (I have no familiarity with the book or the author), doing one of two things:

Confusing Buddhism with Physics. Whether this particle is this or that particle is that, it won't help you become a better person and understand your mental reality any better. Although the above quoted paragraph would make an interesting question on physics.stackexchange.com.
Speaking poetically in order to help the reader become absorbed with the idea. Perhaps this is the case.

During an course I attended under the name "Introduction to Asian Philosophy", my professor explained emptiness as a flashy way of reminding us that we only define things in relation to what they are not. Nirvana is defined as everything Samsara is not, therefore Nirvana is "empty of essential qualities". Similarly, Samsara is meaningless without a Nirvana to compare it to. This logic can be extended to all entities and concepts: Without night there can be no day, without a whole there can't be parts, etc.

You may or may or not you agree with this reasoning, but for me it's a practical interpretation of the doctrine of emptiness that helps us to not cling to our perceptions of what things are.

In other words, as R. Barzell says in the comment below, Is emptiness ontology, or a way of seeing to free us from the bondage of concepts? Is treating emptiness as ontology missing the point?

Lastly,

  What are the other "practices capable of revealing the emptiness of matter even at the most basic levels?" Specifically this belief in the inherent existence of the "element of earth", i.e. sub-atomic particles.

Meditation will probably help, as it gradually helps the practitioner become free from the limitations of language, thoughts, and concepts. The better we understand the way our minds work, the less we can be obstructed by our minds.


Why emphasise the EBT when anyone who has achieved Arhathood can teach from direct experience? This question concerns some Theravada-based practices, with which I am not familiar.
It is not a dig but a genuine query that puzzles me. Yet I'm not sure that I have asked this question well. I have strong respect for the Theravada tradition.
I recognise the distinctions between a Buddha and an Arahant, (such as the former not having had a teacher, the paramitas, etc.) but these distinctions don't seem to be valid criteria for differentiating the teachings of a Buddha from the teachings of an Arahant, especially in the modern world. Buddha being able to teach in accordance with his audience isn't really relevant to us nowadays - all of his audience died over 2,300 years ago.
Even within the EBT (as I understand it), the Early Buddhist Texts, Buddha repeatedly de-emphasises the importance of himself, and instead emphasises the importance of the Dharma - which is to also to be understood experientially.
Once we have tasted liberation, and we have a direct experience of it - such that every experience we have demonstrates the deep underlying truth of the four noble truths and the paṭiccasamuppāda, why then would we need to teach from a selection of texts from 2,500 years ago?
Again, why is it that the discourses of Buddha, (and some select disciples of his) are 'sutta' but the teachings of any Arahant who has lived in the last few centuries are not 'sutta'? After all, surely it’s the quality of liberated mind that determines the ability to author truth - and certainly not the personality, right?

Without psychic powers, it's actually quite difficult to determine who is an arahant. Fortunately, the Buddha gave some guidelines in MN47 about how to assess a potential teacher:

MN47:4.1: “Mendicants, a mendicant who is an inquirer, unable to comprehend another’s mind, should scrutinize the Realized One for two things—things that can be seen and heard:
MN47:4.2: ‘Can anything corrupt be seen or heard in the Realized One or not?’ etc...

However, it's much easier to verify the validity of the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs). Many scholars have compared these ancient scriptures as they were translated and written down in many different countries. The EBTs are remarkably consistent in doctrine. Having faith in the EBTs doesn't require psychic powers.
This principle of faith based on inquiry and evidence is fundamental in Buddhism:

MN47:16.1: When someone’s faith is settled, rooted, and planted in the Realized One in this manner, with these words and phrases, it’s said to be grounded faith that’s based on evidence.

Arahants do teach. Sariputta taught, as did Moggallāna. They had different styles. Sariputta was more into textual analysis and Moggallāna more into psychic powers. And both of their teachings were rooted in the Buddha's own teachings. However, without a Buddha to verify their arahantship, we need to rely on the methods of MN47 to establish a trust in contemporary teachers.
Lastly, the EBTs are continuously translated into contemporary languages and are therefore just as relevant today as 2500 years ago.  Samsara goes on as it does while the wisdom in the EBTs remains directly relevant to this day and beyond.


how many meditations have the word 'sati' in there? what are all the practices that are "great fruit, great benefit"? The motivation behind these two questions, is I suspect the Buddha emphasized some meditation practices above others for some reason or other. Obviously everything the Buddha taught would have useful applications at some stage, for some reason. But some practices have been touted as being especially useful for a particular purpose, such as metta to counter ill will. Anapana breath meditation, was the practice the Buddha engaged in on his personal retreats, he seemed to favor that above all else.

The 7sb awakening factors, are the samadhi engine that takes in any Dharma (meditation practice) that sati-sambojjhanga (awakening factor) 'remembers' and feeds into the 7sb samadhi engine.

The 4sp satipatthana are defined as 'samadhi nimittas', equivalent to the Dharma that sati remembers and feeds into 7sb, and as such, would cover every meditation subject.

So what we're looking for, in these two questions, is whether the Buddha used certain key terms to designate a small number of meditation subjects as being exceptional, among so many meditation topics taught.

Two questions:

how many meditations have the word 'sati' in there?
I'm aware of 3:

Ānā-pāna-s-sati 16APS: in-breath (&) out-breath remembering,
maraṇa-s-sati : death remembering
kāya-gatā-sati : body-immersed-remembering

They all have 'sati' in there name.
I'm not including anu-s-sati practices (such as Buddha anu sati, Dhamma... Sangha....).
And not including sati-(u)patthana.

Am I missing any? I think those are the only 3.

what are all the practices that are touted to be of "great fruit, great benefit" (maha-p-phalā, mahā-nisaṃsā)?
The 3 sati practices above are.
the 4ip iddhi pada are.
What else? I believe there are more.

Since the first question was answered superbly by DD, I'll try to answer the second one:

In essence, everything the Buddha taught is to be done again & again, ad nauseam, so that it's "of great fruit, of great benefit", otherwise he'd not have taught it. The Noble Eightfold Path is often also called The Threefold Training.

AN 7.46 is basically the short answer to your question

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.046.than.html


When were the earliest Buddhist writings created Buddha was born (according to Wikipedia) somewhere around 563 BCE to 480 BCE, and lived 80 years.

From what I have understood, no teachings that made it to this day, have been written down when he was alive.

What are the earliest scriptures (or other writings) that we know of, and when were they created?

There is no external evidence for the Buddhist texts before Asoka. The evidence for Asoka's time is extremely limited - a few texts mentioned by name with no content. All dates in early Indian history are highly conjectural. There is for example no other evidence than Buddhist texts for if or when the Buddha lived, and that evidence has produced a number of different dates. A symposium on the dates of the Buddha in 1991 concluded that he lived ca 480-400 BCE. In 1992 Richard Gombrich independently reasoned from the texts a very similar date - see Dating the Buddha A Red Herring Revealed. These are the currently accepted dates amongst most scholars. It looks like Wikipedia is drawing on the traditional Theravādin date, which is only accepted within the Theravāda sect and no longer accepted by non-sectarian scholars.

The dates of Asoka are reasonably certain, since four Bactrian kings are mentioned in the edicts and these can be aligned with physical evidence of these kings (such as coins) in Bactria. So we know that Asoka flourished in the mid-3rd century BCE (ca. 250 BCE). On Asoka and his dates, see Charles Allen's excellent book Asoka. Similarly, in the texts the Magadhan Empire has yet to expand beyond Magadha, and it's future capital at Patna (Trad. Pataliputta) is still a small frontier town of little significance. Suggesting a time before the Moryan Dynasty founded by Asoka's grandfather Candragupta - so probably at least a century before Asoka.

Less precise, but of considerable importance is the beginning of the second urbanisation in the Ganges Valley ca. 7th century BCE. Evidence for this is extensive, for example, in the form of the ruins of walled cities at Rajgir and Shravasti (See Romila Thapar's Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations).

In the texts the Magadhan Empire is not yet an empire and Pataliputta is unimportant. Early Buddhist texts do not mention Asoka, so we assume that they predate him, at least by a century, ca 350 BCE. The texts do mention well established walled cities so we assume that the antedate them. If these assumptions are valid (and not every scholar agrees that they are) this gives us a range of ca. 600-350 for the composition of the Buddhist texts. This is at least not inconsistent with most of the dates derived from the texts, which place the Buddha somewhere in the middle of this range.

The texts show considerable evidence of having composed orally and existing as a widely dispersed oral literature for a considerable time before being collected and written down. See for example Anālayo's article Oral Dimensions of Pāli Discourses: Pericopes, other Mnemonic Techniques and the Oral Performance Context. This is consistent with the Sri Lankan chronicle Mahāvaṃsa which asserts that the texts were not written down in Sri Lanka until about the first century BCE during the reign of King Vaṭṭagāmini. Writing texts down in India is less certain, but probably began around the same time.

The earliest physical evidence of early Buddhist texts are birch bark manuscripts from what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan (ancient Gandhāra). One or two texts are carbon14 dated to the 1st century BCE, and a few more to the first two centuries CE. The oldest Pali text is a small manuscript written on gold from the 5th or 5th century CE.


Buddhism and Losing Determination I noticed that I tend to very well know what I must do, and that I also strive and attempt to do these things, but that often I am filled with a kind of 'defeatism' or 'pessimism'. I know the right way, attempt the right way, but this heavy and saddening discouragement just makes me go: "What's the point? It's all futile anyways."

How would Buddhism describe and remedy such an emotion?

I feel like this is distinct from not knowing the right way, and not attempting the right way. It's more of a temporary emotion dragging me down, a kind of hopelessness or shame or maybe even self-hatred.

This emotion doesn't always occur, but it occurs enough for me to be held back in my practice. What should I do?

Sit on the cushion.  You’ve posted scores of variants on this question and still seem to be under the impression that there’s an answer out there somewhere that’s going to get things to click for you - that somehow someone will say something that will miraculously make you committed and motivated to practice.  That answer simply doesn’t exist.  No amount of intellectualizing, sage advice, or sutra is going to change your mind or your circumstances.  Words don’t change behavior; behavior changes behavior.  Suck it up and sit.  It’s not going to be fun, it’s going to take monumental effort, you aren’t going to see any discernible benefit for a long time.  This is what practice looks like.  It’s why it’s called a discipline.  Effort doesn’t come from the outside.  It comes from within.  You have to provide the energy to make it happen.


Why do Buddhists believe that the Buddha was enlightened, despite that he claimed it himself? All the answers to the question about the living enlightened people suggest that talking about one's enlightenment is taboo, so if somebody claims to be enlightened, he probably is not.

Why doesn't this reasoning apply to the Buddha? After all, he claimed himself to be englightened (for example, in Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta).

I said "bragging of one's achievements is bad tone" and you turned it into "talking about one's enlightenment is taboo" :) It is very easy to fall into extremes, isn't it?

"If somebody claims to be enlightened, he probably is not" -- here is a simple explanation. Among other things Enlightenment involves shedding the mistaken identification with the illusory "I". So once Enlightenment has been revealed, it seems rather silly to say "I am Enlightened" -- because this "I" is a fiction.

Plus, Enlightenment is self-existing, it does not depend on being attained or not. The metaphor for this is sun above the clouds. Once you remove the clouds, you can see the sun, but the sun is always there, before and after. This is another reason why saying "I have attained Enlightenment" is silly.

As Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche said:

  Buddhism says that confusion has to be dispelled and that there should
  be realization beyond confusion. It is based on the idea of
  transcending the highest ideals of the human mind completely, which is
  called enlightenment. Once you dissolve, once your particular
  expectations dissolve, that is liberation or enlightenment. Since
  enlightenment is based on dissolving the ego and its expectations, it
  has been said that you cannot watch your own burial, and you cannot
  congratulate yourself on becoming the first buddha of the age or the
  first buddha of New York.

Buddha claimed Enlightenment solely in order to help his students gain confidence in his teaching. He knew very well the extent to which the statement "I am Enlightened Buddha" can be true.

Then why don't modern teachers claim Enlightenment to help their students gain confidence? As I explained in Is Satori the same as Enlightenment? and Enlightenment vs nibbana/nirvana, most people achieve "sudden insight / gradual cultivation". With gradual cultivation, you can never claim 100% Enlightenment, because in this case Enlightenment is asymptotic. All we can definitely claim is the insight.


Do buddhists fall in love? I'm new to the concept of Buddhism, and am failing to understand perhaps something very basic. I understand that one is not expected to hold anything close or dear as it is impermanent and could change at any moment so how does one love another person? How does one become close to another person. As I understand it, a relationship would just consist of two people who aren't that close to one another.

"Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful" - this seems to suggest that you should build a wall around yourself and separate yourself from potentially wonderful feelings just because they could cause pain, and pain is bad.

I think pain is a part of life; denying that pain, or ignoring it is not part of a healthy life. I think of this concept of Buddhism similar to "don't smell the flowers because you may prick yourself on a thorn" thus denying yourself of the delights found in the smell and also the growth / knowledge from the pain of the thorn prick. Both of which you can learn and grow from.

Am I missing something here?

It depends which Buddhism we are talking about:

Both Theravada and Mahayana, including Zen, would consider romantic love a disease of the mind, a kind of pathological obsession. Theravada would offer the more universal emotion of metta instead -- the loving-kindness, although in Theravada it is usually applied as an antidote against hatred, for the benefit of one who experiences it. Most schools of Mahayana would sincerely rejoice in the selfless aspect of love. In Mahayana one is supposed to sacrifice one's interests for the benefit of others. Dropping one's ego is Mahayana's path to Enlightenment.

In Vajrayana schools though, emotions, including romantic love, are considered a form of energy that can be put to use, or at least accepted as part of the given. Vajrayana perspective would more likely align with your "pain is part of life" and "might as well enjoy the flower" conjectures. With one caveat though: Vajrayana would still appreciate the inherent fakeness of love, the mechanical nature of which comes from a match of partners' stereotypes and preconceptions. So even if a Vajrayana practitioner could play with the fire both in context of its ego-melting properties as well as for pleasure, they would not take it one-sidedly as an untrained run-of-the-mill person would do.

EDIT: what I meant by "Vajrayana practitioner ... would not take it one-sidedly" -- I meant that Vajrayana view includes both sacred and illusory aspects of love. In Vajrayana we are trained to see things from all the sides at the same time. Love is both sacred and a giant trick, as far as Vajrayana is concerned.

The predominant Buddhist sentiment here is that being disappointed/disenchanted (="sober") is a helluva lot healthier state than the state of intoxication by an object of mind. While Vajrayana is 100% aligned with this most fundamental of Buddhist principles, we do allow ourselves to get drunk, both metaphorically with love, and occasionally even literally - while staying fully accountable for the consequences - a trait of the universal adult.


Has Buddha Gautama ever had problems with some autorities about his teachings and way of live? I thougt that Siddarta Gautama lived in a Hindu society. But were there Brahmans who disagreed with Siddartha or was Siddartha ever in an argue with them?

I thougt that Siddarta Gautama lived in a Hindu society

As far as you mean he lived in India, immersed in India culture of the time, yes. But as far as hindu refers to an India majoritarily submsersed in the Vedic tradition, it's not clear this is so.

The period of the Buddha and early Buddhism is marked by a variety of religious movements known as sramanas (which included Buddhists and Jains, for example, among many others). So there was already a culture that rejected the vedic traditions of the time. Also, the geography seems to be of a region with many individual states and kingdoms, not of a "single India". I'm not sure if these states were, largely, supporters of brahmins or not (and if they were, it was soon in decline with the rise of the empires -- from the Nanda empire which seems to have supported the Jains, through the Maurian empire, when the emperor Ashoka converted and supported Buddhism).

  But were there Brahmans who disagreed with Siddartha or was Siddartha ever in an argue with them?

Buddha disagreed not only with Brahmins, but with all the other sramanas whose teachings were not in agreement with the Buddha's teachings. These encounters, philosophical disputes and criticisms are massively documented in the buddhist canon.

  Has Buddha Gautama ever had problems with some authorities about his teachings and way of live?

I don't remember the Buddha ever been in legal trouble, though sometimes kings came to him to solve some issue involving the sangha.


Difference between mundane concerns of praise and honour/fame I am struggling to understand the difference between two of the four pairs of the mundane/worldy concerns, namely between seeking praise and seeking honour/fame.

They seem to me not to have much of a difference, consisting both of seeking the admiration and valuing of others.

I'll be grateful for any explanation!

Praise and blame is whether what you're doing is right or wrong, according to someone.

Fame and insignificance is whether a lot of people consider you special or not.

For example, if you have a Buddhist teacher, and your teacher tells you that worrying about fame is wrong, then you may completely abandon all concerns about being popular, but you may still be attached to receiving praise from your teacher and not receiving blame.

Or, if you so much want to deserve popularity, that you don't mind doing a crime like killing the Queen of England. You know you will get a lot of blame, but you still like the fame it gives you.

So the two issues are orthogonal, independent of each other.


The path and the desire to reduce the suffering of others? It seems to me that the Noble Eight-fold Path is designed to reduce the suffering of the self.

But how do we use its guidance to reduce the suffering of others?

If the Buddha was walking down a road after enlightenment and saw
a strong man fighting a weaker man, or two equally strong men fighting, would he:

Desire to help one escape the other (and follow that desire)?
Desire to help one defeat the other (and follow that desire)?
Or (having no desire at all), keep on walking down the road?

And how should one who is still following The Path act in this situation?

By walking the path yourself you will be of great benefit to others. You are giving the gift of harmlessness.
A living example of the Dhamma, which is the path of complete peace and freedom.

The Buddha was a liberated one, a pure being, a great one. He no longer had any attachments whatsoever.
Helping others when asked or when a situation arises (proper, beneficial) is what pure beings do.

Having eradicated all mental defilements. Freed from avidity, anger, no longer having any kind of delusion, ignorance about the true nature of things.

Pure beings will never harm others, in any circumstances. Any possibilities to do so can no longer manifest themselves since they can no longer arise. Therefore they would never resort to violence, aggressive behavior and such.

What would the Blessed one do? I can only speculate for I am not such a great one...
It is said that the Buddha had supramundane powers. He knew exactly what was proper, as in the right course of action, what and when it was beneficial.

If reasonable and wise words could be beneficial in that particular instance, he would speak such words.
If not, he'd probably radiate metta ''goodwill'' and be on his way.


Information on the best vow/Baare to do for a child's health and safety I am a Sri Lankan Buddhist looking for help ..

Our child is very sick and doctors have said any help is difficult to be given at this time for her or operated on.

I would like to ask for information on the best vow/Baare to do for a child's future health and safety and to cure any problems, which deities would be best to ask for protection or some ritual that is undertaken to be continued for her safety and things like that?
(at the Temple of the Tooth relic preferably as we will be visiting this month)..

Any help is gratefully accepted.

Try doing a Bodhipuja at Sri Nagavihara temple, Kotte. It seems to help some people. I'm sure there are many other places that work too. Ruwanveli Saya, Sri Maha Bodhiya, Dalada Maligawa are obviously the best places you can try.

As a Buddhist you should make the vow to the Buddha, with virtuous gods(all who supports the Sasana) as witnesses. A good vow would be "if the child lives, we will offer him to the Sasana"

If your child can speak the language, teach him/her the "iti pi so bhagava araham..." verses with meanings and tell to chant regularly in his mind while contemplating the meanings.

Also, if you have money, free some animals in slaughter houses and wish for your child's health.


Importance of Posture in Meditation I'm curious to know: how important is posture during meditation? Could someone meditate on public transport, or while walking in different places? Is there a difference in the necessity of posture between a beginner and an advanced practitioner?

Posture is extremely important however sitting cross-legged is not important. What is important is having a naturally erect spine so the mind is alert & the breathing can flow unrestricted.

When sitting in public transport, sit upright, close your eyes & meditate. Completely let go of any self-consciousness that other people are watching you & know what you are doing. Relax & enjoy.

As for walking meditation, this is something monks do a lot. You should try to learn how to do walking meditation (but not in a busy or dangerous place, such as when crossing a busy street in the city).


Will I know when it's time to meditate longer? When I first started meditating I was very eager to progress. I started with five minutes and added another five with every week. I probably made it to 30 minutes or something when I just quit altogether. It was all quantity-over-quality.

Towards the end there I lost a lot of will and motivation to keep going, I just wanted to do other things. I got bored and I let my mind wander and distract me, not making much effort in bringing the attention back to the stomach. Meditation became a chore and the only reason I kept going was because I didn't want to lose the routine, and also I hoped it was perhaps just a phase or something.

In any case, to make a short story long, I've started meditating again now, 10 minutes at a time and since I have a cold and am tired all day as a result I don't become so restless.

But when can I start adding more time? Will I "feel" it, or is it a question of discipline?

Is it better to meditate poorly than not at all?

If I add time, and find that I get really bored, is it because I'm doing it wrong or is it simply the nature of the mind?

This answer is based in the practice of insight meditation.

You will know when to begin adding more time to your sitting practice. In the beginning quality is much more important than quantity when it comes to meditation. What does quality mean when it comes to meditation?

Quality means to make an effort to keep the mind in the present moment, so that one can observe the arising and ceasing of phenomena without the mind following after them or running away from them and getting lost.

By keeping the mind in the present moment one ties the monkey down. The mind is like a monkey jumping from branch to branch. By keeping the mind in the present moment is like taking the monkey in the hand and walking him to another area, an area that has only one tree. Now the monkey cannot jump anywhere.

In samsara, conditioned reality, the mind can never be satisfied with anything because all objects are impermanent meaning they cannot bring any lasting and permanent happiness to the mind. So the mind jumps from object to object but everytime it's left with suffering. The hardest thing in the world is actually to do nothing. So don't be too hard on yourself. It's the nature of mind to wander.

The tibetan buddhists have a saying that goes like this: "If the Mind wanders a Thousand times, bring it back a Thousand times".

Step by step we train the mind so that it will not stray from the present moment. It's usually a long process so don't get stressed about it. You might also not see any apparent changes at first but everytime you meditate you are changing something. You are untying the knots, slowly. Don't be fooled by not seeing any changes from day to day or even from week to week. There are changes happening but in the beginning they are subtle.

Results come not from how long one sits but from consistency, diligency and the ability to keep the mind in the present moment. It's like learning to play football. If one only plays once a week one will not improve that fast. If one practices let's say 1 hour every day then the benefits will be more solid and apparent. So to become good at any skill in life, one has to practice consistently.

Don't worry if you sit 30 minutes or 10 minutes everyday, just try to make an effort to do a little bit of meditation every day. Then naturally you will increase your physical and mental stamina and then you can begin to increase your sitting time.