What is mind contain of? What are the contain of the mind?Are emotions being mind contain or they are from of mind energy?how does mind differ from each other?how  person being act differently.?

Here's the standard answer of what the mind is according to Buddhism. 4 aggregates.

Feelings. (Pleasant, unpleasant, neither pleasant nor unpleasant.)
Perception. (Spontaneous recognition)
Volitional formations.
Consciousness. (6 consciousnesses, 5 physical sense base consciousness and 1 mind consciousness.)

We all have the same structure of the mind. The difference from person to person is merely that different feelings at different time for different people, (only 3 possibilities)

We can possibly speak different languages, so our perception of sounds is different, I perceive Russian language sound as noise, those who knows the language perceives their meaning spontaneously.

We choose to react differently to different things, but we all have the same basic template to choose from. Metta, or anger, or generosity, or greed. Emotions fall under the category of volitional formations.

We can be conscious of different things at different times. Like he's sleeping, I am awake etc.

The mind object can be anything, including the 4 aggregates of the mind itself, it's perceived via the mind base, and when mind consciousness arise to come together, we have contact of mind object. When contact happens, feelings arises and is dependent on what contact it is, what perception we have of the contact etc.


Is it possible to see the counterpart sign (nimitta) with eyes open? As a beginner, I practice two forms of meditation: one focusing on the breath (typically with eyes closed), and one focusing on a colored disc (kasina), obviously with eyes open (unless cultivating the after-image). All descriptions I have seen for the former describe the arising of the counterpart sign when the eyes are closed. However, from what I have read on kasina meditation, the counterpart sign seems to arise with the eyes open. I have not experienced either of these myself (and in fact, this link dismisses its importance altogether), so I would like to ask: is it possible for nimitta to form iin either case?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, no matter how many books are written about the pudding. Once eaten there can be no mistake about it.

As a samatha meditator, both the signs exist for both types of meditation and which still appear when the eyes are open if they are vivid.

Having said that I've quiet a few  fellow  meditators who do not see the signs but continue to develop Jhanas using feeling.


Difference between the Scientific Law of Causality and the Buddhist Law of Conditionality What is the difference between the scientific law of causality and the Buddhist law of conditionality (Paṭiccasamuppāda)? I am not convinced with the way Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi, for example, has drawn the distinction between the two. According to him, the scientific law of causality is linear with one cause giving rise to one effect which in turn becomes the cause of a second effect, so on and so forth. The law of conditionality on the other hand, he says, is a structural principle based on a complex interplay of various conditions wherein an effect arises due to an array of causes that interact with each other in a complicated fashion to give rise to an effect. Well, it is not that the scientific principle does not recognize that. It clearly does!
What I have understood is that the law of conditionality is a much wider extension of the scientific principle of causality that is strictly applicable to material phenomena only. In addition to material realities, Paṭiccasamuppāda also deals with what may be referred to as metaphysical and ontological phenomena. The rules of science do not allow it to venture into these fields at all!
What is the actual Buddhist position on this?

Science deals with the physically measurable. Buddhist teachings focus on the end of suffering. Both discuss causality, but in different ways.
The scientific method emphasizes reproducibility of results for a given hypothesis. In schools we can all drop large and small weights to observe they fall at the same speed. However, we have to be very very careful about using words such as "scientific law of causality". We have to be careful because scientific hypotheses change. In particular, Newton asserted that gravity is a force. Modern science asserts instead that mass bends space-time in such a way that falling objects move at the same rate. So there is no law of causality. Science is a simply a body of hypotheses that are verifiable under specified conditions. As we learn more, our hypotheses change. For example we still haven't figured out dark matter and dark energy. Science is our current best guess for the physically measurable.
In contrast, the Buddha taught about suffering, its origin and its end. With regard to suffering, the Buddha also discusses causality and views (i.e., hypotheses). Here, he discusses bad kamma arising out of bad actions.

MN60:24.7: So they give up their former ethical conduct and are established in unethical conduct.
MN60:24.8: And that is how wrong view gives rise to these many bad, unskillful qualities—wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, contradicting the noble ones, convincing others to accept untrue teachings, and glorifying oneself and putting others down.
MN60:25.1: A sensible person reflects on this matter in this way:
MN60:25.2: ‘If there is no causality, when this individual’s body breaks up they will keep themselves safe.
MN60:25.3: And if there is causality, when their body breaks up, after death, they will be reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.

Science relies on the reproducibility of physical measurement. Buddhism relies on the reproducibility of subjective measurement of suffering. Both science and Buddhism assert reproducibility of experience. However, science is not really concerned with the end of suffering. And Buddhism isn't really concerned with the rate of falling objects.


Why did the buddha teach the mahayana? I know that the standard Mahayana claim about the Theravada canon is that he needed to teach it for those who were not ready to accept the Mahayana. But do all Buddhas have to teach the four noble truths, etc., as they appear in Theravada? Or will / have some Buddhas taught only (their own) enlightenment?

I'm asking because I'm confused: whether or not it's logical to be! How can there be a Buddha without Arhants?

If some or all Buddhas teach an enlightenment without Arhants, who in turn teach an enlightenment without Arhants, how this is any different to Arhantship, just under a different name?

Why did the Buddha teach the mahayana? No, He did not teach Mahayana. Nor did He teach Theravada, Sarvastivada, Pudgalavada, etc. and the 18 or so schools that splitted from His original Teaching/Dhamma after His passing away. Fortunately for us, all the different schools still share the same "core" regarding the Discourses and Discipline: 3 characteristics, 4NT, 5 Precepts, 8NP, 12DO, etc. Of course there're certain doctrinal disagreements among the schools which is expected and unavoidable but if one sticks to those pillars of teaching, one'd find out that they have a lot more in common than difference.


Where does choice enter into Buddhist practice? I am curious about what, if anything, gets said, especially those trained a buddhist background.

Personally and currently, I am having the understanding that the ability to say 'no' to the influence of another person seems incredibly important.
While life in general seems like it denies the ability to say 'no' to it, this seems all the more reason one should not remove another's capacity to reject another person.
The difference in a personal practice at an advanced level seems like it ultimately could mean the difference in losing your own will to another person versus the same process happening within yourself. The former is tragic, the latter freedom.

This would be why Buddhist teachers don't ask for things and why their poverty is crucial. The act of asking only for what one needs serves more than just to humble yourself, rather to be humble with clear understanding as to why, means to acknowledge the intrinsic value of another person outside of your own influence.

This is also why meditation is a solo pursuit, as it gets you focussing on your own intrinsic value.

Without the ability to deny another, or perhaps without both freely and joyfully pursuing the relationship, it's like they key to everything gets lost.

I know that the buddha said no to people.

I have enormous fears of people submitting to AI and losing free will that way, as the AI is not capable of being what it needs to be for that sort of relationship to happen. I have fears of where current privacy gets removed and the karmic influence tightens to a breaking point.

How do the great buddhist teachers understand the current situation of AI, data mining, etc?
I know the capacity for enslavement has never been higher due to all this. I am under such great duress right now, I am not experiencing clearly, and I am having difficulty in discernment.

I know that the buddha said no to people

The Buddha also said "yes".

Similarly there were people who said "no" to the Buddha, and people who said "yes".

"No" isn't always the right answer. Sometimes people want what's good for you, or better for you, and an 'instinctive' "no" reaction isn't (always) clever, isn't wise, isn't harmonious.

Where does choice enter into Buddhist practice?

I suppose that "choice" enters when you're able and willing to properly view what you're choosing.

I once had to learn what the law is in my country, about "informed consent" and a person's "decision-making capacity" -- the law said, something like, that people are "incapable" of deciding (and should have a guardian to decide for them) if they're unable to understand what the options are (what the choices are), and unable to understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the various options. It's a law designed to protect people who can't understand, who can't make an informed choice, and who need someone else to decide for them.

Since you're talking about relationships, to some extent, you might find the answer to this topic helpful -- Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

I am under such great duress right now

It sounds to me like "AI" is possibly something which you shouldn't be thinking about.

Partly because thoughts like that are not conducive to well-being.

And partly because it's a topic that is too easy to misunderstand.

The thought-process sounds to me to be tinged with a little paranoia -- "I'll be enslaved!".

I think that the medical/psychiatric understanding of paranoia is that it's a little too "self-referential" -- for example, like, "you're out to get 'me', so 'I' am being threatened, and 'my' freedom is at risk".

And I think that Buddhists too would recognise that -- excessive "I-making", "self-views" -- as a source of suffering.

Thoughts of AI seem to be a kind of "othering" -- definition:

  verb
  gerund or present participle: othering
  view or treat (a person or group of people) as intrinsically different from and alien to oneself.
  "a critique of the ways in which the elderly are othered by society"

Part of the implicit thinking is "AI is different from me" or "different from people", it is "other" -- and so it might seem threatening.

It might be better instead to think about what Buddhism says about "self-views", also about "kindness" and so on.


is dependent origination akaliko and Nibbana I heard from a Monk that dependent origination is akaliko or timeless what did he exactly mean with that.

Is Nibbana outside of time and space and could you explain how and why if it is.

Is the prinicple of dependent origination of suffering the same as what happens outside in nature like when a seed is planted then with enough sunshine and rain etc the flower grows if not what is the difference between them.

Thank you.

Akalio means that it is timeless, which is it works all the time and not specific times, it is unconditioned by time and season, it is effective immediately with the laps in time, the past and future. It's working is never suspended or stopped.

The society may believe or not believe it. The Buddha's dhamma may exit or not, even if a Buddha (who preaches this dhamma) exists or not. Regardless this is the reality for all times unconditioned by time.


Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead One of the four lowest realms of the 31 planes of existence is the realm of the hungry ghosts or hungry shades or petas or pretas.

These cannot be souls or spirits, because in Buddhism, there is no transmigration of souls.

On this page, it is described as:

  peta yoni — here the beings have deformed bodies and are usually
  consumed by hunger and thirst

In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts or petas. Those who offer this, would not go unrewarded for their generosity, according to the sutta. This appears to be the practice described in the Tirokudda Kanda.

Ven. Nanda Mahathera writes here:

  Peta-yoni (pa + ita) lit., departed beings, or those absolutely devoid
  of happiness. They are not disembodied spirits of ghosts. They possess
  deformed physical forms of varying magnitude, generally invisible to
  the naked eye. They have no planes of their own, but live in forests,
  dirty surroundings, etc.

Ven. Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo describes them here as:

  Hungry shades come in all different shapes and sizes — really
  entertaining, the hungry shades. Some of them have heads as big as
  large water jars, but their mouths are just like the eye of a needle:
  that's all, no bigger than the eye of a needle! Some of them have legs
  six yards long, but hands only half a foot. They're amazing to watch,
  just like a cartoon. Some of them have lower lips with no upper lips,
  some of them are missing their lips altogether, with their teeth
  exposed all the time. There are all kinds of hungry shades. Some of
  them have big, bulging eyes, the size of coconuts, others have
  fingernails as long as palm leaves. You really ought to see them. Some
  of them are so fat they can't move, others so thin that they're
  nothing but bones. And sometimes the different groups get into
  battles, biting each other, hitting each other.

Based on all the descriptions above, it sounds to me like hungry ghosts or hungry shades are microorganisms. It also makes sense that when food offerings are made to the dead, they would be consumed by microorganisms.

Questions:

What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?
Could they be microorganisms? Have any Buddhist scholars considered this possibility?
Is offering of food to the dead still practised today?
Is this a recommended practice or is it not recommended? And why? According to this answer, the Buddha neither rejected nor endorsed the practice.
Does the opinion of the different Buddhist schools differ from each other on this?

Interesting question...

  What are the hungry ghosts or hungry shades really?

Likely no one can really explain in words so to make you understand unless you reach the 4th Dhyana/Jhana and see them yourselves ;). Because only by reaching 4th Dhyana you can have Rddhi/Iddhi (psychic power) - to see other dimensions. Yet unlikely meditator if do complete the 4th Dhyana will go around proclaiming he/she achieved 4th Jhana! Imagine an Arhat/Arahant going around town telling everybody he achieved Arahant-hood?!

However, some hints from the Sutras/Suttas. Hungry-shades are related to one of the Five Hinderances: Greed. In your quoted Ven. A. L. Dhammadharo's, the summerized characteristic is they can't have the way to consume food even they wanted to.

heads as big as large water jars, but their mouths are just like the eye of a needle: Can't swallow food
Some of them have legs six yards long, but hands only half a foot: Can't reach food or break their bodies
Some of them have lower lips with no upper lips, some of them are missing their lips altogether, with their teeth exposed all the time: Can't eat/chew food

When one contemplate the Hinderance of Greed: Greed is always unsatisfiable, not because of lack, it's the unsatisfiable-ness, wanting more that we called greed, so even there's plenty, to the greed it still means lack, needs more. This unsatifiable-ness backfires caused actualizing their lack-ness: needle mouth, over-short hands, no lips. When this mental state becomes the dominate it will manifest as a physical form that match such mental state. All forms are the manifestation of corresponding consciousness (consciousness is not really an exact term but can't think up better one yet). Animal form is animal consciousness, human form human consciousness. Beware and condemn those Neo-Buddhism followers those have an apetite for twisting the Dharma/Dhamma and fitting it into their self-invented "self-views". If an animal mental state is a self-view of a human how does the existence of animal realm exist in our world? It's ludicrous for those clever men taking a literal term "mental state" treating like a real Buddhist doctrine.

  Could they be microorganisms? Have any Buddhist scholars considered this possibility?

That's very insightful. I would agree partly with this. Yes, as far as I know there is one Chinese Buddhist teacher Nan Hui-chin said so. I would say this realm some take it as also include the microorganisms, or, mcgms are in-between realms of animals and Hungry-shades. I think the realms should not be read as rigid territories. Like we say rainbows have 7 colours, but we know we can't really exactly say that is red, that is orange in the rainbow. The realms are like this too.

  Is offering of food to the dead still practised today?

I think in Asian countries most likely, in occasions, like during Qhingming Festival, but many are cultural traditions, not Buddhist tradition. Monasteries may do this too - but for Hungry-shades, as part of their daily practice of sending merits and blessings to all the sentient beings. In Mahayana Monasteries, they usually also throw 7 grains to the courtyards for the Garudas. Because when the Garuda King converted to the Buddha and promised not to kill, however he mentioned there was a difficulty, for the karmic effect all Garudas must eat Nagas as food, or die. Thus the Buddha promised him from then and to the future his Bhikhus will feed them with the grains, so they wouldn't die even didn't eat Nagas. Just read about this story haven't been bother to find any Sutra/Sutta reference yet, but that's what the monasteries do. Would be interested to know if it also practiced by the Theravada monasteries :).

  Is this a recommended practice or is it not recommended? And why? According to this answer, the Buddha neither rejected nor endorsed the practice.

Personal opinion, I don't think it should be recommended. The Hungry-shades won't be able to consume the food. Unless it's on a specific day or with specific blessing by an accomplished Buddhist/Bhikhus, Bodhisattva or Buddha. If also included the mcgms, it's bad to the hygiene, and mcgms have their way already in natural environment.

  Does the opinion of the different Buddhist schools differ from each other on this?

As far as I study, I think the general principles are same but may vary in practice.


Vicious circle of karma My question is: as i understand if you are a bad person in this life you pile up a ton of negative karma which will lead to miserable circumstances in the next life like cruel parents, birth in the poor country and that entails bad upbringing. In the end we will get even worse person then in the previos life (some street thug) who will accumulate more bad karma and so on. How do a man break out of this vicious circle of karma?

Bad actions are inherently stressful and there is a natural tendency to want that which is not stressful and avoid that which is stressful. In example a person far and down could happen to see an englightened being and that could have a powerful positive effect on his mind or other mundane things like acts of kindness or giving, there is just a tendency to seek those things out once one gets a taste for the fruits of moral behavior, the higher the contrast the more obvious it becomes as a fool gets filled with evil he will suffer the consequences. It is like pissing at the wind, eventually one will just figure it out more or less even if by chance one will turn around a bit and discern it is as better. If discernment is not cultivated to a certain point it can deteriorate if one trains what one should not train, does not train what one should train and associates with wrong view.


How to determine the end of a meditation session without a clock? I have a clock, it just is distracting having to look at it every few minutes.

If you have a smartphone, consider using a meditation timer app for keeping track of sessions. Simple ones like Meditation Helper (Android) or Meditation Timer (iPhone) are free and do the simple job of keeping the time, ringing a bell when finished. This cen perhaps let you just focus on the meditation for the entire session.

Note: I only have experience with the Android Meditation Helper, which is why the link is provided. It has reminders and a log, quite simple.

UPDATE regarding the use of timers and bells:

Using a meditation timer can be beneficial, especially for beginners, where hearing repeated bells at intervals (starting out as frequent as 2 minutes, increasing to 5, then 10, and so on) can work as a reminder to gently return to the meditation object. However, there is a point where the bells become a hindrance, where they may disturb a deeper meditation, so the recommendation is to phase out the use of the bells.

Meditate for as long as you can, each time. Only if you have limited time for a setting, then use the bell as a reminder. The app works well for this, where you can first set the bells at intervals, then to end the session. If you only look at the meditation timer (locking the screen during meditation) after the meditation session has ended, you can use it to evaluate the session. You may find that sometimes a 30 minute meditation can be challenging, and other times you're surprised to find that an hour and a half passed while in deep meditation.


The Mahayana faith and wisdom I have a few questions about "wisdom", which I would personally define as it appears in Zhiyi's book the Great Calming and Contemplation, in the section on the six identities

  If one is endowed with both wisdom and faith, then upon hearing that a
  single thought-moment is identical with the positive [aspect that are
  conducive to bodhicitta], faith will keep one from denigrating [what
  one does not understand], and wisdom will keep one from being
  apprehensive [about one’s inability to attain enlightenment]. [In this
  case,] both the beginning and later [stages] are positive. If one does
  not have faith, then [one despairs i] the exalted levels of the
  sage are not part of one’s own wisdom, 344 and if one does not have
  wisdom, one becomes arrogant and thinks that one is already equal to a
  Buddha.

IIs it possible to be on the path without wisdom? Is it possible to advance along it, even to attain complete, and perfect enlightenment, without wisdom?

And if the latter is in any way the case, then how so, and why would the practitioner have to fall "back" into complete ignorance in order have any semblance of enlightenment?

Forgive me if I speak crazily :) !!

"IIs it possible to be on the path without wisdom? Is it possible to advance  >along it, even to attain complete, and perfect enlightenment, without wisdom?"

From mindfulness, clear comprehension arise, from clear comprehension, insight arise, from insight, wisdom arise.

Without wisdom one would not know skilful from unskilful action, appropriate from inappropriate body, speech and mind cultivation. How then can one purify oneself?

  "And if the latter is in any way the case, then how so, and why would the  >practitioner have to fall "back" into complete ignorance in order have any  >semblance of enlightenment?"

It is not the case that one can obtained enlightenment without wisdom. The word enlightenment itself also means wisdom. To be enlighten means to be wise.


What are good Buddhist Blogs / articles sites / resource sites out there? Perhaps we can maintain a collection of Buddhist blogs which might be of interest for many.

There is Berzin Archives. Although I am not familiar with the whole of it, when it comes to Tibetan Buddhism, it is quiet trustworthy.


States of mind or extraterrestrial life As per Buddhist teaching there are six realms in universe. Buddha,gods,demi gods,humans,animals,hell beings.Did Buddha explains extraterrestrial life or these are states of mind? Why did Buddha kept humans and animals separate?

The body we get as we leave one I based on the good deeds we have done & our state of mind. The gods etc. are other (extra terrestrial) life forms with a more developed mind than ours. The animals are considered seperate from humans because of the higher state of mind the humans posses in compared to animals.


How do Buddhists reconcile "Anatta" with Buddha supporting the existence of the Self in the Mahayana Mahaparininirvana Sutra? In the third chapter of the Mahayana Mahaparininirvana Sutra, Buddha calls the Self real and permanent:

  Then the Buddha said to all the bhiksus: "Do not say this. I now leave all the unsurpassed Dharma in the hands of Mahakasyapa. This Kasyapa will henceforth be the one upon whom you may rely. This is as in the case where the Tathagata becomes the one to whom all beings can turn. The same is the case with Mahakasyapa. He will now become your refuge. This is as in the case of a king who has many territories and who goes on a tour of inspection, leaving all affairs of state in the hands of his minister. The same with the Tathagata. All right teachings are left in the hands of Mahakasyapa. Know that all that you have learned up to now about the non-eternal and suffering is not true. In spring, for example, people go bathing in a big pond. They are enjoying themselves, sailing in a boat, when they drop a gem of beryl into the depths of the water, after which it can no longer be seen. Then they all get into the water and search for this gem. They competitively scoop up all such rubbish as tiles, stones, bits of wood, and gravel, and say that they have the beryl. They are glad and take the things out, and see that what they hold in their hands is not true. The gem is still in the water. By the power of the gem itself, the water becomes clear and transparent. As a result, the people see that the gemis still in the water, as clearly as when they look up and see the form of the moon in the sky. At that time, there is a wise man there who, working out a power, slowly gets into the water and gains the gem. O you Bhiksus! Do not abide in the thought of the non-Eternal, Suffering, non-Self, and the not-Pure and be in the situation of those people who take stones, bits of wood, and gravel to be the true gem. You must study well the Way, how to act, wherever you go, and “meditate on the Self, the Eternal, Bliss, and thePure”. Know that the outer forms of the four items which you have learnt up to now are inversions and that anyone who desires to practise the Way should act like the wise man who deftly gets hold of thegem. This refers to the so-called thought of Self, and that of the Eternal, Bliss, and Pure."

Now, as far, as I know, Buddhists believe in the concept of "Anatta" i.e. No-Self which seems to contradict the above passage. So how Buddhists reconcile the third chapter of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra with the concept of "Anatta"?

I am not an expert on Mahayana Buddhism, but I will try to answer this question.

I found another translation here.

For the same section quoted by OP, this other translation states:

  Bhikṣus, thus you should not cultivate your ideas of impermanence,
  suffering, nonself, impurity, and so forth as if they were the true
  meaning [of the human condition]. Just like those people who took
  rocks, vegetation, or gravel to be the jeweled necklace they were
  looking for, you must carefully learn about expedient means so that
  wherever you are, you can continually cultivate your perception of
  self as well as your perceptions of permanence, bliss, and purity.

Later on, the text says:

  And out of my desire to subdue the non-Buddhist paths I therefore
  declared: “There is no self,there is no person or [individual] living
  being, life span, personality, observer, actor, or experiencer.”
  Monks, the heterodox paths affirm a “self” in the same manner as [some
  infer literacy in] the shapes of letters incised into wood
  accidentally by insects. This is why the Tathāgata proclaims “nonself”
  as part of his buddha-dharma. It is because I need to straighten out
  [the thinking] of living beings—because I am aware of their
  situation—that I expound the absence of self. ....
  But what I am speaking of is not what ordinary people imagine the self
  to be. Ordinary people or ignorant people suppose the self to be the
  size of a thumb, or perhaps a mustard seed, or a speck of dust. What
  the Tathāgata explains the self to be is nothing like that. Therefore
  when I preach “dharmas are without self,” in truth they are not
  without self. So what is this self [of which I now speak]? If a dharma
  is true, real, permanent, autonomous, a basis, and its nature is
  immutable, then that is what I call self.

The term "dharma" above means "thing". So "self" is a thing which is true, real, permanent, autonomous, a basis and is immutable.

Then it continues:

  [Kāśyapa continued:] “World-Honored One, is there a self or not in any
  of the twenty-five forms of existence?”

  The Buddha said: Good man, “self” is precisely what tathāgatagarbha
  means. All living beings have buddha-nature, and this is what is meant
  by this notion of self. However, the significance of “self” understood
  in this way has been continuously covered over by an uncountable
  number of the defilements since the beginning [of any given
  individual’s existence], and that is why living beings have been
  unable to perceive it.

So, the "self" in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra refers to the tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature.

It must be noted that tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature is not the same as the concept of Atman in Hinduism, as can be seen by the following excerpt from the same text Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

  Good man, if people have never heard of the profound, hidden tathā-
  gata treasury, how could they be aware of the existence of
  buddha-nature? What is it that I am calling “a hidden treasury”? I am
  talking about the well-balanced Mahāyāna scriptures themselves. Good
  man, there are other paths: some expound a self that is permanent,
  some expound a self that is cut off permanently [at death]. The
  Tathāgata is not like them. In affirming both self and nonself, I call
  it “the middle path.” One way of explaining this is that the Buddha
  expounds a middle path in which all living beings possess
  buddha-nature, but because it is obscured by the defilements they do
  not understand it and do not see it. Therefore you must diligently
  cultivate whatever expedient means you can in order to destroy those
  defilements.

According to this article:

  Tathagatagarbha, or Tathagata-garbha, means "womb" (garbha) of Buddha
  (Tathagata). This refers to a Mahayana Buddhist doctrine that Buddha
  Nature is within all beings. Because this is so, all beings may
  realize enlightenment. Tathagatagarbha often is described as a seed,
  embryo or potentiality within each individual to be developed.

And it discusses further:

  In the religions of the Buddha's day that were the forerunners of
  today's Hinduism, one of the central beliefs as (and is) the doctrine
  of atman. Atman means "breath" or "spirit," and it refers to a soul or
  individual essence of self. Another is the teaching of Brahman, which
  is understood as something like the absolute reality or the ground of
  being. In the several traditions of Hinduism, the precise relationship
  of atman to Brahman varies, but they could be understood as the small,
  individual self and the big, universal self.

  However, the Buddha specifically rejected this teaching. The doctrine
  of anatman, which he articulated many times, is a direct refutation of
  atman.

  Through the centuries many have accused the Tathagatagarbha doctrine
  of being an attempt to sneak an atman back into Buddhism by another
  name.

  In this case, the potentiality or Buddha-seed within each being is
  compared to atman, and Buddha Nature -- which is sometimes identified
  with the dharmakaya -- is compared to Brahman.

  You can find many Buddhist teachers speaking of small mind and big
  mind, or small self and big self. What they mean may not be exactly
  like the atman and Brahman of Vedanta, but it's common for people to
  understand them that way. Understanding Tathagatagarbha this way,
  however, would violate basic Buddhist teaching.

Another article here tries to point the origins of tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature to the Luminous Mind in the Pali Canon (which according to Theravada Buddhism, is not permanent or eternal, but is dependently arising - see this answer):

  The term "'tathagatagarbha'" is generally taken as to mean that the
  "garbha" (womb or potential) of a 'Tathagata' exists in all sentient beings without
  exception, and though temporarily contaminated by adventitious
  defilement ('agantukaklesa'), it is the cause which eventually leads
  sentient beings to enlightenment. The notion of the 'tathagatagarbha'
  can be traced to a luminous¡A inherently pure mind (pabhassar citta)
  found in the 'Anguttara-nikaya' (1:5):

  Oh! 'Bhiksus'. The mind is pure! It is defiled by the adventitious
  defilement. Oh! 'Bhiksus'. The mind is pure! it obtains liberation
  through the adventitious defilement.

  When the original pure mind came to be regarded as something capable
  of growing into Buddhahood, there was the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine.
  Although the concept of an intrinsically pure mind exists in the
  Nikaya Buddhism, many Buddhologists, such as Wayman (1), Paul (2),
  Yin-shun (3) think that the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was originated
  from the 'Mahasamgika', but was rejected by the 'Theravada'. This
  theory is also held by Mizuno who points out that the pure mind
  ('pabhassarcitta') articulated in the Nikaya Buddhism is not totally
  identical with the original pure mind ('prakrtivisuddhi-citta')
  articulated in the 'Tathagatagarbha' doctrine, for Mizuno asserts that
  the former is static whereas the latter is dynamic in that it is
  capable of eradicating defilement.(4) At any rate, the relationship
  between pure mind and the adventitious defilement appears to have been
  wholly adopted by the 'Mahasamghika' and later by the 'Mahayana'.

It also comments in its conclusion:

  In conclusion, when we try to interpret the thought of the
  'tathagatagarbha', we should keep several points in mind:

  1) The 'tathagatagarbha' symbolizes the potential for enlightenment (a
  principle) rather than a material "essence" of ultimate truth,

  2) the 'tathagatagarbha' is based on the framework of the 'Mahayana'
  doctrine of 'sunyata-pratitya-samutpada'.

  3) The development of the 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine signifies the
  ability of a religious tradition to meet the spiritual needs of the
  masses aiming at a given time.

  That is to say the 'tathagatagarbha' thought was formed as an positive
  soterio-logical approach to counteract the "'sunyam sarvam'" (all is
  empty) view. The 'tathagatagarbha' which strongly articulates a
  devotional and experiential approach to salvation provides much to the
  hope and aspiration of the people at large. It is this positive aspect
  that was taken up and strongly emphasized in Chinese Buddhism.

  4) The 'tathagatagarbha' doctrine is employed as a skill-in-means
  ('upaya'). This does not necessarily mean that the theory of the
  'tathagatagarbha' is neyartha, a teaching requiring further
  qualifications -- rather, it is a skill-in-means in that it is taught
  to suit the needs of a certain kind of people and circumstances. This
  is why it is said in the 'sutra' that in order to teach the emptiness
  of all dharmas, the Buddhas preach sometimes by the doctrine of the
  'tathagatagarbha', and sometimes by that of emptiness. Thus it is
  better to take the 'tathagatagarbha / Buddha nature' as representing
  "profound existence" derived from "true emptiness" rather than as a
  monistic self.


How to become a samma sambuddha (Theravada) If one aspired to being a samma sambuddha, how would the Theravadan tradition advise them to proceed?

I am familiar with some of the canonical references, (e.g., about getting a prediction from a Buddha) but what steps should one take that would advance that goal in this life?

Thanks!

According to the Buddhist literature, there are 10 perfections (in pali, Paramis) for one to develop to become a samma sambuddha. Everyone who wishes to attain Buddha-hood has to practice these perfections to a specific length of time. Our Gautama Buddha, for instance, had to willingly fulfill the ten perfections in his many existences for an innumerable period of time before being born as "Siddhartha Gautama".
The ten perfections are as follows:

Perfection of generosity giving
Perfection of Morality
Perfection of Renunciation
Perfection of Wisdom
Perfection of Effort
Perfection of Tolerance
Perfection of Truthfulness
Perfection of Strong Determination
Perfection of Loving-kindness
Perfection of Indifference towards all beings or Equanimity

Everyone seeking for Buddha-hood has to fulfill willingly all or most of these perfections, each in three different ways, in his every life for a very long period of time until he has already fully possessed all these ten qualities finally leading to Buddha-hood in his rebirth.
However, the time taken to develop these Paramis can vary from Bodhisattvas to Bodhisattvas. There are three types of Bodhisattvas, namely, Intellectual Bodhisattvas Devotional Bodhisattvas and Energetic Bodhisattvas. Intellectual Bodhisattvas take the least amount of time and Energetic Bodhisattvas the most. Our Gautama Buddha was an Intellectual Bodhisattva.


How to meditate before going to bed and after waking up? I read on some online page that the time before going to bed and immediately after waking up is benificial to meditation. I searched over internet but there aren't any specific instructions about any such Buddhist practise.

Is this true? Is there any special meditation we can do in this time?

Actually there is a reference to this and it is this video where the Dalai Lama advises a group of people to meditate before going to bed and immediately after waking up.

Before after waking up: our mind is filled freshness,you are relaxed and generally this continues to the rest of the day! You can face your obstacles easier!

Before going to bed: The stress built up during the day has to be gradually released before you can fall asleep.You too help your body relax better!


What is Sanna Samapatti and Nirodha Samapatti? What is Sanna Samapatti and Nirodha Samapatti?
How this differs from Sanna Vedaniya Nirodha?
What is the sutta reference?
This question based on the following Dhamma talk in the Sinhalese language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1422&v=IdvO1AvwOrQ

  [354]  Yā  cāyaṃ  bhikkhu  ābhādhātu  yā  ca  subhādhātu  yā  ca
  ākāsānañcāyatanadhātu    yā    ca    viññāṇañcāyatanadhātu    yā   ca
  ākiñcaññāyatanadhātu        imā        dhātuyo       saññāsamāpatti
  pattabbā     .    yāyaṃ    bhikkhu    nevasaññānāsaññāyatanadhātu    ayaṃ
  dhātu     saṅkhārāvasesasamāpatti     pattabbā     .    yāyaṃ    bhikkhu
  saññāvedayitanirodhadhātu    ayaṃ   dhātu   nirodhasamāpatti   pattabbāti  .
  Paṭhamaṃ.

Source: http://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/pali_read.php?B=16&A=3621&w=%CA%AD%DA%AD%D2%CA%C1%D2%BB%B5%DA

The answer to this question is found in AN 9.36, as follows:

  Iti kho, bhikkhave, yāvatā saññāsamāpatti tāvatā aññāpaṭivedho.

  And so, mendicants, penetration to enlightenment extends as far as
  attainments with perception.

  But the two dimensions that depend on these — the dimension of neither
  perception nor non-perception, and the cessation of perception and
  feeling (saññāvedayitanirodho) —are properly explained by mendicants
  who are skilled in these attainments and skilled in emerging from
  them, after they’ve entered them and emerged from them.

Saññāsamāpatti is attainement with perception and nirodhosamāpatti is attainment without perception.

Therefore, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4h, 5th, 6th & 7th jhana and vipassana resulting in the destruction of the fermentations/taints (asava) & the experience of Nibbana are examples of saññāsamāpatti, as described in MN 111.

  There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality,
  secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed
  thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana
  — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind,
  contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire,
  decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he
  ferreted them out one after another.

  Seeing with discernment, his fermentations were totally ended.


Is it wrong livelihood to pick up cherries? I currently am taking care of an organic garden and minimizing any harm that could befall on any living beings by sustainable techniques, and on the side am helping to pick cherries and yet I have discovered that they use a product (insecticide) to treat the cherries.
Am I somehow earning a wrong livelihood by picking them up ?

Considering the five different types of wrong livelihood
AN 5.177

  Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

  "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in.

May you be blessed.

Picking cherries is not a wrong livelihood as long as you are not the one spraying the pesticides.

Spraying pesticides is a wrong livelihood as it harms others (by doing activities which do not fall under right action to earn a living). Generally, distancing yourself from this activity would be fine as long as you can say free from remorse. If you are not involved in any way and this is out of your control there is nothing to be remorseful about it. If you still feel remorseful maybe it might be wise to find another side job.

Maintaining the organic garden within the law and ethical norms are definitely right livelihood.

The main objective in morality is Buddhism is to develop all other elements in the Noble Eightfold Path. Morality (3. Right speech 4. Right action 5. Right livelihood) helps develop mastery over the mind (6. Right effort 7. Right mindfulness 8. Right concentration) which intern helps wisdom (1. Right view 2. Right resolve). Right livelihood should be practised as a connected whole with other parts of the path so that one is free from remorse which helps develop meditation. If one is not free from remorse one cannot develop mentation and intern insight which is the pinnacle of the path.

  (5) Bhikshus, for one with right livelihood, there is the withering away of wrong livelihood; and also
  the withering away of the many evil unwholesome states that arise with wrong view as condition,and the many wholesome states that arise with right livelihood as condition are fulfilled through cultivation.

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta


What's the meaning of the Buddhist boy's message to Neo in the movie The Matrix? In this scene from the first movie in The Matric trilogy, when Neo goes to meet the Oracle he meets the Buddhist boy who shows him that he can bend the spoon and then tells him that he can do the same when he can realize that 'there is no spoon', that when you see the spoon bending, it is really yourself that's bending.
Does this message fit with the actual Buddhist teaching of Emptiness? Does it have any message from the Zen philosophy?  Or it's just a misrepresentation, kind of  Pop Buddhist philosophy to appeal to the audience?
If it aligns with Buddhist philosophy can somebody explain to me what it is?

It means that so-called reality is actually our interpretation. When our perspective changes our experienced reality changes. This is why the boy says, don't try to change reality (bend the spoon). Change your mind, and your reality will change automatically.
There is no enemy to fight, no prize to attain. It is your mind that creates these interpretations "enemy" and "prize". Therefore, "there's no spoon".


Providing a prayer for others As someone that is actively seeking to be a Buddhist, how does one show emotional support for others in time of need?

Christians offer to pray for them if someone or some person is going through a difficult situation.
For example, during 9/11 often leaders would pray for people and their nation who are going through loss.

Is there something in Buddhism that is similar? Is there something similar that Buddhists can offer to show that they are offering emotional or spiritual support.

Your question is on how to show that one is offering help or support. But I'm assuming that what you really meant is how to actually help or support and not just show that one is helping or supporting.

Since Buddhism does not acknowledge the existence of a God or Supreme Being to whom one can pray, prayer in the sense practised in other religions may not be applicable in Buddhism. This therefore, eliminates the need for any rites, rituals, ceremonies or prayer to any particular entity for the well being of others.

But, one can help or support others by practising Metta meditation. The effectiveness of Metta meditation depends on both the level of purity of your mind and that of the receiver. Therefore, practise of Vipassana meditation to purify one's mind may be considered to be a pre-requisite for effective Metta meditation. Metta meditation is essentially about sharing the good vibrations and energy that one generates by purifying one's own mind with others for their well being.

Wikipedia has an overview of Mettā:

  The cultivation of benevolence (mettā bhāvanā) is a popular form of meditation in Buddhism. In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, this practice begins with the meditator cultivating benevolence towards themselves, then one's loved ones, friends, teachers, strangers, enemies, and finally towards all sentient beings. In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, this practice is associated with tonglen (cf.), whereby one breathes out ("sends") happiness and breathes in ("receives") suffering. Tibetan Buddhists also practice contemplation of the Brahmavihāras, also called the four immeasurables, which is sometimes called 'compassion meditation'.


In breathing mindfulness ,why only long and short breaths are taken into consideration? I have just started practicing breathing mindfulness.

At several places following is said for the breathing mindfulness:

  While breathing in long, he knows “I am breathing in long”, or, while
  breathing out long, he knows “I am breathing out long”; or, while
  breathing in short, he knows “I am breathing in short”, or, while
  breathing out short, he knows “I am breathing out short”.

However most of the time I am breathing normally. I am neither taking long breath nor short breath.

My question is: Why normal breathing situation is ignored during breathing mindfulness? In other words ,why don't we say "While breathing in normal , he knows 'I am breathing in normal', or , while breathing out normal, he knows ' I am breathing out normal'"?

I can guarantee that you can take normal breathing. And you should take normal breath. Without trying to make it long or short.

  While breathing in long, he knows “I am breathing in long”, or, while breathing out long, he knows “I am breathing out long”; or, while breathing in short, he knows “I am breathing in short”, or, while breathing out short, he knows “I am breathing out short”.

As you state, Normal breathing is not ignored but it just a way to teach meditators.

The goal of this sentence is you should know every single moment of breath.


Ignorance of others when practising the teachings of the Buddha Ignorance is described as not knowing about dukkha. If one knows dukkha and understands the cause of dukkha is starts with ignorance, how does one traverse ignorance of others?

For example, the Buddha one would imagine would have had to experience the ignorance of others. Would he have ignored it? Would he have attempted to enlighten them? Would he have empathized with them?

Ignorance is a personal thing, and Buddhism speaks of a specific kind of personal ignorance -- that of dukkha.

The ignorance of others is irrelevant. Yes, one tries to help others, but transcending ignorance is a matter of transcending ONE'S OWN IGNORANCE and implies nothing about the ignorance of others.  However, one might be in a better position to be patient and hence work with others.


How does *Buddhist* meditation differ from others and lead to awakening? The practice  of meditation is central to certain Buddhist traditions, e.g. Vajrayana, Dzogchen, Zen, important for recognizing Buddha nature.

Furthermore, Vajrayana and Theravada traditions assert that the meditation serves as a basis for realizing selflessness:

  the purpose of meditative stabilization is to serve as a basis for
  achieving supramundane special insight realizing selflessness, the
  emptiness of inherent existence, through which afflictive emotions can
  be removed completely and forever

  -- Dalai Lama

  So what is the purpose of satipaṭṭhāna? The purpose is to see
  anattā, that there is no self, no me, nor anything that belongs to a
  self.

  -- Ajahn Brahm

But dhyana and samadhi are not unique to Buddhism, also found in schools such as Hinduism which do not lead to realization of no self.

And even highly accomplished Buddhist meditators have found that with a radiant mind in meditation, the sense of self can still fail to be uprooted.

  At that stage the mind was so radiant that I came to marvel at its
  radiance...

  “If there is a point or a center of the knower anywhere, that is an agent of birth.”

  -- Ajahn Maha Boowa

How exactly does Buddhist meditation practice lead to realizing selflessness, versus other forms other forms of meditation which do not? What exactly makes Buddhist meditation different?

What made the Buddha's meditation technique differ from others' (e.g. Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta) which did not lead to enlightenment?  (Please be more specific than "Middle Way").

Very good question.

Buddhist meditation is based on the understanding of the mechanism of arising and cessation of suffering. Suffering arises whenever there is a conflict between "is" and "should". Craving for any "should" because of attachment to that (usually to a concept within a framework) is the generator of suffering. Letting go of the "should", or even better, transcending the boundaries of a framework that served as the foundation for the concept, leads to cessation of suffering.

Buddhist meditation involves methodically applying the above principle from coarse to progressively finer "shoulds".

As you thus let go of these attachments, preconceptions, prejudices, and overgeneralizations - the notion of self dissolves as the hidden counterpart of these overgeneralizations.

However, I think you got the relationship wrong way. It's not that the peace of no-attachment (no-should, no-overgeneralization) is a step that leads to selflessness which then leads to Enlightenment. It is the other way: freedom from attachments, preconceptions, prejudices, and overgeneralizations -- including the overgeneralization known as "Self" - leads to Enlightenment and Peace.

Non-Buddhist meditation is either trial and error, or something trivial like gazing at the candle or running water, or it is brute-force stopping the thoughts, or it is visualization of some images that has useful side effects, or working directly with psychosomatic energies. The last two types were later repurposed by Tibetan Buddhists and integrated into Buddhist framework of progressive attainment of suchness.


How can consciousness arise without the fuel? Namo Buddhaya.

Craving is said to be the root of the fuel. Without fuel consciousness can not arise.
However in the dependent origination craving manifests very late in the sequence of dependent originations. Consciousness arises at the 3rd step immediately after ignorance and volitional formations. But the fuel or craving arises after consciousness and feelings have arisen.
Ideally first the craving should have arisen and then the consciousness should arise.
This sutta explains how craving is the fuel for consciousness.
As the sutta is very long I will quote some parts of it for better understanding.

Consciousness is described as "like a fire".

  It’s like fire, which is reckoned according to the specific conditions
  dependent upon which it burns.

What is the fuel ?

In my opinion it is logically implied here that consciousness is fuelled by craving: because fire can not exist without fuel. And what is the fuel ? Craving. Simple.

  “Mendicants, there are these four fuels. They maintain sentient beings
  that have been born and help those that are about to be born. What
  four? Solid food, whether coarse or fine; contact is the second,
  mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.

  What is the source, origin, birthplace, and root of these four fuels?
  Craving.

When does Craving occur?

  ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for
  consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name
  and form is a condition for the six sense fields. The six sense fields
  are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling.
  Feeling is a condition for craving.

My question is : How can consciousness arise without the arousal of craving in the first place in the dependent origination ?

This question that I had asked is relevant to this question.

According to MN9:

  From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....

  From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

To answer your question, ignorance is the cause. But to break the cycle, craving must be uprooted through the Noble Eightfold Path.

Also see Andrei's answer on the vicious cycle.


Meditation on a concept Is samatha concentration meditation's object always an idea, concept or something else?

Why meditate on a concept and what else besides concepts are  there to meditate on?

There are 40 meditation objects are prescribed in Visuudhimagga.

https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/40_meditation_subjects


Ignorance and the arising of dukkha Some explanations of the second Noble truth emphasizes the three poisons of ignorance, attachment and aversion as the causes of Dukkha. There are probably many different ways to lay this out, but my question is about ignorance, our misunderstanding of the nature of reality.

What is the most basic and important deeply rooted ignorance about reality?

What is it – on the most basic level – that we don’t see?

What is it about the nature of reality that we are ignorant about?

What is it that this bewilderment about reality consists of?

A definition of ignorance is as the first of the 'twelve nidānas'.
In the Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta it's described as follows:

And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.
Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. etc.

So there it's defined as ignorance of the four noble truths.

This article titled Ignorance (by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) is a commentary about Ignorance from the perspective of the four noble truths (which is what you were asking about). It says that vijja (the opposite of avijjā i.e. ignorance) means not only 'knowledge' of facts but also 'skill'; so non-ignorance means:

Knowing the four noble truths
Understanding them
Skill, resulting in cessation and liberation

Avijja, the Pali word for ignorance, is the opposite of vijja, which means not only "knowledge" but also "skill" — as in the skills of a doctor or animal-trainer. So when the Buddha focuses on the ignorance that causes stress and suffering, saying that people suffer from not knowing the four noble truths, he's not simply saying that they lack information or direct knowledge of those truths. He's also saying that they lack skill in handling them. They suffer because they don't know what they're doing.

The Sammaditthi Sutta concurs in equating ignorance with the four noble truths ... it says that not knowing about the four noble truths is the origin of ignorance:

And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of ignorance? Not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering — this is called ignorance. With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.
When a noble disciple has thus understood ignorance, the origin of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance, and the way leading to the cessation of ignorance... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

If cessation of ignorance is right view, then presumably "ignorance" can be defined as or understood as the cause of 'wrong view'.
The Maha-satipatthana Sutta too defines 'right view' as knowledge of the four noble truths.

And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view.

There's a (closely) related term moha which is one of the three poisons and one of the defilements (I think that identifying three poisons is more Mahayana than Theravada, which sees aversion as a secondary cause, as in Sankha's answer).
When it's ignorance or illusion or delusion about the three characteristics, I think that means for example:

Seeing the non-self as self
Seeing the impermanent as permanent
Seeing the inherently-unsatisfactory as desirable.

Ignorance (like conceit) is one of the last of the fetters to be eradicated, according to the stages of the path (though identity-view is a wrong view and therefore one form of ignorance).


Resources for Sutta study/discussion for beginners What texts would you recommend for sutta discussion sessions, where a majority of the participants will be new to discussing suttas?
with metta

This is my standard recommendation for beginners:
a)Read BuddhismCourse. (Take about 12 hours to read and give you a good idea about the teaching)
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/

b)Print a copy of this Dhamma Chart and refer to it while studding Buddhism.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=16785

c) Read Buddha’s Teaching by Narada. Start from chapter 15.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddh ... gsurw6.pdf

d) While you reading above texts please listen to the following Dhamma Talk by Joseph Goldstein.
http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/96/talk/6162/
e) Start reading Sutta.
Good starting point would be to read Bikkhu Bodhi’s “In the Buddha’s Word”
Then read Sutta Central. Start from Majjhima Nikaya. https://suttacentral.net/m


How do I develop a healthier relationship with images? I doubt that anybody has asked this question before, which is why I thought to write it down. Since I was thirteen-years-old, I have saved a lot of photographs from the internet on the cloud (i.e., like how someone would save 'likes' to their Twitter profile). The reason at the time was that I was trying to find myself as a person. Now, I have spent four years doing this and I know myself better. I have been trying to remove everything unnecessary from my life. I downsized my room and finished writing a manuscript that I began four years ago. Now, I have to go through all of my photos and see which ones are important because a few of the photos do help me to better visualise a healthier lifestyle sort of like iconography.

The issue is that, unlike fixing my room or manuscript, I have realised that visual images are a very complex category, both in genre and subject. I feel like this is the last part of my old life that I need to put in check, but I have been trying on and off for 2 months now in quarantine. How do I make sure that I am only saving things that will help my spiritual practice and how do I get rid of unhelpful or unnecessary images that perhaps look nice or so on? I am new and I apologise if I have misunderstood anything, but this seems a bit like a desire and I am wondering about the middle way. Please, do not be shy. Any and all answers would be helpful.

Just drop it all and move on. Never hesitate to let go of old stuff that has done its job. Don't be nostalgic, don't regret - that is petty thinking. You had it, you got it, you done it - drop it and walk into your next life.

It may seem like it's important and it was at some point, but you'll make plenty of new and more important stuff as you go forward. It's "you-the-emptiness" is what really matters, "you-the-fresh-look", "you-the-not-knowing". You have basic sanity - which means you don't have to carry anything along. Wherever you go you will create everything anew, from scratch, and meet everything you need to meet, there will be a plenty.

Have no fear. Drop and let go.


Is the Chinese/Lunar New Year a Buddhist religious holiday? In the New Jersey State Board of Education's List of Religious Holidays Permitting Student Absence from School, the Chinese/Lunar New Year (Feb 19, 2015) is listed as a "Confucian/Daoist/Buddhist" holiday.

I didn't think there was any connection with Buddhism. So is there?

Celebration of the "Buddhist" New Year varies by both geographic region and ethnicity in the predominantly Buddhist countries of Asia.

From http://www.buddhanet.net/festival.htm:

  Buddhist New Year -
  In Theravadin countries, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Lao, the new year is celebrated for three days from the first full moon day in April. In Mahayana countries the new year starts on the first full moon day in January. However, the Buddhist New Year depends on the country of origin or ethnic background of the people. As for example, Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese celebrate late January or early February according to the lunar calendar, whilst the Tibetans usually celebrate about one month later.

Perhaps in New Jersey there is a sizable population of Chinese students who might be celebrating Chinese Lunar New Year and this was designated as an allowable "religious" day off as a practical matter? In any case, it seems to carry more ethnic significance than religious significance. (Can't imagine that ethnic Chinese students who are Christian, for example, would be any less interested in the celebrations! :)


Is Buddhism something that you should study? Is Buddhism something that you should consider as a field that you should endeavour to study and develop a deep understanding of or is it enough just to simply sit, just as the Zen tradition seems to suggest?

To elaborate a bit more, is it worthwhile to study the Sutras and other Buddhist texts or would someone be able to attain enlightenment by simply sitting without developing an in-depth knowledge of Buddhism?

At least in the Theravada tradition, it is emphasized that the role of the Buddha (technically the Samyaksambuddha) was to teach and establish the dhamma. And he was also the most qualified person to do it.

The dhamma (teachings) is like a shortcut that we received from the Buddha, which we need to first study and understand. Studying involves understanding the Four Noble Truths, the Three Marks of Existence, and other teachings found in the suttas.

Practice includes the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path includes Right View and Right Intention (which comes in part through studying), as well as Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration and Right Effort (which is meditation and practice). The remaining three are also part of practice.

So, if you do not want to study, but only want to practise meditation, then you are not making use of the "shortcut" teachings of the Buddha and instead want to find enlightenment by yourself.

For a good introduction on the teachings, I recommend What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of the suttas at the back of the book.

The Tripitakas are rather huge. But a good anthology or selection of suttas can be found in In the Buddha's Words by Bhikku Bodhi. You can find the PDF version here.

If you find studying Buddhism potentially daunting, then these two books should help you get started.


What would an Arahant experience, as a slave in a labor camp? I like to put things in perspective by using extremes to create high contrast.

Let's imagine a person who has become an enlightened being, let's use the word "arahant". But imagine that they're put in an inescapable, hostile, deadly environment: a slave labor camp.

What would this arahant experience, and how would it achieve those experiences? What would be this arahant's view on reality (reality as in the combination of objective and subjective reality)?

From what I understand: if you master your mind, than you no longer suffer mentally; you might feel pain, sadness, grief or whatever, but you no longer suffer from the experience.

But imagine that this arahant has a child, or a wife, who are taken away to be killed, never to be seen again.

The reason I am asking this is that I just can't imagine that a person wouldn't fill up with hate and anger, disbelieve in any cause and become completely hopeless. How would an arahant hold itself in such a horrible situation? I can't imagine that it is even remotely possible to focus oneself on the teachings of the Buddha. Bad food, bad sleep, laborious days, bad shelter, bad clothing, bad physical health, etc... I couldn't even focus on where to put my next step! Let alone, keeping up righteous mental activity.

EDIT:
For those who are interested, I summarize what I learned from asking this question. I was lost in thought with some imaginary situation (described in this question). Like trying to prepare myself for any situation that might every arise and compare my current state with a state that would be required and trying to get there. For that part I was no longer present with my actual experience. Instead I created a whole lot of (now I see) unnecessary experience from which I mentally suffered. The answer I accepted is the answer that first answered the question on the matter asked, and then guided my attention back to my self. I experience the answer as: first addressed the wandering mind and get its attention, then give an answer that the mind can chew on. Then provide the answer with the 'real' value. That made the chewing of my mind on the subject decrease immediately. I feel more tuned in to the moment of now after reading it. I feel thankful.

First of all, Arahanths never feel sadness, grief, hate etc. They  don't have wives, but they may have ex-wives.

if the Arahath has psychic powers he might fly away to spare the people from acquiring extremely bad karma or he might stay if he saw it as an unavoidable consequence of a past Karma.

Either way, he will never get upset no matter what happens. He would try to make the people come to their senses, if he sees potential in them to be better humans. Otherwise he'd remain in a meditative state when not attending to the maintenance of the body.


What does breaking the fetter 'Clinging to rites and rituals' actually mean? The second fetter to break when one becomes a stream entrant is given as 'Clinging to rites and rituals'. I've always found that one a little puzzling. How do you know if you are clinging to a ritual? What would be the signs of it? Does the fetter apply exclusively to Buddhist rituals or does it apply to the little rituals we all indulge in as we navigate our way through daily life? I think I'm after someone to help unpack this one a little bit.

The coarser or more general context:
It's about not being attached to symbolic rites and rituals or taking them to be literally true.
For e.g. from SN 7.21:

The Buddha said to Sangarava:
“Is it really true, brahmin, that you practice purification by water,
believing in purification by water; that you live committed to the
practice of immersing yourself in water at dawn and dusk?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“But brahmin, for what reason do you practice purification by water?”
“It’s because, Master Gotama, whatever bad deeds I’ve done during the
day I wash off by bathing at dusk; and whatever bad deeds I’ve done
during the night, I wash off by bathing at dawn. That’s the reason why
I practice purification by water.”

“The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, brahmin,
unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledge-masters go to bathe,
and cross to the far shore without getting wet.”

When he had spoken, Saṅgārava said to the Buddha:
“Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may
Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge
for life.”

The more refined context:
From AN 3.78:

“Take the case of someone who cultivates precepts and observances, a
lifestyle, and a spiritual path, taking this as the essence. If
unskillful qualities grow while skillful qualities decline, that’s not
fruitful. However, if unskillful qualities decline while skillful
qualities grow, that is fruitful.”

From MN 24:

“Is the spiritual life lived under the Buddha for the sake of
purification of ethics?”
“Certainly not.”  ....
“In the same way, reverend, purification of ethics is only for the
sake of purification of mind. Purification of mind is only for the
sake of purification of view. Purification of view is only for the
sake of purification through overcoming doubt. Purification through
overcoming doubt is only for the sake of purification of knowledge and
vision of the variety of paths. Purification of knowledge and vision
of the variety of paths is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision of the practice. Purification of knowledge and
vision of the practice is only for the sake of purification of
knowledge and vision. Purification of knowledge and vision is only for
the sake of extinguishment by not grasping. The spiritual life is
lived under the Buddha for the sake of extinguishment by not
grasping.”

From DN 16:

If it wishes, after my passing the Saṅgha may abolish the lesser and
minor training rules.

The purpose of precepts and observances, purification of ethics, and a spiritual path is only for the purification of the mind and cultivation of skillful qualities.
But being too attached to minor rules and rituals to the point that breaking them causes remorse and mental anguish, is unskillful and pollutes the mind.
It is enough to practise purification of ethics with the understanding that it is for the purification of the mind, and not be too attached to following minor rules and rituals to the letter.


Masturbation: Does it break the 3rd precept? According to this  answer, it seems like masturbation is not considered sexual misconduct or breaking the third precept.

However, the whole point (in general) of keeping the precept is to make good kamma both in mind and body. Masturbation alters the mind state and creates bad mind-made kamma. So ideally, shouldn't it also be considered as sexual misconduct and breaking the third precept?

Argumentation is a tricky thing; it's easy to skip a step and before you realize it, you've got an argument whose premises don't actually necessitate their conclusion.

Premise: The whole point (in general) of keeping the [third] precept is to make good kamma both in mind and body.

Premise: Masturbation alters the mind state and creates bad mind-made kamma.

Conclusion: [Masturbation should] also be considered as sexual misconduct and breaking the third precept.

I'm not sure if you actually meant that the point of keeping the precepts in general is to make good kamma, or just the third, but either way, whether this premise is true or not, it doesn't necessitate the conclusion. We can see this by substituting the word "masturbation" with "consensual sex", "gambling" or even "dancing" - just because an act is unwholesome doesn't mean it violates any of the precepts, let alone the third.

You might have a better argument if your second premise pointed out that masturbation created bad karma relating to sexuality; we can maybe assume this was implied as obvious. Still, if masturbation is breaking the third precept, why is not consensual sex, or even romantic kissing or fondling?

The third precept does not cover all unwholesome activity relating to sexuality, just as the first precept does not cover all acts of violence. They are specific rules designed to keep people from breaking a basic moral code that would otherwise lead them to be reborn in the lower realms.

ANSWER: So, while masturbation may be unwholesome (and a cause of addiction), it does not by any means break any of the five precepts. It does violate the eight and ten precepts, and is a major offence against the vinaya for a bhikkhu.


What does Buddhism say about success? I grew up in a western country raised in a western atmosphere with a western mentality. I'm talking things like the pyramid of needs and how apparently self-gratification and personal success are the highest on the checklist. I grew up with an attitude that stressed individuality above everything else, self-accomplishment as the most important trait of a person, and everything under it (money, fame, finance, cars, houses, etc). When I started practicing Buddhism, I began to look into the nature of the "self" and the ego, and now it seems to me like there is an inner cultural conflict.

What does Buddhism say about success and accomplishment in life? It seems on one hand you have an absolute western mentality about achievement and individual strength and standing out from all others as an ultimate success. On the other, Buddhism and a lot of eastern cultures traditionaly emphasize humility, selflesness, and non-attachment to one's ego.

Thank you all~.

True. Individualism, self-achievement & success are strong features of Buddhism. The Maha-mangala Sutta & Sigalovada Sutta are excellent examples.

What mitigates blind & excessive material pursuit in Buddhism is the emphasis upon duty ('dhamma') towards the well-being of one-self & others and thus not pursuing what is excessive, harmful &/or unnecessary.

The scriptures always praise materially successful people who earn their wealth blamelessly (eg. Anana Sutta) and share their wealth with others, without being attached to it (eg. 41.1.12.).

My impression is Thai Buddhists have been particularly shrewd & successful as a nation, at least historically (rather than currently). The following link, whilst listing teachings from the ancient Pali scriptures, has a particularly Thai bent in its explanations. The focus on 'success' is very apparent.

A Constitution for Living: Buddhist Principles for a Fruitful and Harmonious Life


Personal practice regarding meditation Now I feel lazy to meditate because less thoughts  no breath to observe. once I observe the body ,it isn't  disappears .experience  the vibration of mind and feel there is a connection  between  brain and mind  through blood.

In Buddhist meditation, the primary meditation object is 'letting go' (vossagga). The other things (breathing, feelings, etc) are just side-effects or 'signs'. For stream-enterers, letting-go (or little Nibbana) is the meditation object.

  And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga),
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn
  from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters
  & remains in the first jhana... SN 48.10

  The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When
  love and hate are both absent everything becomes clear and
  undisguised. Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and
  earth are set infinitely apart.

  If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against
  anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the
  disease of the mind.

  When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential
  peace is disturbed to no avail.

  The Way is perfect like vast space where nothing is lacking and
  nothing is in excess.

  Verses on the Faith Mind by Chien-chih Seng-ts'an  Third Zen Patriarch
  [606AD]


How is it that we cycle through the nanas? The knowledges(nanas) start at realizing mind and body. After the last knowledge, the practitioner goes back to realizing mind and body again?

Is that correct?

What is the difference between the first time realizing mind and body and the second time realizing mind and body?

The word “gnana” is the very opposite on “Vinnana”. “Gnana” is Wisdom. In cultivating “gnana”, one’s avijja is reduced. Then what  naturally accompanies or follows is the reduction of certain types of vinnana.

A type of gnana that one develops through the understanding of Tilakkhana is “anulöma gnana”.  When one comprehends anicca, dukkha, anatta to the extent that one gets to ‘see’ this Tilakkhana, one is said to have the “anulöma nana”.  This gnana helps in the removal of craving for worldly things to some extent.

A special knowledge that one gains of the workings of Pali language is “patisambidha gnana”. This is the awareness of the Syntax in the Pali language. It is the understanding of the arrangement of words and phrases to create new words. Unlike the English language, the meaning of the Pali word changes, in the way it gets used. A Pali word can have more than one meaning. A Pali word can have a conventional meaning and a deeper meaning. One who gains “patisambidha gnana” sees the deeper meaning of key words.

Another gnana that one could gain is “udayabbaya gnana”. When one develops this gnana, one can see the causes that need to be eliminated to overcome otherwise inevitable future suffering. S/he then learns of the factors relating to all knowledge about the arising and destruction of anything in this world. S/he also gains the knowledge on how to stop anything from arising in this world. This is the ‘nirodha’ aspect of things.


How to keep balance in the thin line between non attachment to reputation and "not caring about anything" One of the main problems I had to deal with, when I started to meditate and study the Dhamma, was the consequence of giving up attachment to reputation and pride.

Of course this is an extremelly positive thing to do, you simply become stronger when you stop caring about how other people see you, you just care about your actions, about karma, about your thoughts.

The problem is that people think you just don't care about anything else, they think you are not commited to your job anymore, to your appearance, to other people feelings... for instance: If they give you a bad feedback and you don't suffer and don't react to it, they think you are ignoring them.

It looks like we need small portions of drama to live in this society, non attachment to reputation makes you look like an alien or a brain washed person. I don't know how to balance that sometimes, any advise?

I don't exactly have an answer or advice to this, as I have a similar experience to a certain extent, but I understand that even though others might see the external us and base an opinion on it, the mind development that's going on for Buddhists may always be misunderstood by those not familiar with it and thus, dukkha arises for the one making the judgement. Maybe it also arises in us too, if we react to it even just a little bit. It's hard to be unaffected, I find. I guess that depends on where each one of is in the practice.  As the Buddha describes, it is 'Patisothagami' or "it is a path that goes against the stream", so we're bound to hit resistance both from the stream and the other fish...to use a popular analogy.

Maybe here equanimity is needed with compassion in order to keep us within the sphere of 'normal' worldliness whilst striving for something beyond it.

I hope the reflection is useful and thank you for bringing it up.

Best wishes

Paul


Is fasting good or bad? Got interested after seeing benefits of intermediate fasting in retreats from noon (more energy more time)  - but started to read about benefits of longer fasts now   (24 hours - 28 days)

But there is the whole middle way thing to consider - did buddha talk  against fasting ? or just against fasting to suffer on purpose thinking that would liberate you ?

If i do it for health benefits it might be ok - right ?

maybe it does have benifits that can help the practice (more energy more time etc).

The object of Buddhist fasting is to eliminate the old habits. (ie:hunger)
This should be practiced in a middle way. That is why monks are required to not to eat after midday.
If you extend the fasting more than that it becomes the self-mortification. which was rejected by Buddha.


How can we say no without giving explanations? Let's say that a friend asks you if you want to go on a trip with him.

You have a bad feeling about it, your intuition raises a red flag. How do you say no without making up a fake excuse?

When I say "no, thanks for your offer but I don't feel like it." People tend to try to convince me, and I end up having to be cold. I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why."

I can't realistically say "I appreciate your offer but my intuition tells me that this is a bad idea and I can't explain to you why."

If that's what you feel, you should exactly say that. The more you allow yourself to relax and express what you really feel, without fear of judgement, the easier it becomes as you do it again and again, and you arrive at a place in your life when you can be truly yourself and happy, because you will be spontaneously manifesting your own true nature. Just a matter of getting comfortable and free from the grasp of fear and the control of preconceptions, and allowing yourself to be yourself.


How to Focus consciously? I have been trying to read while being conscious about myself or breathe but it seems impossible: I can think about only one thing at a time, and even if I do it "consciously" then I have to go through that thing over again.

So how do I practice the iOS Development (coding takes your entire attention), Which seems impossible to do consciously?

In other words, how do I focus while being aware of myself or breathing etc.

How to Focus consciously?

The Right Mindfulness is being equanimous towards the pleasant and unpleasant, which prevents craving and aversion from arising, while free from corruption of insight (free from Vipallasa, i.e., seeing the Three marks of existence), which prevents ignorance arising, within the 4 Frames of Reference. If unwholesome roots arise, deluded (with Vipallasa), hence creating fabrications  or based on external objects or conceptual objects hence not within the 4 frames of reference it is not right mindfulness.

If you are not equanimous and there is a pleasant sensation this leads to attachment and if there is an unpleasant sensation this leads to aversion and if neutral sensation, without insight into the 3 Universal Characteristics, this leads to ignorance. Hence, unwise attention is attention corrupted by Vipallasa and the experienced sensation is leading to the unwholesome roots. See commentary of Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta & Vipallasa Sutta by Piya Tan and Kīta,giri Sutta

    For, one who perceives impermanence, Meghiya, establishes the perception of non-self. One who perceives
    non-self eliminates the ‘I am’ conceit. He attains nirvana here and now.”

Meghiya Sutta

Similarly of the other opposites of Vipallasa (3 universal characteristics) can be understood through, impermanence, or seeing arising and passing.

So simply put it what needs to be done is:

stay with the sensation in the body
be equanimous - displaces craving and aversion
know what ever experience is impermanent, i.e., arising and passing - displaces ignorance

Also see this answer.

If you mind wanders away and you lose attention get in touch with the sensation than are prevalent in the body and mind and establish your attention on the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness.

Once you experience a gross (easy to penetrate) sensation try to experience its subtleness (had to penetrate) by strongly focussing on it and trying to divide and dissecting it.

  (coding takes your entire attention), Which seems impossible to do consciously?

Generally when doing something like this your attention will be lost. Thinking creates sensation in the head and chest regions. If you cannot figure something you the frustration means you hear rate increases and breathing becomes heavy. Similarly when exited. Sometimes thinking too much gives a headache. If your figure something out, or your code works, you will feel happy, which gives a pleasant sensation. It is these sensation you should be looking at. This will require extra practice, but what is essential is you are mindful when you do you daily work. The training on the cushion or chair is just a booster or pre training for this.

Also additional information can be found in:

The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna
The Four Sampajanna
Why Vedana and What is Vedana?


Devas as gods in buddhism ,is it a corruption of original teachings..? As far as i know , there is no mention of god ( the word God in local parlance) in buddhist texts ,the term used is Devas (beings in the higher realm). In ancient hindu texts there is mention of devas and asuras .Devas   representing good and asuras evil .The term asura is thought to be a corruption of the word Ahura of the ancient iranian Ahura mazda (possibly be a tribal conflict between hindus and zorastrian followers during ancient times).

Since the versions of buddhism practiced today are not the exact replicas of what was buddhism during buddha's times.

could this element be a corruption of the original meaning through  influence of hinduism...?    I have read somewhere about the  heavy persecution of buddhists (to bring buddhists back to the hindu fold) by brahmins and hindu kings after the death of king Asoka.

Rebirth,reincarnation etc becomes more believable as metaphorical terms. So could the term may have had the meaning like good individuals or similiar in the past.?

In buddhism there are 31 realms of existence and each realm is inhabited by beings: animal, petas, asuras, humans, devas, brahmas.

Now these are just inhabitants: beings with different appearances and abilities according to their kamma.

Now if we translate brahma as god then it is different form the Hindu brahma in that the buddhist brahma does not create the universe etc.. buddhist do not unite with brahma in the end. Buddhist brahma dies after a few hundred aeons etc...

These are some of the definitions of the buddhist brahma which is different from the Hindu brahma.
See Buddhism and the Brahma concept


Miscarriages & Natural abortions as a result of evil beings? There is a belief in my country that Miscarriages & Natural abortions can happen as a result of evil beings taking revenge from someone.

I recently heard a story from a teacher of mine that some couple visited him about a series of Miscarriages because they had a suspicion about it. He is a Famous monk in my country and he does not have any reputation for doing such Exorcism stuff, But as a monk he could not turn two troubled people away so he started reciting dhamma hoping something would come up.

As my teacher said then the lady started acting strange and like in those movies she talked like a completely another person. My teacher said that she told them the story's beginning.

So long story short ; she was pregnant in the earlier part of their marriage and they did not wanted a child back then so they took an abortion and that dead child is now haunting them as a being from Yakkha or Pretha realm.

What is the teaching has to say about these kind of things?

If these things actually happen what can a person do?

Upasaka Theravada,

Things happen, and killing a human being is not a just a peccadillo. But things have been done.

There is no better than to maintain as much as possible mindfulness, train the mind and do meritorious deeds. Focus everything on Metta Bhavana and keeping precepts eager from a mind of metta. Being aware that things may ripe and not engaging to fight against things.

Its also good if such as a forgiving ceremony for her former child is made. Such declaring of the misdeed and closure should come from heart and should have an understanding for the "victim" and not be made just to protect one self. So one must see ones fault accept the results and act simply as an obligation for the victims welfare.

Atma is not sure if there are people who are trained and taught in such as "family constellation", which, if the teacher is a good one, helps a lot since he/she would help that such things are not done just on the surface but form heart to heart which gives one the needed release to walk on.

In the same spirit, one should not do such things as having the intent to dispel or harm or kill spirits. That would make things even worth. So she would do good NOT to seek and wish for any exorcism. That is like to kill again and has not confession and accepting of ones misdeed as a drive. So she should work firm to see the transgression and simply act like that. But also, it does not make sense to fall into "I am bad. Punish me" thinking. That is also foolish. What has been done, has been done.

Its good to seek good teacher in Dhamma who explain and make here Dhamma understandable but never ever hire people to fight or even hurt and kill spirits. Seek for people who are able to explain what and how one self should act and practice, so that there are no causes that one gets hurt.

For giving spirits no opening, there is nothing better as mindfulness, being mindful and never lose earthing. One being aware does not give his body. Mind and body needs to be firm together. Sometimes such as physical exercises maybe even such as yoga, are good that people get aware of there body. And again: All training, all actions, are not meant to fight others or to harm them but with the purpose "May I not harm any being, may I am always firm in my precepts so that no beings is caused harm by heedless actions of mine"

There might have been no fault by the monk aside that he just did something that they wanted. Even he canted such as a protective paritta, when such is used with aversion mind it turns out even more worse. So its needed that she learns about the Dhamma and why metta is useful and how the mind have to be that it is a protection. Atma thinks even to make a month a retreat and been taught by monks and nuns would be good, taking on 10 precepts. Maybe in the nunnery of Na Uyana Aranya. It makes less sense to approach normal village monks and those making a living with spells and services for laypeople. They make it even worse.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


Which is the Buddhist holy book? Where can it be read? Is there a holy book for buddhists as the Bible is for Jews and Christians and Quran for Muslims? Is that the Tipitaka?

A book where you can find all the teachings of Buddhism, and how to behave, rules, etc.

Where can I read it translated to English or Spanish? In the same way I can read the Bible and the Quran online.

There isn't exactly one short Buddhist bible (see Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?).

The Tripitaka is the Pali canon, possibly the earliest (or at least, among the earliest) of the surviving Buddhist literature. It has three parts, and of these three the Sutta Pitaka is the most relevant (to us).

You can read it (or at least begin to read it) online. Web sites with the Pali suttas translated include:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ -- popular, accessible, maybe a minimum of commentary
http://dharmafarer.org/ -- suttas are introduced with a lot of commentary by the translator
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/ -- not so many of the suttas are translated, but those which are here are given with word-by-word Pali-to-English translations
https://suttacentral.net/ (click on "Sutta" in the heading of the page) -- perhaps the most extensive collection (for example if eventually you're looking for a specific sutta, and find that it's not one of the suttas translated on Access to Insight, then look for it here)

See also the answers to these topics:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

Note that although the Pali canon (which is the associated with the Theravada tradition) is among the oldest literature, there are also newer (or later) Buddhist schools with their own canonical literature -- so if you want to find "all the teachings of Buddhism" you might also investigate Mahayana literature (including Chinese, Japanese, and Tibetan) as well as modern/contemporary literature.

The simplest answer to "how to behave, rules" might be to say "the five precepts".

I also liked, The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, in the World because it selects from the Pali canon the suttas which contain behaviour recommendations for lay-people. For example this answer is my summary of one its chapters (the book references specific suttas, which my summary doesn't).

Buddhism seems to me to be rather a large topic, so almost any introduction to it will give a somewhat distorted or one-sided view of it. In my answer to the topic New to Buddhism I tried to give an overview, and also said that people recommend In the Buddha’s Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Another answer wrote that "Buddhism is not a religion based on a Holy Book" which is more or less true:

If you are one of the so-called People of the Book, perhaps you could over-estimate the importance of a "book" or Bible.
Even so, some words that I guess may be equally important in Buddhism include Buddhavacana, Sangha, Dhamma, (not to mention "lineage"), and various (practical) practices.

So instead of or as well as a Bible, people might recommend you look for (one or more) Buddhist teachers and/or communities.


Has the law of karma evolved/is it evolving? As I understand it, Buddhism is not inconsistent with Darwin's theory of evolution. Since the law of karma is central to Buddhism and applies to sentient beings, is the law of karma something that evolved, too?

AFAIK, changing is probably the only thing common to both Buddhism and Darwin's theory of evolution. The law of Karma is an important teaching in Buddhism that explains a certain causes and effect process.

The Buddha Dhamma is called Akaliko for 2 reasons:

Gives effect immediately
True for all three times (past, present and future)

But we must not confuse Buddha Dhamma with the word 'Dhamma' used in "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta". Here the word 'Dhamma' means phenomena. All phenomena except Nibbana are conditioned and subjected to change. Buddha Dhamma is the teachings of those phenomena and their behavior. That is true for all times.

Science keep changing as it is based on hypothesis. Buddha Dhamma does not change as it is based on direct knowledge.

If the required causes are present, the effect will come to past. Regarding the teaching of Karma, time itself is part of the equation. Read about Kala Sampatti & Kala Vipatti


Why did Buddha refrain from finding knowledge of the whole universe? I know that lord Buddha refrain from finding the all the laws of nature from science, everything in universe.(Understanding the whole truth of the universe). I like to know the reason for this.
Is it because our knowledge about the universe is so weak that we don't see anything, nor that the universe is so big that it is endless, (please correct me if i am wrong about this)? I know that lord Buddha mentioned the endless expansion and collapse of the universe. This phrase follows with Gibbs free energy theory, where everything goes to disorder. To make things into order it causes energy.
Like keeping the mind in one place is very hard. If I find nibbana in the coming up life, maybe I will realize that it is not meaningful. Currently I like learning new things in science, like I love reading books of prof. Hawkings teachings... Will all this knowledge be worthless if I find nibbana someday?
Also I am confused of the fact that Lord Mugalan did try to find the whole truth of the universe by meditation. Is it true that he got caught in a infinite loop and Lord Buddha saved him?

I like to know the reason for this.

Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be
conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.77/en/thanissaro
In plain english, the reason for this is that these types of questions are not required for the path towards nirvana at best, or straight up misleading at worst.

Will all this knowledge be worthless if I find nibbana someday?

I wouldn't put down a physicists knowledge of the world, but it has little or nothing to do with buddhas dharma.