What are the resources a Buddhist can use during very hard times? I will try to fit that in a question so it will make sense in this forum: What are the resources a Buddhist can use during very hard times?

Currently I'm working 12h a day under a lot of pressure, everybody is so stressed out, on their limits, that it is easy to see all kinds of bad things: Anger, gossip, divisible speech, blame game, fears... we are living a serious economic crisis and no one wants to lose their jobs, people are terrified, this is the background.

Despite the hard times and the very long and stressful hours at work (that are killing my meditation practice) I'm trying, with not much success, to avoid bad kamma and protect my mind from this crazy situation, hoping it will pass next year. The problem is: I recognize I'm losing the battle, I'm being dragged by these things around me. So, what Buddhist tools can I use, assuming I will not have time for a decent meditation, assuming also the environment will not change and I cannot quit the job. Any advice?

This answer is based in the Mahasi Sayadaw Tradition.

Do you have any regular breaks during your day? Like short minute breaks or lunch breaks. If so you could use these breaks as "stations" for re-centering yourself before going back into the storm.

With 12 hour working days it's understandable that there is not much time for formal meditation. The best advice i know of is to carry the practice into your daily life, i.e. to work on staying mindful during the working day. Then how do do that in the middle of a storm?

It's about finding that still-center inside the tornado. In this center there is quiet and silent. That center is your abdomen. The rising and falling of the abdomen will take you back into the present. It will enable you to see things as they are and not to extrapolate on them, e.g. if a stressed out collague of yours decides to yell at you or say something infuriating then by noting it as "hearing, hearing" will let you see this as just being sound. If one is not mindful the mind begins to identify and take ownership of phenomena. It begins to extrapolate on phenomena and based on that cultivate a respons which might be to yell back or take revenge, thereby only adding to the suffering of oneself and others.

To try to avoid these situations and when things get hectic and begin to spin out of control then try to remember to bring your attention back onto the abdomen. Just a few seconds is usually enough to ground oneself in the present and thereby getting a hold of oneself. From there you can then decide how to act accordingly to the situation.

By remembering to center yourself throughout your working day you will be less likely to be tossed around by the waves. When mindful one is interacting instead of reacting to reality.

So to sum up. My best advice is to use your abdomen. Make a firm determination before going to bed in the evening, before going to work in the morning and throughout your working day (that's the hard part) to remember to center yourself by placing attention on the rising and falling sensation of the abdomen. Then note "rising, rising" or "falling, falling" accordingly to the motions of the abdomen.

Back when i was a student i would have stressed out days and a lot of engaging with many people on a regular basis. At these times it would be difficult to remember being mindful. So every morning i took a pen and drew a little "M" on my wrist. I drew it there because i usually looked at my hands during daily activities so then i would see the "M" and instantly turn mindful. It's a great tool to use until mindfulness are so powerful that one does not need it anymore.

I think this method could maybe help you out too.

Then you have 3 methods now.

First one is to make a firm determination to center yourself in evening, morning and throughtout the day. Second one is that you perform the actual centering throughtout your day, e.g. in the shorts breaks or better yet during activites and third one you have a safe guard in form of that little "M" on your wrist in order to remind you to center yourself.

I wish you the best of luck with your practice and your busy day. Remember all phenomena are impermanent. So hang in there and this situation will end too some day. Also never beat yourself up about not having time to practice. Practice accordingly to what your capacity is at a given time. A little practice is better than no practice.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions to what i wrote please let me know.

Click on photos for full size


Are there Material Differences of Current Theravada Teachings with Pre Sectarian Buddhism? Are some of the Suttas we have today different from the original Suttas as taught by the Buddha? Are there any surviving pre sectarian Buddhist sources and commentaries? What research has been done on pre sectarian Suttas?

AFAIK, nothing can be definitively sourced back to the Buddha.

With that said you have...

The Ghandaran Buddhist Texts which are the oldest Buddhist writings yet discovered.  This doesn't mean they're the words of the Buddha, but if you go by the assumption that older is more likely to reflect the founder's intent (not necessarily true!), then this is one path.
Various historical studies on Early Buddhism, including this page. These studies can get technical and may not be satisfying to a practitioner. They may also spend a fair amount of time studying the context of Buddhism.  Another source (I don't know if it's early enough) is this book, freely available online.


The odd phenomenon of cycle of emotions it is a well-observed fact that that the cycle of emotions never cease to exist, but they do follow a defined route which I shall refer to in this question as the SFE route namely:
A sensation-----feeling-------emotions(----represents"gives rise to")say, when I eat a doughnut, the sensation is of eating, feeling of pleasure, and emotion of happiness.
how can I use a similar mindset of this technique to counter lust like emotions which arise and disturb through my meditation practice and sometimes cause me to relapse on my bad track of sexual misconduct.

for eg: when a lustful thought emerges in my mind is suppress it easily by satipathana and mindfulness however when a thought arises related to the act of copulation, it becomes impossible to suppress it as it is very difficult to view the act objectively.(i.e without any biased feelings and from a neutral point of view).this thought then keeps appearing until I finally give into my bad ways of self-pleasuring as I am a novice-in-training and not being accepted due to this reason.
P.S: please forgive me if this answer seems to violate or copy other answers, i am new to the various technicalities of this website and will take time to adjsut.

It can work out that Satipatthana can help one let go of desire. Usually, as you may know, Satipatthana isn't to suppress but to see the truth.

Our sex drives are strong though and if they are too strong for standard Satipatthana then they can be surpressed by other techniques like the naming of the parts of the body, that can have a repulsive affect on sensual desire. An other good technique to turn one off quick is to look at autopsy photos. That is also good for reflecting on death. These little practices really are very supportive of the main Satipatthana practice.


Can (an) Urban-Dhamma lead to path, fruits and liberation? Urban-Dhamma, Urban-Dhamma they say and is a popular approach, but is it possible that Urban-Dhamma leads to path, fruits and beyond?

Is it possible to transport the Ariya-Magga under such an approach? Is it possible that Urban-Dhamma goes beyond material spheres?

What is the conventional meaning of "urban", how is it perceived at large, the common use of this quality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/urban

(Note that this question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

I'm not sure what you mean by Urban Dhamma. Do you mean Dhamma practiced in the city? Yes. There's no problem with that.

In his lifetime, the Buddha spent 19 out of 45 vassas at the Jetavana Monastery. This monastery was built by the rich lay disciple Anathapindika.

This monastery was located in the city of Savatthi or Shravasti, which was the capital city of the Kingdom of Kosala with a population of 900,000 in 5th century BCE. It was one of the six largest cities in India, in the Buddha's time. The Buddha had many lay disciples in and around Savatthi, headed by wealthy merchant Anathapindika and wealthy aristocrat Visakha.

So I can't see anything wrong with the practice of the Dhamma in an urban setting.


Can you be aware but not conscious? According to Buddhist teaching (of any school) is it possible to be aware but not conscious?

I'm reading the book Seeing that Frees at the moment and Rob Burbea hints that although in the book he is going to use consciousness and awareness interchangeably, there is a sense that they are not the same. I'm hoping that answers to this question might help me dig into this a bit more.

In descriptions of the five skandhas the fifth, Vijñāna, is described/translated as "consciousness" and "awareness": as if they're interchangeable.

But maybe there are other types of awareness. Ibid. says,

  This type of awareness appears to be more refined and introspective than that associated with the aggregate of perception (saññā) which the Buddha describes in the same discourse as follows [etc.]

And,

  Similarly, in the traditionally venerated 5th-century CE commentary, the Visuddhimagga, there is an extended analogy about a child, an adult villager and an expert "money-changer" seeing a heap of coins; in this analogy, the child's experience is likened to perception, the villager's experience to consciousness, and the money-changer's experience to true understanding (paňňā).[15] Thus, in this context, "consciousness" denotes more than the irreducible subjective experience of sense data suggested in the discourses of "the All" (see prior section); here, "consciousness" additionally entails a depth of awareness reflecting a degree of memory and recognition.

So maybe "awareness" is also used for sense-impressions (e.g. visual sight), which "consciousness" then reifies into a chariot, and/or "consciousness" is also used in the sense of "wisdom" (one word for which is 'higher consciousness')

I don't know about Buddhist teaching but it's reminding me of one time when my Tai Chi master pretended to attack me and I moved to block without thinking about it: so my action was aware (of what I saw) but unconscious.

Similarly when driving a car: when I was a student driver I had to consciously think about everything ... changing gear, other cars, road signs, stationary objects, indicators, the driving instructor, etc.  Now that I have more-or-less mastered driving it's sufficient to be aware of what I see around me, and to some extent being less conscious implies greater capacity for awareness.

Maybe I developed neural circuitry to handle the sense-input-signals from driving...


Are there any unique or special versions of meththa meditation? I have heard Lord Buddha has taught a special version of meththa for certain kind of creatures.

Can someone point reference to such a teaching in suttas?

There's the Ahina Sutta: By a Snake, which includes (I won't quote it all),

  I have good will for footless beings,
      good will for two-footed beings,
      good will for four-footed beings,
      good will for many-footed beings.

It's previously mentioned in this answer, which quotes a note that says, "This is one of the few protective charms mentioned in the Pali canon and specifically allowed by the Buddha for monks to use".


Is self-immolation murder? Buddhism teaches prohibits murder, but some Buddhist monks self-immolate. Is this inline with Buddhist teachings or contrary to them?

Human life is very rare and precious. Also when doing this the chances are that your last thought will not be good leading to rebirth in a lower relm. So in my opinion and general consensus in my tradition is that this should not be done. Also in doing this the following conditions of killing is met:

You know that yourself is a living being
You device a method to for self immolate
You follow through with the intention
As a result you die


What are the Tibetan sketches in the movie Samsara called? In the movie Samsara by Pan Nalin, an older monk shows some sketches to the protagonist monk. The sketches are erotic in nature but when held in front of flame reveal true nature as skeletons. It's a very powerful teaching.

Do these sketches have any significance? What are they called?

This is the youtube link for the movie (look @44:37).

Screenshots from the movie are copied below -- they are hidden using 'spoiler' tags because they are "erotic in nature", so mouse-over the image if you want to make them visible.

And after changing the angle of the 'paper' (there's light from a candle on the other side):

The sketches you refer to are a combination of three influences: the core Buddhist teaching of impermanence, the Hindu imagery association of sex and death, and the Chinese drawing style for depictions of sexuality. The sketches are clearly from a non-Tantric school, because in Tantric Buddhism, sexual pleasure is seen as a beneficial act representative of the union of female and male Buddhas (when done correctly). The sketches seem to borrow from the 3 influences mentioned above to communicate the impermanent view on sexuality. This is not a common practice. In fact, strict guidelines existed on how to create the "correct" imagery. AFAIK there is no specific name for the sketches and their intent.

The strong association between sex and death stems from Indian culture. Buddhist cosmology is strongly influenced by Hinduism, the dominant religion at the time of the Buddha, and more generally Indian culture. Historically, Indian culture is almost diametrically opposed to the West in its liberal depiction and description of sexual pleasure and techniques (just think of the Kama Sutra). There is a very strong association between sex and death in Hinduism in the form of Kali, who is often depicted in coitus:

Another goddess depicted in the same way in Hinduism is Chhinnamasta in Kundalini Yoga, which uses techniques westerners refer to as Tantrism. There are Tantric forms of both Hinduism and Buddhism, with very similar imagery in the form of Dakinis.

Another factor to consider is a statement from Robert Thurman, a Tantric Buddhist scholar in his translation of the Pancakrama:

  Sexual union between coarse bodies is the only situation, other than
  death, in which all the neural wind-energies dissolve into the central
  channel.

The drawing style of the sketches however is definitely Chinese - the hair style is a "dead" giveaway. Like Indian culture, the Chinese were much more liberal in the depiction of sexuality. We find many images like this as early as the Yuan dynasty.


Can we define craving without mentioning self? Namo Buddhaya.

According to the Mahayana Pratityasamutpadavibhanganirdesa Sutra, there are three cravings: craving for the sense-realm, craving for the form-realm, and craving for the formless-realm. But I couldn't find any definition of craving itself in the scriptures.

I am trying to understand what is craving by reading or finding the examples of craving.If you give examples of craving then you will find that craving can not be defined without mentioning self or I. For example I want ice cream , I am good , I am bad, I am good because of this, I am bad because of this, I love music, I want to watch movies, I want to travel etc...

Therefore it seems to me that non-understanding of anatta is at the root of craving. In other words if I declare the aggregates as worthless then then there will be revulsion and dispassion which is nothing but the end of craving. Further I can say that practice of anatta directly leads to cessation of craving.

I have two questions in this regard:

Can we define craving without mentioning self?
Is it true that practice of anatta directly leads to cessation of craving?

An example is there in the paticca-samuppada itself.

  Vedana Paccaya Tanha

Feeling gives rise to craving.
So in reality there's no "I like icecream".

It should be

liking arises due to taste
liking arises due to sight
liking arises due to sound etc.

There's no practicing Anatta. You practice mindfulness and the Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta natures are revealed. Practicing the noble eightfold path leads to the cutting off of craving and cessation of suffering. Mindfulness is a part of the noble eightfold path.


What does 'corrupted' (world or society) mean? Several people (several questions and answers) in this topic use the word "corrupted", especially applied to "the world" and "society".

What does the word "corrupted" mean?
Does it have a standard meaning in Buddhism, or is it idiosyncratic?
Is it an objective (observable, shareable) property (of the world), or a subjective (personal) feeling?
Do all schools (or yanas) define it the same way?
Is it mentioned in any suttas?
Is it related to the idea that the Buddha's Dharma may (or will be, has been) lost, misinterpreted, over time? Or is it a different perception, applied to "society" rather than "dharma"?
Why would someone say that the world or society is becoming more corrupt? Compared to when and where, or what? Do schools (and/or teachers) differ in their view of whether the world is "progressing", i.e. whether it's improving or regressing?

I'd say it's idiosyncratic.  Each school has a somewhat different take on it.  In Zen, we often refer to corruption as "red dust".  Han Shan, for instance, refers to it often:

  I was born just thirty years ago,
  but I’ve wandered a million miles already.
  Along the River through the green grass on the
  banks, out to the borderlands, where the red dust roils.

I think the footnote in my copy of his poetry does an excellent job of explaining this idea:

  "The word we usually translate as “dust,” or “the red dust,” is a
  conventional epithet for the klesas, or “defilements,” of life in the
  everyday world, everything from simple dirt, to the deep moral
  defilements we accept in the compromises and little hypocrisies of
  everyday lay living."

From Cold Mountain Poems translated by J.P Seaton


Special types of Kamma Vipaka According to Buddhism the same good or bad deed has different results depending on who you are and the person being affected by your action, a few examples:
Giving food to a Buddha x Giving food to an ordinary person.
Lying and cheating if you are a monk x if you are a lay person.
Killing your parents x Killing ordinary people.

Ok, it does make sense, but the question is: Is there a simple logic behind it? Depending on the impact in the world per haps?! And what kind of force understands that you are doing the good/bad deed against a different (not ordinary) being?

The karma is a product of

The mind of the person doing the action
The mind of the person subjected to the action

If the person who is subjected to the result of the action has a pure mind then the results are applied may it be good or bad.

If I give to a Buddha (very pure mind) with great piety the results would be great. If I do the same for a animal the results will not be that great since the results are not "amplified" due to a lower state of mind the animal has.

The Buddha has made great sacrifice to create the Sasana. So if we do something in line with the Buddha's will and intentions then the results would very much greater than any other action. Similarly if we go against it.


Where do thoughts arise? I have been reading books on Buddhism, Zen, meditation. All mention observing one's thoughts and let it pass. My question is where does thought arise from and do thoughts create karma by just thinking about them?

Thanks

Thoughts are created by the mind's natural activity. It's what the mind does. It's like a muscle or hair follicle. What matters is our attachment to that thought. Karma is simply energy and attachment and by attaching ourselves to the thoughts of a temporary vehicle (our body and mind), we are destined for suffering.

If you're a fellow geek, you may get a lot out of the research from Dr. Fred Travis. He studies the brain and has done a lot of research on meditation and brain activity. He basically shows that meditation helps us rise past lower states of consciousnesses by disconnecting that "word = object" mentality. See Youtube, Brain Plasticity and Transcendental Meditation with Dr Fred Travis.

Letting go of karma is thus attaining a higher form of humanity.


Danger of Body Scan Meditation Once, one of my teachers, a Buddhist practitioner, advised against body scan meditation saying that it can cause psychosis and the surfacing of problematic contents. I have subscribed to this advice so far.

Is this really true? What are the dangers associated with body scan meditation?

Your teacher maybe refering to the insight that can occur during meditation but I'd like to widen this to include any Buddhist meditation methods or variations thereof. Also, the unearthing of deep-seated unconscious material can produce unpleasant mind and behaviour altering states.

The Buddha's teachings can be quite potent for some and respect must be given to the process of unfolding insight.

There is a sutta that describes the power contained in the teachings and it's probably the most extreme example. (Vesali Sutta, SN 54.9.) The Buddha had given the monks a practice before going away for two weeks. When he came back some of the monks had taken a knife to themselves and ended their lives. They had fallen into the extremes of the disgust of their own bodies.

It's wise therefore to have a healthy mind and body so that one can hold the fascinating experiences and insights that may arise.


What do we do when we've broken a precept? How should we proceed in our practice when we have broken some of the five precepts? I am anguished over this unwholesome behavior and the negative karma I created. Ajahn Brahm talks about self-forgiveness and the Buddha in the Sankha Sutta (the Conch Trumpet Sutta) talks about waking up from unwholesome behavior by refraining from such actions in the future. And of course, there is the story of Angulimala, so there are some examples in the teachings of people waking from patterns of negative karma-making. I suppose the only way to proceed is to maintain the precepts, deepen my practice and strive to create wholesome karma?

Don't regret or repent! That is bad Karma. What you need to practice is Samma Vayama(The right effort) of the noble eightfold path.

The effort

(1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states;

(2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;

(3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen;

(4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

Take the triple refuge and the five precepts every morning to remind yourself. Then at night, before going to sleep, reflect on the day's activities and see if you broke any precepts or if you can improve with Samma Vayama and try to do better next day.


How does teaching of Buddhism deal with waste? How does teaching of Buddhism deal with acceptance even it causes unhappiness? I'm curious to know and understand more how would a Buddhist deal with wastage under the following circumstances :

i)If it was an impulsive buy and you don't like the item after that and at the same time don't wanna keep it as it may took up the space available. Or would you rather just use it but you are obviously unhappy using it.

ii)If it was something edible, e.g. you thought of trying out new food but realize later it doesn't suit your tastebud or worse, you find it hard to finish it.

iii)Someone got you a gift but you may not like it or it's not something you want, would you keep it? By keeping it and not using it is equivalent to wastage or would you rather use it but deep down you wont't feel happy using it cos it's not something you want. The struggle or rather dilemma is you may just use it cos you don't wanna disappoint the person who gave you the gift but on the other hand, how do you even find peace and happiness doing something you may not like.

I'm constantly at the crossroad of learning to be grateful for what i have for many of them out there may not be able to have what i have. But i can't find peace or even happiness if it causes great deal of pain for accepting something which i don't like or it's not something i wanted.
I'm assuming Buddhism does not teach us to accept blindly even you can't. How do you even live a life like that?
Feel free to share your thoughts.
Thanks & sadhu sadhu sadhu...

If you don't want or don't need something that you have, donate it or give it away to others who need it, instead of throwing it away.

Donating to monks or virtuous people is better than donating to unvirtuous people. But any kind of donation, even to animals, is a source of merit.

From AN 3.57:

  "I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person.

Wastage of things and wealth in Buddhism is not about throwing things away. Rather it's about not using things and wealth for the benefit of oneself and/or others.

From SN 3.19:

  "That's the way it is, great king. That's the way it is. When a person
  of no integrity acquires lavish wealth, he doesn't provide for his own
  pleasure & satisfaction, nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his
  parents, nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his wife & children;
  nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his slaves, servants, &
  assistants; nor for the pleasure & satisfaction of his friends. He
  doesn't institute for brahmans & contemplatives offerings of supreme
  aim, heavenly, resulting in happiness, leading to heaven. When his
  wealth isn't properly put to use, kings make off with it, or thieves
  make off with it, or fire burns it, or water sweeps it away, or
  hateful heirs make off with it. Thus his wealth, not properly put to
  use, goes to waste and not to any good use.

  "But when a person of integrity acquires lavish wealth, he provides
  for his own pleasure & satisfaction, for the pleasure & satisfaction
  of his parents, the pleasure & satisfaction of his wife & children;
  the pleasure & satisfaction of his slaves, servants, & assistants; and
  the pleasure & satisfaction of his friends. He institutes for brahmans
  & contemplatives offerings of supreme aim, heavenly, resulting in
  happiness, leading to heaven. When his wealth is properly put to use,
  kings don't make off with it, thieves don't make off with it, fire
  doesn't burn it, water doesn't sweep it away, and hateful heirs don't
  make off with it. Thus his wealth, properly put to use, goes to a good
  use and not to waste.


Did the Buddha say anything about attachment to meditation? I was unable to meditate today and this left me feeling frustrated, disappointed and anxious about my practice. This type of emotional reaction seems equivalent to what occurs when one is prevented from gratifying one's sensual desires. So, I am concerned about a potential addiction to meditation practice. Did the Buddha have anything to say about this? If not, any advice from others? Thanks.

One of the branch Bodhisattva vows is this :

 Regarding the taste of bliss from gaining mental stability as its main advantage

  Normally, we tie up a great deal of our energies in nervousness,
  worry, indecision, thoughts of longing or resentment, and so on, or
  weigh them down with dullness and sleepiness. As we concentrate and
  absorb our minds ever deeper, we release ever greater amounts of this
  energy. We experience this as a feeling of physical and mental bliss.
  The stronger that bliss, the further it draws us into absorption. For
  this reason, in anuttarayoga tantra, we generate and use even more
  intense blissful states of mind than those gained merely from perfect
  concentration, in order to reach subtlest clear light mental activity
  and absorb it in the understanding of voidness. If we become attached
  to the taste of bliss we gain at any stage of developing mental
  stability, whether or not in conjunction with tantra practice, and we
  regard enjoying the pleasure we gain from that bliss as the main goal
  of our practice, we seriously hinder our development of far-reaching
  stability of mind.

While this was not exactly your problem the two are similar.

Another advice I've received from a past teacher is to rotate my meditation types. Do each for about a month, and then rotate to the next one.
Sometimes practice goes well, sometimes it does not.
When it does not, watch your mind even in its reaction to the practice.

Do not cling to any expected result, just accept what is...
Even though it is not a buddhist text I'll quote the Bhagavad Gita here as it is relavent.

  It is not those who lack energy or refrain from action, but those who work without expectation of reward who attain the goal of meditation.

I unfortunately do not have any direct quotes from the Buddha in my mind on this subject.


What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'? This page of Dhamma Lists includes,

  Four Brahma-viharas (Highest Attitudes/Emotions)

  Heavenly or sublime abodes (best home). Near enemy is a quality that can masquerade as the original, but is not the original. Far enemy is the opposite quality.

  Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment; far enemy – hatred
  Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty
  Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of others: Near enemy – comparison,hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy – envy
  Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed

Given that "pity is the near enemy of compassion", then what is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity' (e.g. what is present in compassion but absent in pity, or vice versa)? Does knowledge/awareness of that difference somehow inform your intentions and/or actions?

This answer is based on my own understanding of compassion and pity.

Compassion is an honest and true way of wanting to help another being. One sees and understands this beings situation and wants to help. In this type of help there is no attachment involved. This way of helping is pure.

Pity is different. In pity there is an element of attachment present. One might even feel guilty or obliged to help. One helps because one wants to ease the bad conscience that has arisen.

So compassion is a pure and genuine wanting to help while pity is wanting to help based on attachment in order to ease ones own guilty conscience.

If i can make a comparison then compassion is like having a real rose and taking care of it because of its gentle nature. Pity is like having a plastic rose that one does not need to give any special care.

I stumbled upon a video by Ven. Yuttadhammo that you might find useful. It's called "Ask A Monk: Compassion vs. Pity".

A little summary of it is as follows:

The question was, "It's easy to feel compassion for someone who's worse off than I am; but how can I feel compassion for someone who's better off, who I don't pity?"
The answer started by saying that the brahma viharas are meditations in their own right which you can practice if you feel yourself lacking in them; but that according to the tradition which he follows they are not considered to be crucial or essential because the more important thing is wisdom: if you have wisdom then you'll naturally be compassionate.
Compassion manifests as "non cruelty"
When someone else does evil things then you feel compassion because you know they're suffering or are going to suffer
Compassion has no bearing on whether someone people is badly off or someone is well off: it's a state of non-cruelty, it's a state of wishing to help people who are in suffering and not wishing to hurt people; it's a state that's in harmony, that's free from the evil where we do hurt other people and try to get the better of them.


Why are beings born? Does anyone have an explanation as to how Buddha explains the reasons as to why are beings born? What is the reason for birth?

There is no reason why "beings(sattānaṃ)" are born, there is causal for for it.  and causal for birth (jati) is Existence (bhava).  This is from dependent  origination or Transcendental Dependent Arising (pali - Pratītyasamutpāda).

Please make sure you understand the word "being" as per Buddha.  beings or sattānaṃ is a difficult term to understand.  ("being" is not the same as permanent soul).

recommendation for further study

Satta Sutta
Dependent origination


What is the Avatamsaka Sutra about? I'm not really expecting a short summary, but I'd be happy to get one. This is a 1600 page sutra in English (and cost over $100 on Amazon). It gets reference a lot in the Brahma Net Sutra and Huayan Buddhism.

Given that, what is the best way to dig into this... is there a Cliff Notes version?

And what is the Avatamsaka Sutra prescribing its readers to do?

During the beginning of the 4th century CE, Buddhist scholars began composing a new series of Sūtras with the purpose of synthesizing and organizing concepts from earlier Mahāyāna Sūtras, a task which the authors viewed as the third turning of the wheel of Dharma.  Three Sūtras from this period left a major impact on the intellectual endeavor of Mahāyāna monastics: the Avatamsaka Sūtra, the Lankāvatāra Sūtra, and the Sandhinirmocana Sūtra.  The underline theme found in these three Sūtras, including the Avatamsaka Sūtra is the experience of the universe formed by consciousness detailed within epic narratives.1

The Avatamsaka Sūtra is also know for expounding the  teaching about the ever-abiding Buddha-nature that constitutes ultimate reality.2  However, some scholars believe the Avatamska Sūtra was composed earlier between 200 BC and 200 CE and played a major formative role in the development of  Buddhist thought.3   Nonetheless the Sūtra played an important role in the formation of Mahāyāna Buddhist teachings, which cannot be down played.

  "The Avatamsaka Sūtra or Flower Garland Sūtra was translated into
  Chinese by Buddhabhadra between 408 and 410 CE.  It gives a very
  detailed account of Shakyamuni/Vairochana’s quest for enlightenment,
  and offers the view that existence is the combination of individual
  identity and interdependence, a crucial theme in the development of
  Indian Buddhist thought.  The Avatamsaka Sūtra became influential in
  the late sixth and seventh centuries through the works of monks such
  as Fashun (557-649 CE) and Zhiyen (602-668 CE), and later was the
  central text of the semi-esoteric Huayen order in China, which is
  known as Kegon in Japan.”4

The mandala principle found in the Avatamasak Sūtra, “conveys the most extraordinary visions that engage the audience in creating a setting and developing a receptivity that makes it possible for them to receive the Universal Vehicle teaching of the profound freedom and magnificent destiny of all living beings.” 5

  An example of this found in the Avatamsaka Sūtra,  "the Buddha is
  surrounded by an enormous host of visitors, many from other universes,
  who sit in flower towers thousands of miles high, flown at more than
  warp speed across the reaches of space from worlds beyond as many
  worlds as there are grains of sand in sixty-two Ganges riverbeds.  The
  towers are arranged in the cardinal directions, intermediate quarters,
  and at the zenith and nadir in a classical mandala formation.  During
  the teaching, Shakyamuni Buddha now and then transforms himself into
  the sapphire-blue Vairochana, radiating magic light rays from his
  forehead that temporarily bestow on each member of the audience the
  intensely accelerated vision of all their past life experiences and
  all their future life attainments, up to and including attainment of
  perfect buddhahood in a future universe and performance of buddha
  deeds for the sake of all beings.  At the end of the teaching, the
  Bodhisattva Maitreya introduces the hero of the tale, the
  pilgrim-seeker Sudhana, a banker’s son, into the magical tower of
  Vairochana.  There Sudhana beholds the entire evolutionary history of
  Maitreya from a self-centered, unenlightened being to a functioning
  buddha.

  At the same time, the panorama unfolds in infinite resonant variations
  in every atom of the universe, each containing infinite
  micro-universes, which contain infinite worlds where infinite living
  Sudhanas enter infinite Vairochana towers and behold infinite
  evolutionary panoramas of infinite living Maitreyas.”6

The Avatamasak Sūtra utilizes a narrative mandala principle for the reader, in which Buddha transports his audience into a new dimension of consciousness exploring the potentialities of their possible destiny.

The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction page 91
The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction page 182
Manadala The Architecture of Enlightenment page 32
Manadala The Architecture of Enlightenment page 23
Manadala The Architecture of Enlightenment page 135
Manadala The Architecture of Enlightenment page 135


Looking for a canonical reference: everyone who attains jhana will be a god of that realm in the next life Looking for a canonical reference: that everyone who attains jhana will be a god of that realm in the next life.
I'm fairly sure I've seen that claimed in scholarship, either Buddhist or otherwise.

The question is about common interpretations of AN 4.123.


What does Buddhism teach about the start and end of world? I always wonder how all this started... How did we arrive here? What are we doing in this place?

So are there teachings in Buddhism that are clear on this point?

How did the world start? and How is it gonna end?

Here is one teaching the Buddha gave on the start of the world:

  Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I
  will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world.
  Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

  "As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

  The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world?
  Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The
  meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition
  comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
  From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the
  world.

And in the same teaching the Buddha gave the explanation for the end of the world:

  "And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms
  there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact.
  From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
  requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless
  cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of
  clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes
  the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the
  cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the
  cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the
  ending of the world.

To understand this I think takes familiarization with the Dharma and specifically the teachings on the Four Noble Truths and dependent origination.


High doubt on Buddhist teaching I hope you can clarify my doubts:

If one is skeptical concerning enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously only those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practice Buddhism? The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?
I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?
Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise?
If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightenment
Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?
What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for enlightenment is then pointless.
Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.

Good honest question, love it. Let me give you an honest answer.

  If one is skeptical concerning Enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?

Enlightenment is attained by a lot more people than you realize. It's just not advertised for reasons of political correctness and compassion. It's like telling kids there is no Santa Claus - kinda pointless and only hurts the kids.

  The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

This is not how it works. You don't literally "escape impermanence", instead your perception of reality changes in such a way when impermanence no longer matters. Enlightenment is not becoming a Superman. It's more like getting able to see the true nature of "The Matrix". Again, this is not a literal change in how you see stuff, it is a fundamental change of one's mental framework and therefore of one's interpretation.

  2 I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we can't cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized Nirvana/Awakening and the chances are high that they won't. So why then believe in Nirvana and Enlightenment?

This seems to be a misunderstanding of the attitude of detachment/revulsion, promoted by Theravada and the lower yanas of Mahayana for the sake of motivating beginners. Accepting Impermanence is not all there is to [Mahayana] Buddhism, far from it. It's more about seeing how things truly work and learning to work with them.

  Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale meant to trick people who live poorly to keep quiet in the tough times through fear of getting bad karma otherwise?

There is an element of fairy tale in Buddhism, and there is a real element. And the real element is pretty damn real and mindblowing.

  If Enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightened.

It's much more than that, both in the sense of intellectual realization, and in terms of actual personal mastery in real life.

  Why does it take so long to become Enlightened if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?

It takes a long time because we have some deeply lying conceptual mistakes about reality, due to which we have accumulated much emotional baggage rooted in those conceptual mistakes, and on top of that we tend to actively fight it when anyone tries to show us our mistakes and delusions. We have all these explanations and rationalizations that we cling to, and they are connected with events in our personal lives, providing support and sustenance to delusion. It's like a tangle of hair made from wrong concepts, emotions, and karma - very difficult to untangle.

  What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for Enlightenment is then pointless.

Rebirth of individuals does not exist. There is rebirth of information. Because future lives are made from information left by the past lives, Enlightenment is not pointless.

  Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.

That is true. Most people are unfortunately pretty closed-minded - not because of a fault of their own or inherent weakness, but (quite counter-intuitively!) out of their best intents. People try to make sense of it all using their logic and common sense, and filter out all nonsense. But because it is so tangled up, it is not always obvious what is nonsense and what is real. Deferring to authority is infinitely easier than trying to make sense of it all by oneself.

Unfortunately this entire Buddhism thing is a mess. It has this extraordinarily valid and useful stuff in its core, lots of confusion around that, and even more fairy tale stuff on the outside. I was very confused by it for decades and suffered a great deal. Now that I got it, the purpose of my life is to help people avoid wandering in the jungle as I did, and go straight to the well. Sometimes when doing this I wonder if by my efforts I only contribute to the jungle, as did my predecessors before me. But alas, I do what I can :))))

Let us know if we can help you here and please don't hesitate to start asking specific questions about Buddhist concepts and their application to real life.


Is it ok to watch a media that promote homosexuality? this is my first post
I have researched what the buddhist sutra says about Homosexuality...I found Saddhama Smrty Uposttana sutra and Upasakasila sutra that said homosexuality is sexual misconduct and in the first sutra it even mention hell
https://youtu.be/g7aikfMui2M
So my question..I am not a homosexual but I am a hardcore fan of Kpop(korean music pop) since 7 years, and there is a lots of promotion and depiction of Homosexuality in concert, reality programs that are about the boy bands groups, that even fans create something called fan fiction and a lots of time it talks about sex and even rape among the boy bands..I dont read fanfiction because it's bad.. but I watch a boyband and they also do some homosexual acts..I have been turning blind eye but I was concerned what buddhism think about that..even there is a lots of fans who watch bl series(boy love aka homosexual story) such fans called Fujoshi( which is japanese words means spoiled girls, which they like to watch boy acts on boys) and I am also realized that I am also a fujoshi and I cant help was drown to watch such series( I didnt but felt like craving to watch it) and it's very popular in Buddhist countries..so I thought more buddhists should discuss this thing and its influence among the teenagers because the vast majority of fans are but I am adult..any way
Should buddhist refrain from watching such media?
I also wanted to know what Buddha think of celebrities and i know that in Talaputta sutta buddha said actors would go to hell( I am not sure if that also include singers) I am usually watch music videos and some shows by boy band i dont watch movies or series..but it appear like the buddha also think the one who watch entertainment is not good
Any way...sorry for being long..i just need guidance regarding that..i am also follower of mahayana pureland buddhism but even pali sutta, i will still look to it
Thanks

Buddhism deals with suffering and how to become permanently free from it.
Superficial and conceptual things like sexuality are useless in that regard, hence the focus merely on ultimate reality.


Vibrations while reading Sometimes, when reading some Buddhist sutras, it happens that I feel strong vibrating sensations all over the body. On such occasions I 'know' that the best I can do is stopping the reading and practice vipassana. I wonder if this is 'normal'.

That's cool you pointed that out.
The Buddha and many masters of course would say that you are practicing learning-yoga where through absorbing the expressions of anyone with cultivaton attainment, you too come closer to what they experienced. Some masters even got enlightened when they heard a particular thing from a master and it caused them to look directly at "Who is the one listening?" and they found out their True Self.

Whenever I noticed this sensation in my body (very frequently) I actually get the same thought... that vipassana is the direct road... that vipassana is great and awesome and the meta-physical life is so simple, just pure awareness, and I am grateful that it is so.
I also feel my body vibrating, especially my legs sometimes my body.

I tell myself I should get to practice but due to the ideas and good feeling I oftentimes keep reading until my time is up waiting till my scheduled time to practice.. :-/

I am convinced that this is the energy channels opening and that instead of sitting like a dead duck when such an opportune moment comes, one should meditate for 10 or 20 minutes because Master Nan, one of my late teachers, himself said that we cannot attain samadhi at any time we choose, there are certain opportune moments that we should seize!

I should definitely stop myself and practice what I learn much much more like you have thought, I think that is the wise choice of action reccommended by my teachers, especially William Bodri who states that you have to mix up theory with practice, either one alone will get you nowhere.


How to deal with pride and vanity from a Buddhist perspective? In my interactions with other people I am sometimes very full of my self, proud and vanitous and it leaves me with a bad taste afterwards or it even stops me from taking action in a direction I would desire.

Do you know any examples in the Suttas where these conditions of the mind are treated?

I am thinking about the perception of a skeleton as a helpful aid in this matter but maybe there are others.

If you are doing things the correct way in your practise in listening to Dhamma, in participating in Dhamma discussions, in doing Samatha and Vipassana properly, dispassionateness with understanding should develop within you. At times this happens. But if this is not the case - if dispassionateness with understanding does not take place, it is the vanity and pride that surfaces. That’s what happens when doing something which appears as correct thinking or correct action. If vanity and pride arises in you, then you will have to take a step back and go through a process of introspection.

If vanity and pride is what gets developed in placing oneself above others and looking down on others arise in a person, it is due to his not doing things the proper way. That would not happen if you follow this Path with a sense of humility. To deal with this defilement from a Buddhist Perspective, one has to practice five factors that is found in the scriptures. Then you will invariably develop the required antidote in dispassionateness.

In the Asavakkhaya Sutta, the Buddha explains,

  “Oh Bhikkhus. There are five activities which if practised, if practised extensively results in the wiping out of defilements”.

These five activities are the same as explained in the Nibbida Sutta. They are Asubha Sanna (perceiving the impurity of the body), Ahare Patikkula Sanna (perceiving the impurity of material food), Sabba Loke Anabhirata Sanna (not taking delight in worlds), Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Sanna (impermanence of all aggregates), of Marana Sati (to be mindful of death).


Why does the Buddha always answer a question if asked three times? I've read in many places in the Pali canon that the Buddha will answer a question if asked three times even if the Buddha is extremely reluctant to give the answer. For instance in the Talaputa Sutta the Buddha is asked by Talaputa ,the leader of a troupe of actors, about what will happen to actors when they are reborn. The Buddha clearly doesn't want to say (it's not good news) but Talaputa really pushes it and asks him three times

  "Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."

  A second time... A third time Talaputa, the head of an acting troupe,
  said: "Lord, I have heard that [...]  What does the Blessed One have
  to say about that?"

The Buddha gives in and delivers the bad news.

But what is the origin of this questioning technique? Why does he always give an answer if pushed like that? Was it a traditional thing in Indian society at that time or was it just a thing with the Buddha? I've only read this in the Pali canon. Does it crop up in other texts and traditions too?

It's fairly clear that three times was a social convention for crossing some sort of line; either that or just a convention of the Buddha. See also DN 3:

‘Reverend Gotama, there are four castes: the Khattiyas, the Brahmins, the merchants and the artisans. And of these four castes three — the Khattiyas, the merchants and the artisans — are entirely subservient to the Brahmins. With regard to this, it is not proper that they should not pay homage to the Brahmins.’ This was the third time Ambattha accused the Sakyans of being menials.
Then the Lord thought: ‘This young man goes too far in abusing the Sakyans."

and

Again Ambattha remained silent, and the Lord said: ‘Answer me now, Ambattha, this is not a time for silence. Whoever, Ambattha, does not answer a fundamental question put to him by a Tathāgata by the third asking has his head split into seven pieces.’

Walshe, the translator of the above, gives as a note for the second passage, "A curious threat that (as RD observes) never comes to anything, and is of course pre-Buddhist."
Not sure if the "third time" is also pre-Buddhist, but again, it appears to be some sort of line in the sand for the Buddha at least.


Meditating with chronic illness I'm an American living in Bangkok. I have Parkinson's disease and have recently (last week) developed restless leg syndrome. It's now 4:30 AM & I can't sleep - because of the discomfort in my legs. I haven't had a good night's sleep in a long time. I'm trying different therapies for the legs but nothing seems to work so far.

Although I have an Angel looking after me, she doesn't really know what I'm going through - and I'm trying to keep a positive outlook, which is getting harder with this sleep depravation!

I'm feeling afraid and alone. I've been attracted to Buddhism for a long time and have meditated off & on for quite a while. When I try to meditate, I'm just too uncomfortable to do so, even while lying down.

Has anyone been in a similar situation?  Any advice?

Giri-m-Ananda Sutta has details of how to overcome illness. At a superficial level you can start as following and go deeper as in the Sutta. Also there is a book Meditation on Perception: Ten Healing Practices to Cultivate Mindfulness by Bhante Henepola Gunaratana which might be of interest.

Contemplation of impermanence - When you experience any discomfort look at this as "this will also pass". Even in a terminal illness
Contemplation of anatta (absence of a permanent self or soul) - detach your self from the pain
Contemplation of foulness (asubha) - look at your body part by part from head to foot and foot to head
Contemplation of disadvantage (danger) - everyone is prone to illness
Contemplation of abandonment - contemplate on non evil thoughts
Contemplation of detachment - benefits of being without attachments
Contemplation of cessation - destruction from craving and relief from creating fabrications
Contemplation of distaste for the whole world - abandoning latent tendencies.
Contemplation of impermanence of all component things - develop revulsion
Mindfulness of in-breathing and out-breathing - see Anapana Sati

With regard to sleep deprivation try Metta Bhavana. One benefit of this is you sleep easy.

Also remember pain is not pain unless you make it your pain. There is the physical sensation feeling and the mental cognising that this is my pain. The latter is bigger than the physical pain hence try look at the pain as mere pain. See: Vedenaupassana in Satipatthanas. You may also try taking a course at: http://dhamma.org/


The desire of no desire I have been thinking on the notion of desiring to have no desire. The idea of striving to not grasp, therefore grasping onto the idea in the first place and rendering it a contradiction and inevitably a failure(?). Is this simply the Great Paradox of Buddhism? Of life? Is it better to act through impartial/passive acceptance of things, and does this come from longterm, present and active striving to 'abolish' desire, or from gradual, passive acceptance of the self to be translated into a lack of desire? Or do the two intermingle?

Also, do these different courses of action depend on the specific sect of Buddhism?

This may be way too simple, or way too complicated.

I'm sorry if I'm not translating my thoughts too well.

This question was also asked 2500 years ago:
Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

"Master Ananda, what is the aim of this holy life lived under Gotama the contemplative?"
"Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."
"Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"
"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire."
"What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"
"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"
"You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one. Magnificent, Master Ananda! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Ananda — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Ananda remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge, from this day forward, for life."


Rebirth, transfer of memories, what is it? I have a person in my own family who's aware of his past-birth. He knew it by age 7 only. When family started investigation 'they found it all true. How he has died in his last birth, how much of children he had, what work he was doing when he died and etc. I want to know what the buddha said about rebirth and transfer of memories to a new born? Moreover I wish to get more examples.

As for conciseness it arises and passes. At death it passes in one body and arise in another. This process don't end at death or with brain damage or death. As this instance passes away the next state arises with persistent sense impressions.

Sense impressions are tied to the mental body while conceptual impressions are tied to the physical body. So if you get brain damaged you cannot think and perhaps learn new concepts but past impressions stay, [Mahā,nidāna Sutta] these sense impressions do persist beyond death as part of the Bhavanga Citta. Recallability depends on the level of hindrances. [(Nīvarana) Sangarava Sutta] The mental impressions that remain are part of the mind (Nama) which does not die at death but passes away in one body and arise in another. For further understanding perhaps you can study the Buddhist rebirth process.

Jhana meditators can recall past lives since sense impressions have persisted. 5 Hindrances is one case of we cannot remember and as meditation overcomes this you can remember better. [(Nīvarana) Sangarava Sutta]

Also see: How can the idea of reincarnation be true if all the information of who we are is already destroyed


What are the aggregates made up of? Namo Buddhaya.

In this vast ocean of knowledge I haven't gained much knowledge. There are five aggregates, namely form,feeling,perception,volitional formations and consciousness.If I am not wrong, the aggregates are called aggregates because they are the sum total of many heterogenous things taken together.

I am asking a very basic question here: What are these aggregates made up of?

Rupa(form):

Patavi (earth element or hardness/softness)
Apo (water element or cohesion)
Tejo (fire element or heat/cold)
Vayo (air element or motion)
24 secondary elelments

Vedana(feeling)

bodily agreeable feeling
bodily painful feeling
mentally agreeable feeling
mentally painful feeling
indifferent feeling

Sanna(perception)

perception of form
perception of sound,
perception of odour,
perception of taste,
perception of bodily impression,
perception of mental impression

Sankhara(Mental Formations)

11 are general psychological elements,
25 lofty (sobhana) qualities,
14 karmically unwholesome qualities.

Vinnana(Consciousness)

eye consciousness
ear consciousness
nose consciousness
tongue consciousness
body consciousness
mind consciousness

Read more here


Feeling versus Analysis in Compassion Meditation I believe I have read within the Dalai Lama's works that there exists (at least) two kinds of compassion meditation:

Generating the four abodes within oneself, in a more concentrative and affective way (metta bhavana).
Analyzing compassion through logical discernment, having compassion as meditative object.

I noticed my capacity to be compassionate with analysis seems very limited. The Dalai Lama suggests to focus on feeling after using reasons to generate compassion.

Is it possible that my mind functions more with feeling, and that analysis doesn't generate as much compassion in myself? What is the best course of action to generate compassion?

The more you contemplate on the Noble Truth of Suffering (dukka) and understand the suffering in each plane, the better you will be able to spread loving kindness. Because when you say "May all beings in the Eastern direction be free from Suffering" and so on, if you have seen and contemplated on suffering in each of those worlds (hell, animal, peta, asura, human, all deva worlds & all brahma worlds) you truly feel compassion towards all living beings. The more you practice, it is as if you could replace each of those beings or worlds with the word "dukka" and you start to see without differentiating that everyone who is born is suffering. (And your mind will be fixed on Nibbana as well).

Also, when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions. (metta sutta, vattupama sutta, mettakatha in patisambhidamagga, etc).

A good discourse to learn that will help practice loving kindness is the metta-sutta (in Suttanipata). Try this Metta Sutta Meditation You will learn in great detail how to practice loving kindness, all the way up to Nibbana.

With Metta


What are the Buddhist guidelines for choosing the true Dhamma? With many traditions and teachers to choose from, how should one go about figuring out what is the true Dhamma?
I prefer answers based on Buddhist scriptute and references to Sutta, ideally to the Buddha himself.
I welcome answers from all traditions just not opinion based.

With many traditions and teachers to choose from, how should one figure out what is the true Dhamma?

From AN 8.53

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"


If someone purposefully obsessed over a certain animal how much might it impact their chances of rebirth as that animal? And im looking for a buddhist perspective mainly, preferrably the views of various traditions.

But yeah, if i (for example) wanted to be reborn as a bird, would obsessing over and even acting birdlike, practicing a birdlike mentality, living on seed (grain)... even dying with bird thiughts in full swing... stuff like that, would the attachment and desire cause my mind to reform into a bird?

(Sidenote- i do not want to be reborn as a bird. It is a valid point i am trying to understand in a round about way).

I think Buddha has answered this question perfectly. You can find the full answer here. Two people went and asked the same question from Buddha. One of them was practicing like a dog and the other one was practicing like an ox. Here's the answer to the one who was practicing the dog duty by the blessed one.

  .. someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him to hell.

So I think it's not difficult to deduce what happens to the person who tries to act like a bird.


Does the saṅkhatalakkhaṇa of dukkha apply to the noble path? Dukkha is usually clarified as an intrinsic characteristic of everything conditioned and to be as such a direct derivative of the characteristic of impermanence.
Does this also apply to the noble path(s)?
There is a discussion about that in the kathāvatthu (17.5), but that could not clarify it (at least for me).

Best wishes.

(I'm also bearing in mind, that the paths are classified as being anāsava. Would that imply that an anāsava-dhamma is not impermanent, suffering, not-self?)

P.S. In the cūḷavedallasutta, MN 44, it is stated explicitly that the noble eightfold path is conditioned:

  [...] “Ariyo panāyye, aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo saṅkhato udāhu asaṅkhato”ti?

  “Ariyo kho, āvuso visākha, aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo saṅkhato”ti. [...]

  [...] “But is the eightfold Noble Path, Noble Lady, conditioned or
  unconditioned?” “The eightfold Noble Path, friend Visākha, is
  conditioned.” [...]

Theravada recognizes only nibbāna as unconditioned -- thus, not dukkha.

Other schools have disagreed on what is unconditioned:

  In the Sarvāstivādin tradition since the compilation of the Dharmaskhanda, three unconditioned dharmas have been recognized: analytical cessation (pratisankhayā-nirodha), nonanalytical cessation (apratisankhayā-nirodha) and space (ākāśa). In the Theravada tradition, only one unconditioned dharma, nirvana, is recognized (Dhammasanghani p.244), a position also maintained in the Agamas and by the Vātsīputrīya school. According to the Samaya, the Mahāsanghika, Ekavyavahārika, Lokottaravādin, and Kaukutica schools all recognized the following nine unconditioned dharmas: (1) analytical cessation (2) nonanalytical cessation (3) space (4) the realm of infinity of space (5) the realm of infinity of consciousness (6) the realm of nothingness (7) the realm of neither consciousness nor unconsciousness (8) the law of dependent origination (9) the law of the noble path [...]. The Mahīsāsaka school also recognized nine unconditioned dharmas; but its list differed somewhat from that of the Mahāsanghika school and included such items as immovability, the eternal law of good dharma, the eternal law of bad dharma, the eternal law of indeterminate dharma, the eternal law of the path, and the eternal law of Dependent Origination. The law of Dependent Origination was included in the list of unconditioned dharmas because it was regarded as an unchanging principle. The Sarvāstivādins disagreed with this position and did not recognize the existence of a principle of Dependend Origination separate from conditioned dharmas. For the Sarvāstivādins, the law of Dependend Origination itself was conditioned.

  For the Mahaśiśākas, the path to nirvana was recognized as an unconditioned dharma because the practices established by the Buddha were considered to be eternal truths. The Sarvāstivādins opposed this position by maintaining that although nirvana was unconditioned, the wisdom the Buddha had realized was conditioned and not eternal.

  -- A history of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana


Is it possible to destroy the rupa heavens? This may sound like an unusual question, but - is it possible in theory to destroy the rupa heavens - not by avoiding rebirth there, but for other sentient beings?

Not the tusita heaven - which I understand (correctly or not ha) is part of kamadhatu and strictly one of the jhanas :)

Thanks !

There should be an observer experience any plane of existence. Once the observer is no more, in a relative sense they cease to exist.

All these are experienced through consciousness. When consciousness cease to exist so does all the places of existence.


Are chakra's used in Buddhism? I think that in the hindoestic yogi there are using chakra's very common. But are they also used in buddhism? If not, why not? Or what is similar to chakra's in buddhism?

But are they also used in buddhism?

There are some references to chakra in certain types of Buddhism. E.g. see Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings?

  Or what is similar to chakra's in buddhism?

In Theravada Buddhism the closest is the places to fix attention or resting places of attention. See my answer to: Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings?


the five precepts and marijuana - does marijuana count as an intoxicant? The fifth of the precepts is "I undertake the training to refrain from intoxicants."
does smoking marijuana count as an intoxicant ?

Yes. Marijuana is an intoxicating substance.
From AccessToInsight.org's The Five Precepts: pañca-sila:

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs
which lead to carelessness.

It comes from the suttas e.g. AN 8.39.
The reason for abstaining from alcohol, drugs and any other intoxicating substances is explained below. It's because intoxicating substances cause heedlessness and moral recklessness, and results in one breaking the other four precepts, because a person's best judgment is impaired under the influence of intoxicating substances.
However, if intoxicating substances are consumed in a strictly controlled way as a medicine, administered by a medical professional, then it is ok. For e.g. I have heard that psilocybin has been used for treating severe depression.
From the essay "A Discipline of Sobriety" by Ven. Bodhi (the highlighted statements apply to both alcohol and drugs):

For his lay followers the Buddha has prescribed five precepts as the
minimal moral observance: abstinence from killing, stealing, sexual
misconduct, false speech, and the use of intoxicants. He did not lay
down these precepts arbitrarily or out of compliance with ancient
customs, but because he understood, with his omniscient knowledge,
which lines of conduct lead to our welfare and happiness and which
lead to harm and suffering. The fifth precept, it should be stressed,
is not a pledge merely to abstain from intoxication or from excessive
consumption of liquor. It calls for nothing short of total abstinence.
By this rule the Buddha shows that he has understood well the subtle,
pernicious nature of addiction. Alcoholism rarely claims its victims
in a sudden swoop. Usually it sets in gradually, beginning perhaps
with the social icebreaker, the drink among friends, or the cocktail
after a hard day's work. But it does not stop there: slowly it sinks
its talons into its victims' hearts until they are reduced to its
helpless prey.
To dispel any doubt about his reasons for prescribing this precept,
the Buddha has written the explanation into the rule itself: one is to
refrain from the use of intoxicating drinks and drugs because they are
the cause of heedlessness (pamada). Heedlessness means moral
recklessness, disregard for the bounds between right and wrong. It is
the loss of heedfulness (appamada), moral scrupulousness based on a
keen perception of the dangers in unwholesome states. Heedfulness is
the keynote of the Buddhist path, "the way to the Deathless," running
through all three stages of the path: morality, concentration, and
wisdom. To indulge in intoxicating drinks is to risk falling away from
each stage. The use of alcohol blunts the sense of shame and moral
dread and thus leads almost inevitably to a breach of the other
precepts. One addicted to liquor will have little hesitation to lie or
steal, will lose all sense of sexual decency, and may easily be
provoked even to murder. Hard statistics clearly confirm the close
connection between the use of alcohol and violent crime, not to speak
of traffic accidents, occupational hazards, and disharmony within the
home. Alcoholism is indeed a most costly burden on the whole society.
When the use of intoxicants eats away at even the most basic moral
scruples, little need be said about its corrosive influence on the two
higher stages of the path. A mind besotted by drink will lack the
alertness required for meditative training and certainly won't be able
to make the fine distinctions between good and bad mental qualities
needed to develop wisdom. The Buddhist path in its entirety is a
discipline of sobriety, a discipline which demands the courage and
honesty to take a long, hard, utterly sober look at the sobering
truths about existence. Such courage and honesty will hardly be
possible for one who must escape from truth into the glittering but
fragile fantasyland opened up by drink and drugs.
It may well be that a mature, reasonably well-adjusted person can
enjoy a few drinks with friends without turning into a drunkard or a
murderous fiend. But there is another factor to consider: namely, that
this life is not the only life we lead. Our stream of consciousness
does not terminate with death but continues on in other forms, and the
form it takes is determined by our habits, propensities, and actions
in this present life. The possibilities of rebirth are boundless, yet
the road to the lower realms is wide and smooth, the road upward steep
and narrow. If we were ordered to walk along a narrow ledge
overlooking a sharp precipice, we certainly would not want to put
ourselves at risk by first enjoying a few drinks. We would be too
keenly aware that nothing less than our life is at stake. If we only
had eyes to see, we would realize that this is a perfect metaphor for
the human condition, as the Buddha himself, the One with Vision,
confirms (see SN 56:42). As human beings we walk along a narrow ledge,
and if our moral sense is dulled we can easily topple over the edge,
down to the plane of misery, from which it is extremely difficult to
re-emerge.
But it is not for our own sakes alone, nor even for the wider benefit
of our family and friends, that we should heed the Buddha's injunction
to abstain from intoxicants. To do so is also part of our personal
responsibility for preserving the Buddha's Sasana. The Teaching can
survive only as long as its followers uphold it, and in the present
day one of the most insidious corruptions eating away at the entrails
of Buddhism is the extensive spread of the drinking habit among those
same followers. If we truly want the Dhamma to endure long, to keep
the path to deliverance open for all the world, then we must remain
heedful. If the current trend continues and more and more Buddhists
succumb to the lure of intoxicating drinks, we can be sure that the
Teaching will perish in all but name. At this very moment of history
when its message has become most urgent, the sacred Dhamma of the
Buddha will be irreparably lost, drowned out by the clinking of
glasses and our rounds of merry toasts.


Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated? Do Buddhists claim that if there was a self it could not be annihilated? I dimly remember reading this, but no argument or anything like that.

The first and perhaps most famous sutta like that which comes to mind is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN22.59) translated here and here.
I think that says that if something (e.g. form or consciousness or feeling or perception) is impermanent, then it's "not fit" to be regarded as "self".
The word translated as "not fit" is kalla ("clever", "healthy", etc.).


Do Arahants experience non-neutral mental vedana? In terms of the effects of the attainment of arahantship over the arising of feelings (vedana):

Do Arahants experience the arising of non-neutral (pleasure or displeasure) mental feelings?

According to Sallatha Sutta, an Arahant will still experience physical feelings of pleasure and pain, but he will just see those feelings as feelings.

What does this mean?

If physical pleasure/pain arises, he will not experience a mental pleasure/pain? Or he just feel it without the arising of aversion, craving and ignorance?

What happens in the case of the practice of Jhana? Doesn't that count as mental pleasure?

If mental pleasure and pain are eradicate, does this mean that every mental phenomena will be felt as a neutral phenomena?

For example:
If a non-arahant person feels an unpleasent feeling when seeing a corpse or when thinking about a corpse, will the presence of such phenomenon (the corpse, or the idea of a corpse) will still give rise to an unpleaseant feeling after attaining arahantship?

If the training under the Noble Eightfold Path helps to change the way the noble one feels the world, does this mean that everything feels neutrally after attaining Nibbana?

EDIT: to make this clearer, I'll be more specific.

I'm trying to fit what has been said above with what I read and interpret from Sallatha Sutta.

On one side, I see that physical painful stimuli does not give rise to mental feeling.
On the other hand, in MN 152, we see that a noble one seem to have some tendencies and inclinations toward some preferences over others, but he reacts with equanimity to the arising of liking and disliking.

So, does the training changes all non-neutral feeling to neutral feelings, or changes the way the noble one responds to non-neutral feelings?

If an arahant-to-be had a preference for pizza over tacos, will that remain the same after Nibbāna?

What do the suttas tell us about this or your experience tell us about this?

Thanks in advance for your time!

Kind regards!

From MN121, where the Buddha discusses his current practice with Ananda, we have:

  They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance.

  There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

In other words, the Buddha was fully aware of his present circumstances yet not burdened by craving, aversion or delusion. A meal would be a meal. A mosquito bite would be a mosquito bite. There would be no delusions that wanting more or wanting less would be of any value.

Note that "conditioned by life" does allow for things like avoiding peanuts if one is allergic or taking medicines such as insulin as needed. It also allows for cultural food preferences, since those are often tied to genetics. For example, some cultures tend towards lactose intolerance while others rely on dairy products and that "preference" is largely dictated by genetics. However, I find it really difficult to imagine any arahant expressing a preference for a frappuccino over a latte.


Are Buddhists supposed to feel superior compared to other people, and to brag about it? I'm asking this question because I want to know if I'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting something. I hope I'm not offending anyone, I want to genuinely know how to interpret my experiences with the people I'll describe below.
I live in a country where there is no significant Buddhist population. Neither in my country, nor in the neighboring countries I often travel to. However, when I occasionally happen across someone who practices Buddhism, I seem to notice very strong similarities between all of them.
If we're in a group with many other people, it's always them who bring up the topic of spirituality. Or if I meet an acquaintance who is not so close as to engage in deep conversations, and we would just generally exchange some pleasantries, "how are you? I'm fine, thanks", they instead start to instantly brag about how spiritually evolved and enlightened they are. No matter the topic, they sooner or later mention how enlightened they are. And quite often in a condescending tone, that they are a being of much higher level than I am. And no matter the topic, they keep inserting words not from the language we're speaking in, and if I ask what it means, the answer is either that they won't say because I wouldn't understand the true meaning, or that it's the word for "desire", or "thought", or "energy", or "wisdom" or "consequence" or any other common word, but as they say "but it means so much more than that!". If I remember correctly, most of these examples I met said they practiced Zen Buddhism. (because they invariably start talking about how spiritual they are, someone sooner or later asks why they say it)
What also happens almost every time, is that if we're talking about a non-religious topic, they still have a very strong opinion about everything, even if it's a technological topic in which I have experience and they don't. Then they still say the opposite of what I know to be true, and if I present my proof or argument, the answer is that their feelings tell them that they are right, or that they know it better because they are spiritually more evolved than I am, therefore they have a more open mind, or something similar.
I know all this sounds very negative and judgmental, but it seems to cover basically all my experiences when I happened across a Buddhist. Maybe that behavior only sounds strange or impolite for me because that's not the way of thinking I'm used to in my culture? Or maybe they themselves gravely misunderstand what Buddhism is (or should be about), and only "practice" it because it sounds exotic for them? How representative are these people, anyway?
So, my question, summed up: there are very few Buddhists in the culture where I live, but most of them seem to be constantly bragging about how much more superior and how much more enlightened they are.

do I misunderstand them?
or are they misunderstanding Buddhism?

What you are noticing is a familiar behavioural pattern unearthed by various Buddhists practices. In Tibetan and Theravada Buddhism it is called Māna or to use the more user-friendly term: conceit. Theravada sees this as one of the very last fetters to fall away. Conceit can be quite a horrible one. I have experienced this myself and still do on the odd occasion. If we are not aware of it, then big lessons loom on the horizon, and those lessons usually come from life in the form of a proverbial brick - sometimes the harsh lessons can be the greatest.

Sanyojana Sutta: Fetters
"There are these ten fetters. Which ten? Five lower fetters & five higher fetters. And which are the five lower fetters? Self-identity views, uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices, sensual desire, & ill will. These are the five lower fetters. And which are the five higher fetters? Passion for form, passion for what is formless, conceit, restlessness, & ignorance. These are the five higher fetters. And these are the ten fetters."

Essentially, conceit is a response evoked by fear because, through practice, we come to learn more about the nature of reality, we gain knowledge of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self. This is enough to stir up our psychological issues around inferiority and the compensating effect of this is to bolster our identity but through the guise of spiritual-type things. We hit our fellow humans on the head with spiritualized trinkets and baubles, and poke them with incense sticks. We philosophize them into a stupefied mess of their former selves such that they take away only empty judgments.
My understanding of conceit: A sense of arrogance and superiority; a know-it-all attitude. The one-upmanship complex. In my view, conceit has an opposite which presents as an overly deflated sense of self.
I guess you'll be seeing this in your friends for some time. It is likely that they have some awareness about it, but unfortunately, it can chew people up entirely such that they cannot see themselves falling under the influence of further egoic pursuits. I don't think it would be unreasonable of you to share your observations with one of them. Maybe first bring up the fetters model as this can be a good talking point for the pursuing Buddhist, and then ask if they see any of these fetters in themselves.
Chogyam Trungpa covers this subject with great skill in his book, Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.


Nibbāna in The Progress of Insight I was wondering if anyone could help to clearly explain the phenomenology of what happens in this passage from Mahasi's The Progress of Insight, specifically the bolded section:

  12. Insight Leading to Emergence

  So, through knowledge of equanimity about formations, which is endowed with many virtues, blessings, and powers, he notices the formations as they occur. When this knowledge is mature, having become keen, strong, and lucid, on reaching its culmination point, it will understand any of the formations as being impermanent or painful or without self, just by seeing their dissolution. Now that act of noticing any one characteristic out of the three, which is still more lucid in its perfect understanding, manifests itself two or three times or more in rapid succession. This is called "insight leading to emergence."

I am interested in all the phenomenology but I am especially interested in the part that says "two or three times or more in rapid succession". Does this refer to mind moments or what?

This passage is according to the abhidhamma treatment of the attainment of nibbana. The two to three mind moments (yes, that's what it means) are called anulomañāṇa ("anuloma~naa.na") - knowledge of conformity, the twelfth stage of knowledge.
The Visuddhimagga (XXII.128) describes this according to the abhidhamma:

128. As he repeats, develops and cultivates that equanimity about
formations, his faith becomes more resolute, his energy better
exerted, his mindfulness better established, his mind better
concentrated, while his equanimity about formations grows more
refined.
129. He thinks, “Now the path will arise.” Equanimity about
formations, after comprehending formations as impermanent, or as
painful, or as not-self, sinks into the life-continuum. Next to the
life-continuum, mind-door adverting arises making formations its
object as impermanent or as painful or as not-self according to the
way taken by equanimity about formations. Then next to the functional
[adverting] consciousness that arose displacing the life-continuum,
the first impulsion consciousness arises making formations its object
in the same way, maintaining the continuity of consciousness. This
is called the “preliminary work.” Next to that a second impulsion
consciousness arises making formations its object in the same way.
This is called the “access.” Next to that a third impulsion
consciousness also arises making formations its object in the same
way. This is called “conformity.”
(Path of Purification)

The next thought moment arising after these three takes nibbaana as an object.
EDIT: In plain terms:
Through the gradual understanding that all formations are impermanent, suffering, and non-self, the meditator attains an absolute certainty of one or another of the three characteristics and this leads to a release based either:

signlessness - based on impermanence, that there is no telling what will happen in advance; e.g. the rising and falling of the abdomen suddenly speeds up;
desirelessness - based on suffering, that there is no benefit to clinging to any formation; e.g. the rising and falling of the abdomen suddenly feels unbearable;
emptiness - based on non-self, that all formations are void of self and there is no relationship of ownership or control in regards to all formations; e.g. the rising and falling of the abdomen appears to proceed automatically without interference from the meditator.

This realization lasts two to three thought moments, during which the mind realizes the truth of suffering and discards the truth of the cause.
The next thought moment is an experience of cessation, where there is no arising of sense experience (including mental sense experience). This is the realization of path consciousness (the noble truth of the path) because it has the power to destroy fetters and therefore lead to freedom from suffering. It takes nibbāna as an object.


Pattern of Strong Aversion I noticed that when I engage in a task I am very able until I reach my limit, namely the point where I had enough, where effort and suffering kicks in. I noticed:

When I reach that point I lose energy, thinking becomes more difficult, confused. With something I enjoy it is the opposite.
When I reach that points demotivating thoughts as "This is worthless," "What's the point of doing this?" occur.

Even in meditation I am able to go a long time without effort or difficulty if I feel like it, but when there is resistance I fall asleep or want to do something else.

My question is: how can one increase their tolerance to physical pain and effort, suffering, etc. -- all the things linked with aversion to negative states? (Keep in mind that when I meditate at the wrong time I fall asleep or encounter difficulty).

Thank you.

Given the psychological nature of sankhara (schemata), you have very understandable and intelligent reasons for having a “pattern of strong aversion” in terms of past experience. In other words, past experience in this lifetime and probably in previous lifetimes has given you substantial reasons to experience strong aversion today. Circumstances and experiences of the past have caused you to adapt to the world with aversion as a strategy for dealing with hardship. There is no blame here, but it is difficult to revise or unlearn strong patterns of adaptation. In Theravadin Buddhism, the classical remedy for modifying aversion is the development of bliss experienced during full samadhi. There are several Buddhist meditations that lead to full samadhi. Indeed, your own Bodhicitta will direct you towards full samadhi. It is important that you do not push yourself to the point where aversion kicks in. You might consider a full retreat in some beautiful countryside meditation center. I wish you well.


How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not
  there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said
  that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is
  to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of
  Buddhist practice impossible.

It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the skandhas can be identified as a self, as long as they aren't then taken to be in any way unchanged from moment to moment

Encyclopedia of Buddhism, By Damien Keown, Charles S. Prebish

So I was wondering if that above silence means that any dharma can fulfill the role of that empirical self.

An example would be: Adam tastes the apple

Supposing this "taste" can be considered a kind of self, then if Adam sees smells touches feels nothing, just tastes the apple, there is "continuity" and he's still Adam. But as long as he does have other senses, and from moment to moment, the taste of apple doesn't make him who is he.

I've never read any commentary which claims this is what the empirical self is in Buddhism, so would be really surprised that this counts as a categorical denial of substantial self.

You should not believe or hold a view that:

there is a self
there is no self

But whatever you consider as self is not worthy of being called self as:

you cannot control it to your will
it is impermanent

Since if you take a being as parts in terms of the 5 aggregates or 6 faculties each part which constitutes a being is not self. E.g. the eye is not self, what you see is not self, what you feel is not self, your corporeal body is not self, etc.


discursive meditation Dear Venerable and friends,

Instead of anapanasati, some of us like to meditate on a subject; like contemplation.  For instance; inevitability of death & uncertainty of the time of death and being a mortal... or contemplation on 5 body parts (asubha).

My question: When sitting shall we use a short sentence? Like: Death is inevitable. I am a mortal being. Like me all beings in samsara will face death when the time comes. Hence, we must transform our minds in accordance with the Dhamma.

Is there any short comprising of 2 words/phrase that can be recited while inhaling & exhaling like mantra chanting (Bud- dho) in order to strengthen our contemplation.

How to establish a solid foundation and make progress while doing discursive meditation?
Thank you all, best wishes.

My question: When sitting shall we use a short sentence? Like: Death is inevitable. I am a mortal being. Like me all beings in samsara will face death when the time comes. Hence, we must transform our minds in accordance with the Dhamma.

Yes.Short sentences like this helps the mind to focus on a theme/truth.It helps the mind penetrate its meaning.

Is there any short comprising of 2 words/phrase that can be recited while inhaling & exhaling like mantra chanting (Bud- dho) in order to strengthen our contemplation.

Now unless your contemplating on the breath,this is where it gets complicated.You are trying to understand a certain truth.For example,"Death is inevitable".But a 2 syllable word.One for the inbreath and the other for the outbreath.May narrow your concentration to a point where it hinders your ability to investigate/contemplate (especially if your object of meditation is not the breath).Investigation is whats needed in Discursive Meditation.

Mantra chanting is good to do before you start your discursive meditation or investigation as a means of stabilizing or anchoring the mind.But i don't see it as a way to strengthen contemplation.In fact i think it hinders it.By splitting the object of meditation in three.1.The Breath.2.The Mantra.3.The Meaning of the Mantra (Death is inevitable).