How should a disciple of the Buddha with great samadhi verify that rebirth occurs after physical death? I asked my teacher how somebody should see for themselves that rebirth occurs, he (a Theravadin monastic) said that with great samadhi one should watch the twelve nidanas (the process of dependant co-arising) to see the eleventh nidana (becoming leads to birth).

I can accept that if one watches the nidanas then one would see that becoming leads to birth. However, seeing birth occurring during our (biological) life is separate from concluding that (re)birth occurs after physical death. I think that the most simple way to put this is that the process of becoming leading to birth is not dependent on the body. If one can see the eleventh nidana then how would they confirm that the eleventh nidana does not require form?

Perhaps I am on the wrong track entirely and the proper action is to watch some other process to see that the mind (instead of just the nidanas) does not require a body to sustain it.

Yes. This question is on the wrong track because Dependent Origination is only about the 12 conditions that result in suffering, i.e., sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. To quote:

  And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabricators. From fabricators as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes mentality-&-materiality. From mentality-&-materiality as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes 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. From
  clinging 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. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.

  Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising

In other words, the 12th nidana is not about physical death. The following quote states aging-&-death cease when 'the eye sees a form', i.e., while the physical body is still alive:

  On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing
  forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with
  body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He
  discerns, as it has come to be, the awareness-release &
  discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease
  without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he
  doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain
  fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it,
  & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the
  cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging.
  From the cessation of clinging 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.

  MN 38

When someone or something you love & are attached to dies, you suffer. This is because the mind previously took 'birth' ('jati') via becoming ('bhava') as a 'self-identity' ('sakkhaya') attached ('upadana') to the sense object ('ayatana') that passes away ('marana').

For example, you identify yourself with a sense object that is a woman that you call 'my wife' & you call yourself 'her husband'. If your wife physically dies (by physical death) or the legal status (convention) of 'wife' socially dies (by divorcing you), your self-identity as a 'husband' also 'dies', which is suffering.

Or when you look into a mirror & see your skin wrinkling, your hair becoming grey, your teeth rotting, etc, you suffer due to the thought: "I am aging, I am going to die". These thoughts produce suffering because those five aggregates that appear in the mirror the mind regards to be "I", "me", "mine" & "myself".

For example, you may watch TV and see 10,000 Chinese people die in an earthquake but suffer more if you see your pet dog, pet cat or pet goldfish die. You may suffer more if your favourite pen is stolen. This is because the mind identifies with & is attached to the pet dog, pet cat, pet goldfish or pen but not attached to the 10,000 Chinese people. The death of 10,000 unknown Chinese people do not cause suffering but the death of a pet cat causes tremendous suffering.

Aging-&-death in Dependent Origination refers to the aging-&-death of 'beings' ('satta') and the various orders of 'beings'. 'Beings' ('satta') is defined in the suttas as states of attachment & identity (rather than physical life forms). 'Satta' is merely a 'view'.

The relationship between the nidanas of birth (self-identifying) & aging-&-death (suffering due to loss) is explained simply below:

  He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or
  'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

  Nakulapita Sutta

You may ask yourself when suffering: "Why am I suffering?". The general answer is because of change & loss, i.e., aging-&-death. Then ask: "Why did aging-&-death cause me to suffering?" The answer is because I ignorantly regarded the lost or deceased object to be "I", "me" & "mine"; I took birth as the 'owner' of those objects.

Below is what famous Thai monk Ajahn Chah had to say about this:

  Now, how do we know that it's a bhava? It's a bhava (sphere of existence) because of our clinging to the idea that those trees are
  our own, that that orchard is our own. If someone were to take an ax
  and cut one of the trees down, the owner over there in the house
  ''dies'' along with the tree. He gets furious, and has to go and set
  things right, to fight and maybe even kill over it. That quarreling is
  the ''birth.'' The ''sphere of birth'' is the orchard of trees that we
  cling to as our own. We are ''born'' right at the point where we
  consider them to be our own, born from that bhava. Even if we had a
  thousand apple trees, if someone were to cut down just one it'd be
  like cutting the owner down.

  http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Flood_Sensuality1.php

This taking 'birth' as the 'owner' of sense objects is explained in the definition of 'birth', below:

  And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth, production of the the various beings in this or that group of beings via the manifestation (distorted perceptual appearance) of the five aggregates & acquisition (taking ownership) of sense media (objects), that is called birth.

  Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of Dependent Co-arising

Again, the same Pali term for 'acquisition' is used below:

  yāyaṃ attabhāvapaṭilābho yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā
  kamati no parasañcetanā, attasañcetanāhetu tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhā kāyā
  cuti hoti

  ...in that acquisition (paṭilābho) of individuality (attabhāva;
  self-becoming) in which one's own volition (attasañcetanā) operates
  but not the volition of others (parasañcetanā), it is by reason of
  their own volition that beings (sattānaṃ) pass away (cuti; shift;
  vanish) from that group (kāyā)

  AN 4.171

The sutta below states whenever objects of consciousness are appropriated or 'stolen' to be "I", "me" & "mine", there will be inevitable punishment or suffering.

  "And how, O monks, should the nutriment consciousness be considered?
  Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
  him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
  Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
  tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
  spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
  noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
  alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
  a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
  again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
  evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.

  "What do you think, O monks? Will that man, struck with three hundred
  spears during a day, suffer pain and torment owing to that?"

  "Even if he were to be struck only by a single spear, he would suffer
  pain and torment owing to that. How much more if he is being struck by
  three hundred spears!"

  "In that manner, I say, O monks, should the nutriment consciousness be
  considered. If the nutriment consciousness is comprehended,
  mind-and-matter are thereby comprehended. And if mind and body are
  comprehended, there is, I say, no further work left to do for the
  noble disciple."

  Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh


Am I missing the point of Buddhism? I have been on a few forums and Facebook groups and a lot of people on there seem to be missing the point of their practice.  What colour robes should I wear, how many breaths should I take per minute while meditating and (worst of all) what is meant by this word, in this particular translation, of this sutra.  No offence to anyone else here.  In "Hardcore Zen" by Brad Warner he make some comment about the people who go to the temples, sit there meditating all day, but for all the wrong reasons.

The principles are fairly self explanatory and as long as you live a good life as a good person, that is it.  Enlightenment aka "the same old, same old".  I know my life won't realistically be any better if I won a million punds and I am happy with that.  By all means swot up on the methodology but it will just make you a better "buddhist" as opposed to making you any happier.  Am I missing something?  I hope not.

Unless you are up there with the stream entrants, the deepest principles aren't self explanatory. One must want to experience them within Samsara to transcend Samsara.

Personally, I wouldn't follow Buddhism nessasarily, I'd follow the Buddha's core teaching that was repeated again and again from all angles of interpretation.


Teachings that Inspire Practice Where, on the internet, are motivational ebooks, blog entries or whatever that have concise motivating advice, excerpts, quotes and koans  that might motivate one to practice?

Read the nice anecdotes of Ajaan Fuang. A small selection below.

  § A woman came to Wat Dhammasathit to observe the precepts and
  meditate for a week, but by the end of the second day she told Ajaan
  Fuang that she had to return home, because she was afraid her family
  couldn't get along without her. He taught her to cut through her
  worries by saying, "When you come here, tell yourself that you've
  died. One way or another, your family will have to learn to fend for
  themselves."

  § "We keep disagreeable people around the monastery as a way of
  testing to see if our defilements really are all gone."

  § "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."

  § "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."

  § A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."

  § "You should watch visions (in meditation) the same way you watch TV:
  Just watch it, without getting pulled inside the tube."


Literal translation of Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra What is the literal meaning of Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Everywhere I read it says "The Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 Lines", but that is not a literal translation as far as I can tell. What is the literal translation or etymology?

For example, Sutra means "thread", but that is no where in that perfection of wisdom phrase. I read elsewhere, too, that:

  The word Prajñāpāramitā combines the Sanskrit words prajñā "wisdom" with pāramitā "perfection".

So we have the "wisdom perfecting thread" sort of thing. But what is the other word?

Aṣṭasāhasrikā translates to "eight thousand":

aṣṭá -- eight
sahasra -- thousand

Sanskrit Numbers


What to do when music gets played in the mind I get the idea of recognizing mind states .Knowing their existence separates them from self but sometimes .I get this addictive Music like a recording in my mind that constantly restarts diverting my concretion from work .I recognize that it may come from states but dealing with it isn't as easy
.

I tried

Knowing that its just music
knowing the reason why it came (maybe when I was listening I wasn't mindful.
diverting my attention ardently away from it

All this didn't work maybe helps in understanding but it still doesn't stop it sometimes it gets even more energy.

Music playing in the mind are mental formations. Approach in the same way as all other mental formations. Notice that it's there but try not to add feeling or thought to it. Doing so will create frustration. In the case of this happening, notice the thoughts you attach to the music in the same way and be with the feelings that occur.

You may say "this repetitive music is annoying me" then you may feel an unpleasant feeling. Notice this! Notice without judgement.

Alternatively, switch your attention to something that requires a high level of focus like creative writing. The music will stop. Become very curious about how it stopped being careful to note the change in mind state and degree of alertness. This will tell you something about your various states of mind namely lower levels and higher levels of functioning. In the lower levels mind has a tendency to do what it likes perhaps governed by the autonomics of conditioning. In the higher levels, conscious directed thought allows you to step out of this process where you can have more choice about how to use your mind.


Is Buddhism Nihilistic? I just finished reading Ajahn Brahm's book on Buddhist Meditation called Mindfulness, bliss and beyond. According to him, as per the Buddhist sutras, advancing in meditation you enter into jhanas, which has a component of bliss in it; this was fine. Then you enter immaterial realms, where he says even consciousness is impermanent. Even consciousness is a conditioned phenomena. And you enter realm of neither perception nor non-perception. After this you attain nibbana, blowing out, end of all.

I have long held belief that you are consciousness, the witnessing. Hindus define ultimate attainment as truth, consciousness and bliss. So if even consciousness is not to be there -- and it's just literally nothing -- doesn't it just seem pointless? Your very attainment is pointless. Is it not better to roam this samsara doing good karma and enjoying the benefits? That way you at least live forever through rebirths. From this perspective, doesn't Buddha's teaching look Nilistic?

If witnessing is you, why do you witness both pleasant and unpleasant experiences? Why can't you limit witnessing to only pleasant experiences? Why does the experience of witnessing arise and cease without your consent? Why is witnessing limited by your senses? Can you witness sights if your eyes go blind or if there is no light? Why do you have to sharpen the mind through studying and practice to understand complex truths? Why can others trick you, fool you? Why can't the mind be aware of the truth at will?
 Witnessing or awareness is not worthy of being considered as a self as it is conditioned and not under one's control.

  Hindus define ultimate attainment as truth, consciousness and bliss.
  So if even consciousness is not to be there. And its just literally
  nothing. Doesnt it just seem pointless.

Consciousness and bliss are conditioned. If something is conditioned, it is impermanent. If it is impermanent it comes under the first noble truth of suffering. Whatever bliss you experience in Samsara is impermanent and incapable of fulfillment. Attaining Nibbana in Buddhism is not attaining nothing. It's the attainment of the unconditioned element. It is permanent, peaceful and fulfilling.


Conversational Pali and Sanskrit? When people speaking different languages came from other lands to meditate, did that ever necessitate speaking the language in which they chanted?

Has there ever been a situation where circumstances necessitated conversation in Pali or Sanskrit?

Yes, though Pali is a "dead language" in the sense that it has no native speakers left to use it, that doesn't mean it can't be used to communicate with others. I remember Professor Gombrich mentioning that it got used to communicate by monks who did not have any other common language.
You can also find examples mentioned in this thread: can people who are pali experts converse in it? in posts by "James the Giant" and "cooran".


Different realms,Different beings,Different times - How do they understand what we are saying? I have seen how some Sutras / Suttas start with an open invitation to many beings to come and hear the words of the Lord.

Now this makes sense as it was a teaching given by Lord Buddha to his followers.But now the times have changed "Pali" as a language is dead. It gave birth to many new languages and died in the process.
So today we say the same suttas and some keep it original and some use their own translation.

So how does the translation happen?

Is there any mentioning on how beings in different realms understand a single language, I mean even we don't use "Pali" now so how does it happen?

And there is another side to this too.

There are some really bad realms, like "Pretha" beings. They have only
suffering with the exception of few having some comforts like clothes and food.These beings have no way of learning, So how does it happen,

how do they understand the teaching when they come to hear it?

If you can,provide any Sutta / Sutra referance

But now the times have changed "Pali" as a language is dead.

Depends on how you define what "dead" means or, the language is dead to whom. To many Pali scholars like Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Thanissaro, Ven. Analayo, etc. Pali is very much alive and they constantly use it as the source reference to their sutta translation works. Thanks to the effort of many venerable scholars, the suttas have been translated to many different languages in the world. As we speak, there're monks and lay people around the world who are reciting the Tipitaka in Pali, English, French, German, etc. right now.

  Is there any mentioning on how beings in different realms understand a single language, I mean even we don't use "Pali" now so how does it happen?

Depends on which realm it is. To the devas in the heavenly worlds, due to the great merits they've generated, many would possess supernatural powers to be able to communicate with humans (Ex: the conversation of the householder Citta with many devas in SN 41.10). If it's the lower realms, then it obviously much tougher due to the tremendous suffering and ignorance throughout these realms. The Buddha in MN 129 used a very famous simile to make the point:

  The Buddha: Suppose a man threw into the sea a yoke with one hole in it, and the east wind carried it to the west, and the west wind carried it to the east, and the north wind carried it to the south, and the south wind carried it to the north. Suppose there were a blind turtle that came up once at the end of each century. What do you think, bhikkhus? Would that blind turtle put his neck into that yoke with one hole in it?”

  The Bhikkhus:“He might, venerable sir, sometime or other at the end of a long period.”

  The Buddha:“Bhikkhus, the blind turtle would sooner put his neck into that yoke with a single hole in it than a fool, once gone to perdition, would take to regain the human state, I say. Why is that? Because there is no practising of the Dhamma there, no practising of what is righteous, no doing of what is wholesome, no performance of merit. There mutual devouring prevails, and the slaughter of the weak.


What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him"? What is meant by the impossibility "A Buddha can not help someone not related to him, no relative of him"?

Is said to be one of the three things a/the Buddha can not do. How should that be understood? And what is needed to become one that a Buddha could help? Who is a relative, are the relatives, of the Buddha?

[Related and given in tiven sphere: Buddha can not help one not related to him? Buddha kann keinem "Fremden" nicht helfen?.

(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

Related in this case does not mean by blood. Rather it is in terms of belief in the shared Buddhist philosophies, or at a minimum maintaining an open mind on the subject. Someone not related has no interest in attaining liberation, and such a person cannot be forced or coerced. Thus, they cannot be helped.


Tathagata and the seeker after knowledge! Many ancient pali literature proposed the end or nirvana as 'tathagata got released'. What does it mean? Do tathagata is bound? Or Do we bound by ignorance and free with right knowledge(Samma Ditthi)?
Samma Ditthi at times coincides with Thou are that, upanishadic dictiom. Five aggregates are mere empty, like mirage of real caste on matter. But, when one gives up that which is not his, he lands onto mirage. And from that mirage he see Truth or who have samma ditthi.
Please any one could guide me in this regard!

One is bound with the bondage of craving, and the arahant has become released from this bondage, and become unbound.
From Iti 58:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "There are these three cravings. Which three? Craving for
sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. These are
the three cravings."
Bound with the bondage of craving,
their minds smitten
with becoming & non-,
they are bound with the bondage of Mara —
people with no safety from bondage,
beings going through the wandering-on,
headed for birth & death.
While those who've abandoned craving,
free from the craving for becoming & non-,
reaching the ending of fermentations,
though in the world,
have gone beyond.

The second noble truth says that the cause of suffering is craving.
But what's the relationship between craving and ignorance?
Have you heard of the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article)?

In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
“consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice.
But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.
Also you can say that the monkey's suffering originated with his ignorance of the trap.
Knowing how the trap works, i.e. gaining insight and wisdom into the nature of reality, is the way to overcome ignorance.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

The Upanishadic "That thou art" is unrelated to Buddhism, because it tells you that you are actually that eternal Self. In Buddhism, all phenomena is not self and the self, being a mental idea, is not eternal or permanent.


Do we have to let go the "Subha Sanna" completely? Lord Buddha said that we should practise Asubha sanna (perception of the non-beautiful). Does it mean that we have to let go Subha sanna (perception of the beautiful) completely ? Are there anything that is Subha in this world?
As I know, The world is a Asubha thing. We can not find any subha thing in this world at all. So anything that is not related to the world is Subha. Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha help us to get rid of this world. That means they are Subha things. The conclusion is that we shouldn't have any Subha sanna towards anything other than Triple jems. Am I right?

The word subhasaññānuvattinī occurs exactly once in the five Nikayas and it warns of a danger:

Thig5.3:1.1: Due to improper attention,  I was racked by desire for pleasures of the senses.  I was restless in the past, lacking control over my mind.  Overcome by corruptions, pursuing perceptions of the beautiful, I gained no peace of mind.  Under the sway of lustful thoughts,  thin, pale, and wan, for seven years I wandered, full of pain,

Perceptions of the beautiful should not be confused with the third liberation:

AN8.66:3.1: Subhanteva adhimutto hoti.

AN8.66:3.1: They’re focused only on beauty.

The third liberation results from the heart's release by love.

SN46.54:12.9: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

The heart's release by love is mettācetovimutti, it is not the heart's release by the perception of beauty.
So although the Triple Gem is certainly beautiful, we should have proper attention towards the Triple Gem instead of merely perceiving them as beautiful.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view. What two?  The words of another and proper attention.


Buddhist References about Space and Time What are the Buddhist references which deal with:

space and
time

Primary sources from the Tripitaka or secondary and tertiary sources with proper citations are also welcome.

The Sutta that I referred to in my earlier comment was:
(S.22.46.) Dutiya-aniccasuttam

Savatthinidanam.  “Rupam, bhikkhave, aniccam.  Yadaniccam tam dukkham; yam dukkham tadanatta; yadanatta tam ‘netam mama, nesohamasmi, na meso atta’ti evametam yathabhutam sammappabbaya datthabbam.  Vedana anicca…sabba anicca…savkhara anicca…vibbanam aniccam.  Yadaniccam tam dukkham; yam dukkham tadanatta; yadanatta tam ‘netam mama, nesohamasmi, na meso atta’ti evametam yathabhutam sammappabbaya datthabbam’.

“Evametam (CS:pg.2.38) yathabhutam sammappabbaya passato pubbantanuditthiyo na honti.  Pubbantanuditthinam asati, (S.22.46./III,46.) aparantanuditthiyo na honti.  Aparantanuditthinam asati, thamaso § paramaso na hoti.  Thamase § paramase asati rupasmim…vedanaya sabbaya…savkharesu…vibbanasmim cittam virajjati vimuccati anupadaya asavehi.  Vimuttatta thitam.  Thitatta santusitam.  Santusitatta na paritassati.  Aparitassam paccattabbeva parinibbayati.  ‘Khina jati, vusitam brahmacariyam

Thus seeing it as it is with correct wisdom, the views
about the prior limit do not become, the views about the
prior limit not being, the views about the posterior limit do
not become, the views about the posterior limit not being,
obstinate misconstruing does not become, obstinate
misconstruing not being, his mind turns away from form,
feeling, notion, volitional compositions, consciousness, and
is liberated from the cankers by not grasping.

(Evam etam yathabhutam sammappaññaya passato pubbantanuditthiyo na honti,
pubbantanuditthinam asati aparantanuditthiyo na honti,
aparantanuditthinam asati thamaso paramaso na hoti, thamase
paramase asati rupasmim vedanaya saññaya sankharesu
viññanasmim cittam virajjati vimuccati anupadaya asavehi).

"But, Kaccana, let the past be, let the future be (titthatu
pubbanto titthatu aparanto, literally: let the prior limit be,
let the posterior limit be). Let there come an intelligent
man, guileless, honest, straight, and I instruct him, if he
follows my instruction, he will before long know by himself,
see by himself." MN, II, 44 (80), MA, 209, 787b-c.
The above Pali "titthatu pubbanto titthatu aparanto"
(literally: let the prior limit be, let the posterior limit
be) can also be understood as: put down the past, put down
the future, drop the past, drop the future, leave them alone,
don't touch them. The Buddhist path is unloading, whereas
all concerns about the past and future are loading. So to
put down all those extraneous concerns and to concentrate
on meditation is how views, frameworks or whatever else can
be set aside temporarily, until they can be set aside
definitively, with no remainder, at arhatship.
The Buddhist ideal is to leave the past and the future to
themselves and live strictly in the present instead. The
Buddha is told of the monk Sthaviraka who dwells alone
(eka-vihari), has him called up and tells him: When the
past is cut, the future is let go of, and lust and
passion (chanda-raga) for present existential states
(atta-bhava-patilabha) are well controlled, then the
dwelling alone is perfect in details. SN, II, 283 (21,
10), SA, 1071, 278.
Whether rebirth is factually true or not, it is not a
matter of concern to the Buddhist cultivator, who would
rather shed past and future and pay attention to what
happens in the present.


Did the Buddha have intention (cetana)? After attaining Nibbana, did the Buddha still have intention (cetanā)?

In SN 12.2, intention is part of name in name-and-form. In SN 12.38 (quoted below), it sounds like intention is removed in an arahant.

For example, in the Udana 6.1 quote below, did the Buddha have the intention (cetanā) to go and sit at the Pavala shrine on a sitting cloth with Ananda for the day's abiding?

How does the Buddha's apparent intention in Udana 6.1, not conflict with the quote from SN 12.38?

From Udana 6.1:

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the
  morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes —
  went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after
  the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda,
  "Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the
  day's abiding."

  Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda
  followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth.
  Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat
  down on the seat laid out.

  Seated, the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, "Vesālī is refreshing,
  Ānanda. Refreshing, too, are the Udena shrine, the Gotamaka shrine,
  the Sattamba shrine, the ManySon shrine, the Sāranda shrine, the
  Pāvāla shrine.

From SN 12.38:

  “Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans and whatever one has
  a tendency towards (yañca ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti): this becomes a basis for the maintenance of
  consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the
  establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and
  has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed
  existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence,
  future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure,
  and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
  suffering.

Arahants don't have karmic intentions and they don't seek any results. They have higher wisdom, higher goodness, higher intelligence that is not possible to measure or described by the ordinary way of thinking. The cause of their actions are not connected to any ordinary human intention, desire or mind state but it happens out of complete purity and wisdom of Nibbana. Even If an Arahant say that "It's my intention" or "It is not my intention" that's only words(which are just tools to communicate with humans) and words have limitations to explain things correctly. So obviously Buddha didn't have intentions but it is not possible to describe the root of an Arahant's actions because they attained Nibbana permanently and Nibbana is the formless state.

A part of this video(5:08-5:35) is about this subject:

https://youtu.be/GRquhvbfVp4?t=308


Is meditation necessary in Buddhism? According to wikipedia article on the eightfold path,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

  The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union').[4] In early Buddhism, these practices started with understanding that the body-mind works in a corrupted way (right view), followed by entering the Buddhist path of self-observance, self-restraint, and cultivating kindness and compassion; and culminating in dhyana or samadhi, which re-inforces these practices for the development of the body-mind.

My question: Is meditation necessary in Buddhism? Is the practice of Buddhism incomplete without meditation?

Meditation and the Noble Eightfold Path is necessary for Buddhist enlightenment but it is not a compulsory practise for Buddhist lay people (non-monks). The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta) says:

  There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth [from the household life]. Which two? That which is
  devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base,
  vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to
  self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of
  these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing
  vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to
  self-awakening, to Nibbana. And what is the middle way realized by the
  Tathagata... Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right
  resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
  right mindfulness, right concentration.

For Buddhist lay people, they should ideally at least practise the five moral precepts of training in non-killing, non-stealing, non-sexual-misconduct, non-lying & non-drug-alcohol taking. Also, avoiding worse bad things, such as gambling, addictions to entertainment, indebtedness & laziness. Refer to the Sigalovada Sutta for the The Layperson's Code of Discipline.

Also, fully completing the last factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, namely, Right Samadhi, is not required for the 1st stage of enlightenment, called "stream-entry".

There is a preliminary level of right samadhi called "neighbourhood concentration". It does not reach "absorption" yet it is "right" because it has a foundation of Right Understanding or non-clinging. It is clear enough for the development of insight.


Stage of my personal practice This  time when  the controller  of the  breath  disappears  thoughts  too disappear cittarupa  stop by presenting  a line across  and the top of it there is a picture  of a person. After a minute breath  appeared. And there was no observer  too at that time. What is the meaning of the cittarupa  which appeared and what is the stage?

You can find some advice from Ajaan Fuang on this page:

  § When Ajaan Fuang taught meditation, he didn't like to map things out
  in advance. As soon as he had explained the beginning steps, he'd have
  the student start sitting right in his presence, and then take the
  steps back home to work on there. If anything came up in the course of
  the practice, he'd explain how to deal with it and then go on to the
  next step.

  Once a layman who had known more than his share of meditation teachers
  came to discuss the Dhamma with Ajaan Fuang, asking him many questions
  of an advanced nature as a way of testing his level of attainment.
  Ajaan Fuang asked him in return, "Have you had these experiences in
  your own meditation yet?"

  "No, not yet."

  "Then in that case I'd rather not discuss them, because if we discuss
  them when they're not yet a reality for you, they'll just be theories,
  and not the real Dhamma."

  § One meditator noticed that his practice under Ajaan Fuang was making
  quick progress, and so he asked what the next step would be. "I'm not
  going to tell you," Ajaan Fuang said. "Otherwise you'll become the
  sort of amazing marvel who knows everything before he meets with it,
  and masters everything before he's tried his hand. Just keep
  practicing and you'll find out on your own."

  § "You can't plan the way your practice is going to go. The mind has
  its own steps and stages, and you have to let the practice follow in
  line with them. That's the only way you'll get genuine results.
  Otherwise you'll turn into a half-baked arahant."

  § "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."


To what extent is Theravāda followed in Japan? Extract from Ven. Nyanatiloka's Bio says

  In 1920, after being denied re-entry into British ruled Sri Lanka, Nyanatiloka taught at Japanese universities for five years, including at Taisho University where he was assisted by the legendary eccentric Ekai Kawaguchi, and at Komazawa University where he taught with President Yamagami Sōgen (山上曹源), who had also studied Pali in Sri Lanka. He also met with Japanese Theravada monks. He lived through the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake, which destroyed Tokyo, but was surprised to see universities reopen just two months later.

To what extent is Theravāda followed in Japan? To what extent is it taught or studied there? Has Japan produced any Theravada Scholars or Meditation Masters? Which books have they written?

In Japan in 2003 the number of Buddhist temples were

30,000 Pure Land
21,000 Zen
15,000 Shingom
14,000 Nichiren
5,000 Tendai

The source for this is Introducing Buddhism by Peter Harvey (pp 409 2nd Edition)

There is a Japanese Theravada Association which claims thousands of members and the Dhammakaya movement has six centres in Japan. However this appears to be a more recent phenomena and the above figures appear to indicate that it is a small movement in the context of Buddhism as a whole in Japan.


Sacrificing myself...or not? If someone was holding many hostages and I came along and offered to trade myself for the hostages place so they can be let free, would this be right to do or wrong to do and would be detrimental to my practice if I am killed?

While it's certainly a noble deed, just remember the Dhamma emphasizes both compassion and wisdom. They are like the 2 wings of a bird and are both equally important. A good Buddhist should also be a good and skillful problem solver. So before resorting to sacrficing oneself, one should be smart and use his intelligence to come up with novel creative solutions that maximize the benefits to both others and oneself first. Self-sacrifice is most noble because not everyone can do it, but it should be a last resort if one decides to do it AFTER all other options have been exhausted.


Can advances in neuroscience help attain enlightenment? Will it make Buddhist traditions obsolete? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Buddhists view enlightenment as a state of mind. As neuroscience progresses, we have more and more control over human brain, so inducing particular states of mind seems to be just a matter of time. Does it mean that at some point in the future, assuming that the science continues to progress, we will be able to cause enlightenment by neurosurgical means? Or is there something in enlightenment that would make it impossible?

If we reach that stage, will it make all the Buddhist traditions and scriptures obsolete? After all, enlightened people can see things clearly for themselves, so there would be no point in relying on such very old sources with unknown reliability, which were heavily influenced by their cultural contexts.

I think that if someone has a brain disease that is interfering with their practice neuroscience may be able to fix their disease allowing them to practice, but apart from that I don't see much help it can do.

Enlightenment isn't a peaceful state of mind. It is the product of gaining very deep insight into the very nature of reality itself, and I can't see how neuroscience can implant even ordinary knowledge in a person, so how much less possible would it be to artificially create in a person the profound non-conceptual direct perception necessary to reach Nirvana.


What is the right time for seclusion? When is the right time for seclusion? When is the wrong time for seclusion? How much time should be spent in seclusion?

I practice with Triratna Buddhists so for us solitary retreats are seen as an important part of practice. So much so that if one wanted to become ordained (as many do) then the expectation is of at least one solitary retreat. So if I can have a go at your questions

Right Time

When you have been practicing for at least 6 months and have attended at least one group retreat

How much time

Depends. The people that I know usual do a week but many start off with a few days. Ultimately people can and do spend months on solitary

Wrong Time

I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone saying a wrong time except with the above caveats. I guess as ever you should kind to yourself on these things. Even though it is solitary it is  up to you how you spend the time. It doesn't have to be 8 hours meditation a day if that isn't appropriate for you at that point. Many people for instance have spent some of their time writing (about the dharma) and have found that beneficial for them at that point.

Confession

I have never been on solitary retreat so this is all second hand. I do believe it is a valuable practice though so would like to at some point.


How can we know that we experience sensations as a series of discrete sensations? I'm currently reading the book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" by Daniel Ingram, and he insists over and over that the continuity of sensations is an illusion, and that sensations actually come to us in a sort of flickering.  I've done some meditation and have started to feel what he is talking about.  But if we can detect the gaps in between the sensations, isn't the detection of the gaps itself a sensation?  How do we know that the experience of flickering isn't the illusion, and that the reality is a continuous stream of sensations?

There is obviously not a continuous stream of sensations otherwise the mind could remember every sensation, similar to how every frame in reel of movie film can be viewed. In other words, the sensation experienced one second ago has disappeared, forever. To believe there is a continuous stream of sensation is to only observe arising & to not observe passing/disappearance. Its like a person given a box of delicious chocolates that hungrily can only see the next chocolate to be eaten, never realising each chocolate is disappearing & soon there will be no chocolates left, which eventually brings despair when the chocolates (similar to life) run out

Regardless, what Daniel is writing about, such as observing 40 sensations per second, is not found in the reported teachings of the Buddha, although it may possibly be found in later philosophy called Abhidhamma. To me, what Daniel is writing about is unimportant for clear insight, because objects must be very discrete to experience abrupt disappearance (rather than a blur of oscillating sensations the mind becomes infatuated with; like becoming infatuated with the oscillations or vibrations of a girl dancing on a cliff; rather than watching the girl fall off the cliff, to her death).

The Buddhist scriptures refer to observing the coming-to-be & then disappearance of a single in-breath, then an out-breath (MN 118) then, on a more advanced level, the arising, persisting & disappearing of a feeling, perception or thought (AN 4.41). This is more than enough for the purpose of vipassana. For example, merely observing a single breath, until it disappears; then observing the next breath, until it disappears, is enough to get started on seeing the true nature of life phenomena.

  We are typically quite sloppy about what are physical sensations and what are mental sensations (memories, mental images, and mental
  impressions of other sensations). These two kinds of sensations
  actually oscillate back and forth, a back and forth interplay, one
  arising and passing and then the other arising and passing, in a
  somewhat quick but quite penetrable fashion. Being clear about exactly
  when the physical sensations are there will begin to clarify their
  slippery counterpart that helps create the illusion of continuity or
  solidity: flickering mental impressions.

  If you can perceive one sensation per second, try for two. If you can perceive two unique sensations per second, try to perceive four. Keep
  increasing your perceptual threshold in this way until the illusion of
  continuity that binds you on the wheel of suffering shatters. In
  short, when doing insight practices, constantly work to perceive
  sensations arise and pass as quickly and accurately as you possibly
  can

  How fast are things vibrating? How many sensations arise and
  vanish each second? This is exactly what you are trying to experience,
  but some very general guidelines can provide faith that it can be done
  and perhaps point the way as well. Begin by assuming that we are talking
  about one to ten times per second in the beginning. This is not actually
  that fast. Try tapping five to ten times per second on a table or
  something. It might take two hands, but it's manageable, isn't it? You
  could obviously experience that, couldn't you? That's the spirit!
  There are faster and slower vibrations that may show up, some very
  fast (maybe up to forty times per second) and some very slow (that are
  actually made up of faster vibrations), but let's just say that one to ten
  times per second can sometimes be a useful guideline in the beginning.

  Page 20

  Since I just used this dangerous phrase “the mind,” I should quickly mention that it cannot be found. I’m certainly not talking about the
  brain, which we have never experienced, as the standard for insight
  practices is what we can directly experience. As an old Zen monk once
  said to us in his extremely thick Japanese accent, “Some people say
  there is mind. I say there is no mind, but never mind. Heh, heh,
  heh!”


What is the difference between nanas and jhanas? I often hear nanas and jhanas mentioned together as if they are different but related concepts. Is that true are they different or is nanas the exact equivalent of jhanas? Are the different terms used in different traditions perhaps?

They are different things. Jhana refers to a particular kind of concentrated state of mind, and the word nana simply means knowledge, but in a meditative context, it refers to one of the 16 stages of knowledge which are described in part III of the Visuddhimagga.


Interdependence in regards to myself and the universe As I was meditating this morning I asked myself the question, "If I am destroyed would the universe also be destroyed?". I answered, "No." Then I asked, "If the universe was destroyed, would I be destroyed?" I answered, "Yes."

My question: how are I and the universe one in the same if I depend upon it, but it does not depend on me?

Disclaimer: I am completely new to Buddhism (less than 5 months of practice)

First of all, the material parts of you cannot be utterly destroyed ie., made non-existent. The physical universe is governed by the laws of conservation of matter and energy. What does this mean? It means that the total amount of matter/energy in the universe cannot be altered, just rearranged in different forms.

So if you were destroyed all that would happen to the universe is that it would be in a different arrangement of matter and energy. However, this is what happens for every moment of the universe. It is constantly in flux. No moment of the universe is the same as any other moment. The universe is constantly rearranging itself from moment to moment.

The truth of the matter is that you are a part of the universe in the same way that your nose is a part of your body. Consider: if your nose was destroyed would your body also be destroyed? If your body was destroyed would your nose be as well? No and yes, right? However, can you alter one without altering the other? No. They are interdependent in this way. The same is true of you and the universe. And richly so... the interdependencies go far beyond this trivial level. See if you can't figure out some other interdependencies :)

In general, we sentient beings are absurdly overly confident in our own independence. Truthfully, we are so utterly dependent that any notion of independence is really foolish and comical. :)

Consider the ways in which you are dependent upon others... You are dependent on your mother, father, and their mothers, fathers, etc, going back (at least) millions of generations for your very life. Each one of those people was dependent upon myriad acts and people to sustain their lives long enough to produce offspring that eventually produced you. You depend upon countless people to produce the supply chains of food for your daily nourishment. You depend on countless construction workers and supply chains for your daily shelter. The water you drink is made possible by countless engineers and people responsible for maintaining the aquaducts and reservoirs used to provide fresh water. When you go to the grocer you depend upon all the people who worked to stock those shelves and produce the food and the packaging and the huge supply chains that went into it. Your clothing is produced by the people working the fields for cotton and other fibers. The machines used to harvest that fiber was itself designed and manufactured - by engineers and inventors - and required ore and other raw materials that itself took huge supply chains to produce. All the people above were similarly dependent on their parents for their lives. And all were dependent upon education in the various trades on their teachers. The teachers were also dependent through and through. The dependency graph is so thorough with so many nodes utterly replete with dependency that it boggles the mind!

That bug in china and you are not one. You are separate beings. However, both of you are utterly suffused with dependency and there are undoubtedly countless nodes in common between the dependency graph of that bug and your own dependency graph. It takes just a little imagination to come up with numbers of ways in which your story and that bug's are interrelated and mutually dependent.

Maybe, "you cannot alter one without altering the other" is not the definition of interdependent, but it sure seems a necessary condition! Any two things where you can truthfully say, "you cannot alter one without altering the other" you can be darn sure are interdependent :)

Another way of thinking about your question is trying to understand the relationship between a whole and the parts that make it up. Consider a car. Is a car dependent upon the things that make it up? Does the car depend upon the tires? Does it depend upon the brakes? Does it depend upon the windshield? The engine?

Say you start taking parts away from a car... at what point or at what part that you take away does it make the car no longer a car? This is a great question to consider and has been contemplated very deeply by Buddhist masters for thousands of years. Of course, earlier generations of Buddhists considered chariots not cars. The greeks considered ships.  What's your answer? :)

Hope this helps!


the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground

I see this in a book. I cannot understand exactly what it means. what is the deep meaning of this Buddha's quotes.

It is a fake Buddha quote. Check it here. He never said that.

But still, if you want to interpret it, this profound wisdom might suggest that, "only an uninstructed human will not understand dependent origination".

Only an uninstructed human  will need ground to know the truth that she has a feet. Doesnt sound buddhist to me at all.


Buddhism and terminal illness Even in my limited knowledge on Buddhism, it makes sense to see a connection between a terminal illness (like cancer) and previous negative karma. Is there a Sutta where Buddha talks about this connection?
Is it true that a terminal illness can be seen in a "positive" way, like purifying past karma?
From a Buddhist prospective, are there specific ways (like rituals, prayers) for curing (or helping with) a terminal illness?

Thank you all for your answers! Be well!

First, from Tsongkhapa's viewpoint, there are three types of karmic results. One of them is the result similar to the cause. It is often thought that cancer or other deadly ones result from having taken life/lives in past life. A reason for thinking this way is that it may help the meditator to lessen anger (that would come from feeling that it's unfair or underserved). Thinking "cancer comes from such a negative action" is meant to generate regret (not incredible guilt or remorse that will have you paralyzed), and apply antidotes so as to stop engaging in negativities. One has to be careful with this way of thinking. For instance, telling a third person "it's just karma" or "it's because you killed in the past" might not be the best thing to do. It is first and foremost something to take for oneself, to improve one's own practice. To be taken and given carefully. These considerations are not so much to be taken as descriptive than instructive, so as to meditate, dwell on them, and generate within one's own continuum, antidotes to anger and so forth. Dwelling on the notion that "one created the causes of whatever awful turn of event occur" would otherwise be sterile or even possibly dangerous.

Also, a ripening of a karmic imprint is always "karma getting exhausted" but is not necessarily a sign of purification.

As to prayers, in Tibetan monasteries, we perform pujas ("ceremonies, rituals, prayers") on a regular basis, dedicating to specific people who requested (some giving donation, some not). The most common in this setting are Medicine Buddha Puja and Cittamani Tara Puja. This said, the practice we consider the best in these cases is animal liberation (i.e. saving life, as directly opposed to the cause that was taking lives).


According to the Dhamma monks have no rights? There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting cloth, he is not agitated. Getting cloth, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.

~

Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated.
Not getting lodging, he is not agitated.

AN 4.28
And the well-known simile of the Saw:

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

MN21

The monks can and should receive robes (as donation), almsfood, lodging and respect.

But if the monks don't receive these, they shouldn't be angry, unhappy or agitated, for that conflicts with their training of equanimity.

Furthermore, any kind of donation is voluntary. If a lay person doesn't wish to donate to monks, the monks cannot blame him for it.


How do you handle loud, meaningful family noises while trying to focus? THe most successful cultivators and Buddhists cultivated in the forest or mountains where there are few people. In our day and age, this is less easy due to polluted rivers, overharvesting of resources, financial necessity, etc. and we all live in noisy metropolises.

  "Go to a quiet place without people, sit cross-legged, with
  correct body and correct attention, without any other thoughts, and
  fix the attention on the nose:.."

For a beginner, this is not ideal, although advanced meditators who are enjoying the fruit of their efforts are fully absorbed with their meditation object, not hearing any noise.

How do you handle loud, meaningful and ultimately alarming family noises while trying to focus on meditation object?
What are trains of thoughts that lead you to the state where you do not even understand what they are saying because you are so absorbed in your object?
I experience this frequently, where I don't hear or feel anything and I am singularly focused on my object and this oftentimes happens when I do any type of noting (vipassana) practice. Any tricks, contemplations, ideas any experienced cultivators can give me?

loud = clearly audible through a door, 10 times louder than the sound of your own breathing (which I like to use as a concentration object)
meaningful = language and emotion, which we as social mammals are instinctively wired to respond to when hearing off-handedly, particularly our mirror neurons

Basically I have an annoying, unhealthy family who watches TV with all their free time and never cultivates or does anything despite the many instructions, books given to them. I feel that they often do this to spite me due to my choice to ignore them.

Please give solutions other than blocking out the noise through noise-cancellation, earplugs, or binaural beats (all of which are excellent suggestions) which I have success with and will continue to use but I do not like unnecessary pressure on my ears.

Understand what happens. Sound comes in contact with the ear which re recognise as such and such or voice of so and so. This creates a reaction which creates sensations to which you react with craving or aversion. In the above case you are reacting with aversion. When sound in the dominant input focus on the ear area for sensations. If the sound is very loud it might hurt the ear also but even in other cases when you practice you get some sensation. This has a mental reaction and thought proliferation. This gives arise to sensations in the head area. This should be your secondary focus. If you look closely you will see this creates vibration and sensation all over the body. This should be your tertiary focus. When you start you will not be able to even sense anything around the ear unless very intense but as you go on you will be able to see the vibration through out the body. This comes with practice.

What ever sensation you should not react to it.

Each time your mind gets distracted by the sound or any other sense input do the following:

Recognise the object of attention to which the mind has wandered away and note it without verbalisation or imagination (i.e., without creating mental fabrications): Sense input or mental chartering, etc.
There is a sensation tided to this object being in focus: it can be intellectual stimulation if it is an thought, some other sensation if the body, etc.
Analysing, mental reaction and through proliferation may have created sensations around your head and rest of the body. So note these sensations.
Bring back your mind to your chosen object of attention. This can be extended even when doing normal tasks.
Each stage try to calm the fabrications. Lesser fabrications more concentrated you get.


In Dependent Co-Arising, is Dukkha a Sankhara, a Vedana, both, or none? How should I understand dukkha (in all its amplitude and semantic complexity), if I want to see it through the lens of Dependent Co-Arising?

Where is it classified, apart from the final nidana?

Is it a sankhara? Is always something felt and, therefore, a feeling?

If dukkha is always something to be felt (as vedana), then does that mean that everytime the chain of conditionality gives rise to the final nidana, the chain "starts again" in vedana?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Kind regards!

Plenty of other things than vedana are dukkha, so you cannot say that dukkha is just vedana.

The buddha says that whatever is anicca is dukkha, so the way to find dukkha is to find something anicca, and all the stuff in Dependent Co-Arising are anicca.

the buddha says that this is to be known about dukkha:

  "'Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play
  should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result
  of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known.
  The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known.'
  Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?

  Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stress; sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stress; association with
  the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is stress; not
  getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five
  clinging-aggregates are stress.

  "And what is the cause by which stress comes into play? Craving is the
  cause by which stress comes into play.

  "And what is the diversity in stress? There is major stress & minor,
  slowly fading & quickly fading. This is called the diversity in
  stress.

  "And what is the result of stress? There are some cases in which a
  person overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, grieves, mourns,
  laments, beats his breast, & becomes bewildered. Or one overcome with
  pain, his mind exhausted, comes to search outside, 'Who knows a way or
  two to stop this pain?' I tell you, monks, that stress results either
  in bewilderment or in search. This is called the result of stress.

  "And what is the cessation of stress? From the cessation of craving is
  the cessation of stress; and just this noble eightfold path — right
  view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
  right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of stress.

  "Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns stress in this way,
  the cause by which stress comes into play in this way, the diversity
  of stress in this way, the result of stress in this way, the cessation
  of stress in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation
  of stress in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as
  the cessation of stress.

  "'Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play...
  The diversity in stress... The result of stress... The cessation of
  stress... The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be
  known.' Thus it was said, and in reference to this was it said.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html

As usual dukkha arises from craving   and ceases from the cessation from craving like that

  “One who craves for and delights in bodily form, craves for and
  delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha will not
  attain liberation from dukkha. In the same way one who craves for and
  delights in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, craves
  for and delights in dukkha. One who craves for and delights in dukkha
  will not attain liberation from dukkha.

https://suttacentral.net/sa7/en/analayo

If you want to find dukkha, just make craving arise and puthujjanas already crave and delight so it won't be hard to find dukkha.

So when there is no delight, this happens

  "There are ideas cognizable via the intellect — agreeable, pleasing,
  charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. If a monk does not
  relish them, welcome them, or remain fastened to them, then in him —
  not relishing them, not welcoming them, not remaining fastened to them
  — there arises no delight. From the cessation of delight, I tell you,
  comes the cessation of suffering and stress. {By this means, Punna,
  you are not far from this doctrine and discipline."

  At that time the Blessed One said to the monks: “You should rightly
  examine the eye as impermanent. One who examines it like this is
  called ‘with right view’. Because of rightly contemplating it,
  disenchantment arises. Because of the arising of disenchantment, one
  is free from delight and free from lust. Because of being free from
  delight and lust, I say the mind is rightly liberated.

  “In the same way [one should rightly examine] the ear … the nose … the
  tongue … the body … the mind … [up to] … one is free from delight and
  free from lust. Monks, because of being free from delight and lust, I
  say the mind is rightly liberated.

https://suttacentral.net/sa188/en/analayo

And the way to not have delight is this:

  “In the same way you should give right attention to feeling …
  perception … formations … consciousness, contemplating consciousness
  as impermanent, knowing it as it really is. Why is that? One who gives
  right attention to consciousness, who contemplates consciousness as
  impermanent and knows it as it really is, will eradicate desire and
  lust in regard to consciousness. One who eradicates desire and lust in
  regard to consciousness, I say, liberates the mind.

https://suttacentral.net/sa2/en/analayo

which is done with ''diligence''

  “To a type of monks like this I say that they [should] cultivate
  diligence. Why is that? As such a monk trains in the faculties and
  delights the mind accordingly, is endowed with the necessities of
  life, and associates with good friends, he will soon attain the
  destruction of the influxes, the influx-free liberation of the mind
  and liberation by wisdom, knowing here and now for himself and
  realizing that: ‘Birth for me has been eradicated, the holy life has
  been established, what had to be done has been done, I myself know
  that there will be no receiving of any further existence.’

  “Why is that? In relation to forms cognized by the eye which he could
  crave for with delight and become defiled by attachment, on having
  seen them that monk does not delight in them, does not praise them, is
  not defiled by them, and is not established in the bondage of
  attachment. As he does not delight in them, not praise them, is not
  defiled by them, and is not established in [the bondage of]
  attachment, he diligently progresses in the appeasing of body and
  mind.

  “With the mind fully established in peace without forgetfulness,
  always concentrated and single-minded, with boundless joy in the
  Dharma, but still attaining the foremost concentrative attainment, he
  will certainly not regress by following a form with the eye. In
  relation to [sounds cognized by] the ear … [odours cognized by] the
  nose … [flavours cognized by] the tongue … [tangibles cognized by] the
  body … mind-objects cognized by the mind it is also like this.”

https://suttacentral.net/sa212/en/analayo


Bodhipakkhiya: Panca Indriya versus Panca Bala In the Bodhipakkhiya (the 37 factors of enlightenment) are mentioned the Panca Indriya and the Panca Bala. Both sets have the same factors: saddha; virya; sati; samadhi and panna. Why are those sets separately mentioned?

You use the faculty (Indriya) to exert the strength (Bala). Say you are a person generally strong in saddha you can use this fact to apply saddha for your spiritual development.


Opinions and beliefs When a student becomes aware of the thinking mind and begins to detach from it, would knowledge of how the thinking mind works be relevant to go deeper into the practice?
Would an understanding of how the thinking mind works be an opinion and therefore lead to suffering?

In (Pali) Buddhism, what leads to suffering is craving & attachment rather than opinions. Opinions in themselves are not necessarily suffering. It is only attachment to opinions or opinions born of craving that are suffering. For example, the opinion that the 'sky is blue' is not suffering.


No owner of the Dhamma? Surely a convention-philosophy conflicting question:

One sad "There's no owner for this Dhamma." Can this be related to the Buddhas words as they are known from the Sublime Canon, or is it told different, or both, or neither?

If there is an owner of the Dhamma, what makes them rightly recognized as such?

[Note: This question is not given for trade, exchange or whatever wordily gain and bondage]

No owner of the Dhamma?
  If there are owner of the Dhamma, what makes them rightly recognized as such?

There are no owners of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is timeless, impersonal and cannot be owned by anyone. There are practitioners and teachers of the Dhamma.

Furthermore, the Dhamma is discovered. A fully enlightened Buddha discovers the Dhamma and teaches it.

In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality).

  "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled
  by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what
  is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly
  known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..."

  -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.


Fear of enlightenment (I know there have been some questions about this same topic but each one is a particular issue)

I have started taking the buddhist path not long ago, less than three years. Life felt too heavy and it felt like it was pushing me towards not wanting to play the game anymore. So buddhism seemed like the way to go.  I was pretty excited about it for quite some time, hearing about the mystic expeciences, the idea of feeling the float from releasing from ego and the satori experience itself - but only as long as it was a distant, remote possibility.

As soon as I started digging deeper into this reality, investigating it for what it really is, things changed. I started feeling afraid of it and then terribly afraid. I can't forget the first time I faced the idea of vanishing from this existence forever, the true death; never being able to come back once I 'saw it'. Nevertheless I kept investigating. Then I contemplated the idea of being trapped in this. Existence has no way out, anywhere you go there is still existence. In other words 'What if it has been like this for millions, billions of years, maybe even for eternity? What if I am stuck in this illusion, completaly alone, unable to get anything out of it, for the eternity, and this is what the whole, me, ultimately is?'. Having seen this brought me to an unforgettable state of total dispair.

Some months have passed and now the whole thing feels weird. The more I look at reality, the more weird it gets and if I look hard enough it becomes dreadful. How strange is this thing we call death, or enlightenment, or time or self. I can't put in words how weird life feels for me. Sometimes when I wake up in the morning there is a strong sense of feeling weird to have hands and to move and to be in a body. Indeed, the I does not make sense, nothing makes sense. And I am afraid of being stuck in this forever. But if enlightenment is the only scape, I am afraid of never being able to come back. I am afraid everything is just an illusion, that there aren't others, just images and I'm alone. Sometimes I fear there isn't even enlightenment to save me.

My question is:  Am I going crazy? Am I getting it all wrong? I just wanted some light. Also, I am asking here because I know other people won't understand what I am talking about. Sorry for the long question.

fear of liberation from 5 skandhas is normal for those who haven't studied Dhamma.  Buddha mentioned it in (Udana Sutta,

  "There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ... falls into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is fear for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.' But an instructed disciple of the noble ones does not fall into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is no fear for an instructed disciple of the noble ones [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.'

Quite long sutta but it answers your question.


Gratitude, Movement and Compassion I noticed all the emotions mentioned in the title have a certain similarity. Does Buddhism talk about movement or gratitude?

Similarly, movement seems to occur spontaneously, but gratitude and compassion may be practised. Is movement more of a reaction, and less constructive on that basis?

Finally, movement seems akin to sympathetic joy. Would feeling sympathetic joy in itself -- i.e. the feeling or experience of it -- be constructive independently of practice, or is the implementation more constructive? In other words, would practise like meditation or action bring benefit much beyond merely feeling moved?

I guess I'm somewhat implying the question as well: Do experiences without effort (e.g. merely feeling compassion) have any potential for spiritual growth?

Thank you.

It seems to me that 'feeling moved' is just an emotional reaction. Meditation and practice are not about creating emotional reactions but about transcending them. The idea would be to establish who is moved, who is compassionate, who is emotional and so forth, as well as to engender compassion.

I suspect gratitude is just what happens naturally but maybe this should also be practiced. Perhaps this would be the same as practicing 'being moved' but such a practice would also require establishing who is being moved and even what 'moved' really means.

Experience without effort is not a practice but examining those experiences would be one. In short, I don't think there's anything in Buddhist practice one could call a free lunch.

All 'in my opinion' of course.


Russian language Mulamadhyamakakarika? Would anyone have any advice on where to find a good Russian translation of Nagarjuna's book? (I've tried myself, but Russian is no longer my first language!)

Androsov has translated and commented it. I'm not sure if his translation is very good - he might have some strange terminology sometimes - but he is one of the leading Russian scholars in that field. See "Nagarjuna's teaching on Middle Way" - Андросов В.П. Учение Нагарджуны о Срединности... М., 2006

Another interesting text on the topic might be Chandrakirti's "Introduction to Madhyamaka":

Чандракирти. Введение в Мадхьямику. Перевод с тибетского, предисловие, комментарии, глоссарий, и указатели Донца А. М. под общей редакцией Монтлевича В, М, – СПб.: Евразия, 2004. – 464 с. ISBN 5-8071-0165-0

ББК 86.39 УДК 2 418 Научное издание Утверждено к печати ученым советом Института монголоведения, буддологии и тибетологии СО РАН Ответственный редактор канд. филос. наук С. П. Нестеркин Рецензенты доктор филос. наук С. Ю. Лепехов доктор филос. наук, профессор В. Б. Цыбикжапов


Why do users of psychedelic drugs tend to gravitate toward Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies? This post was submitted to reddit and I thought it might be interesting to re-post it here. I will now copy and paste the body of text the original poster submitted:

"It seems like so many people who use psychedelics are drawn to the Eastern way of thought. I could probably count on one hand the amount of people in the world who took LSD and became a supporter of Hobbes' argument for the sovereign or any other western way of thought (save, perhaps, existentialism). Conversely, almost any forum for psychedelic drug users will have lots of discussions of meditation, buddhism, taoism, and so forth, especially when discussing how the drugs have changed the individual using them.

What is it about psychedelics and eastern thought that causes this? Why is this correlation exist?"

re: http://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/2aqzgw/why_do_users_of_psychedelic_drugs_tend_to/

So why is this?

Also, interestingly, in Ram Dass's book, "Be Here Now!", which I just recently read (though it came out in the late 70's, I think), prior to visiting India, and finding his guru, Neem Karoli Baba, he and Timothy Leary did a LOT of LSD, and drugs. His personal finding was that the drugs were awesome in giving him a different view of mind, etc., but he always had to "come down". He turned to Hinduism, (and Buddhism, often) for a way to never have to "come down". The rest is history, so to speak. Just my 2 cents. Take care.


Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose? Any authentic sutta or part of sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of sexual relationship partner to choose?

I'm thinking the Vimalikirti sutra should say something about such layman concerns.

Specifically things like what kind of partner would an ideal layman choose for family purposes if choose at all?

Should one find a companion who already understands the Dharma and is thus highly capable of being a companion and teacher to children?

Or is the proper bodhisattva action to practice the dana paramita by bonding and inspiring  someone who lacks the dharma--but is ready to receive it--and thus help to transform their karma as well as the whole universe's (through increasing Dharma quotient in a "lower denominator")?

[The Taoist tradition (which I highly honor) has some insights into this matter and for me is very connected to Buddhism and according to my learning would imply that a cultivated woman choose the latter and a cultivated man choose the former.]

Here's a summary of Chapter 5 of The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness.

If you fail to find suitable associates it's better to be "like a solitary rhinoceros"
Leave aside unproven traditional criteria: including race, caste, gender, and external appearance (and creed)
A person's inner development is more important than their birth
Be cautious of first impressions and initial understandings

  People cannot be know well by their appearance
  Nor can they be trusted after brief impression.
  Yes, the undisciplined may roam in the world
  In the attire of the well displined.

Associate with a person, observe and evaluate their words and actions
Be wise and rational in order to obtain a clear picture of the person you're evaluating
Find wise people who cause no fear or worry
Look for someone who is compatible in four ways:

Similar confidence in spiritual development
Similar respect for self-discipline
Similar respect for humanistic practices
Similar level of wisdom

These similarities are "so important for a peaceful marriage".

Spiritual development: if one person respects spiritual believes and practices, and the other holds them in total disregard, then the two people are simply incompatible.

Self-discipline: if one partner is well-disciplined and the other unscrupulous then their incompatibility will become obvious and cause problems.

Humanistic practices: includes dana, also caga (generous acts).

Level of wisdom: i.e. samapanna, includes knowledge, skill, emotional maturity, reasoning power; doesn't mean that both should have same education and intellectual ability, but wide difference in these areas could cause incompatibility and lead to conflicts.

Chapter 6 is about how to treat your partner after you marry.


Jhāna, seeing the welfare of self and other I am looking for a sutta in which something is said--roughly: that unless one has suppressed the hindrances, one cannot see the welfare of self or other. Or that without jhāna one cannot see one's own welfare or anothers.

Sangaravo Sutta: Sangarava -- The Hindrances (SN 46.55) says that.

It says that ...

  he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, nor can he know and see what is to the profit of others, or of both himself and others

... when overwhelmed and possessed by hindrances including ...

sense-desires
ill-will
sloth-and-torpor
worry-and-flurry
doubt-and-wavering

... but conversely ...

  when a man dwells with his heart not possessed, not overwhelmed by sense-desires... ill-will... sloth-and-torpor... worry-and-flurry... doubt-and-wavering... [like the five bowls of water not as previously described, but 'clear, limpid, pellucid, set in the open']... then he knows and sees, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both himself and others. Then even sacred words he has not long studied are clear to him, not to mention those he has studied.

This sutta says that about "hindrances" and "profit of self and other", but I don't think it mentions jhāna.


Are Amitabha and Sakyamuni the same? Buddha is the name for the Supreme Being, right? So are Amitabha Buddha and Sakyamuni Buddha both Supreme Beings but of different galaxies or something? I assume there are more buddhas than just these two. If so, how can there be many Supreme Beings?

I guess I am confused by what it means to say Sakyamuni is the buddha of our saha world while Amitabha presides over Sukhavati.

This is a Mahayana question and I'll answer it as such.

The cosmology of the Amitabha Buddha is described as something akin to an infinite number of parallel universes (or galaxies, the cosmology isn't or wasn't trying to be accurate in the astrophysics), each with a Buddha. The Buddha of each universe arise and disappear to be replaced by a new one, the next one in our universes is Maitreya.

The respect in which Sakyamuni Buddha is Supreme is that he was the most recent Buddha in our world. He was preceded by seven Buddhas.

Via reincarnation you can appear in a universe with a different Buddha, which is the whole point of the Pure Land Sutras. The gist is that progress towards enlightenment in this world is difficult, but easy in the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha.

In the cosmology there is the idea that there can only be one Buddha in the world at time. Personally I haven't come across a convincing explanation for why. My personal opinion is that this is related to the Precept on making false claims of enlightenment. If you are running a sangha and six monks all claim to have become enlightened and all think they are now the rightful leaders of the sangha, that could be a problem.

The Buddhas of other Lands appear to have intercessory powers in our world, for example the Medicine Buddha (Bhaisajyaguru) vows to provide a number of this-worldly benefits to those who say his name.

On the other hand, there is no limit on the number of Bodhisattvas-- Kwan Yin/Avalokitesvara, Kstigarbha, etc. all can exist in the same universe.

Now if this question is really about finding monotheism in Buddhism, you can find that, too. The Adibuddha and Vairocana have been suggested to be the Buddhas from which all other Buddhas emanate, and syncretic Buddhism from time to time has explicitly or accidentally reincorporated a Hindu style Brahma-- a universal, shared soul that is also the monotheistic god or supreme being.

The evidence for all this is from sutras, and presumably the meditative inspirations and visions of the authors. If that doesn't do anything for you, that's fine, too, it reads fine as a myth-- a fictional story to illustrate the Dharma.


Meditation's Effect on Strong Attachment I have a straightforwards question: does meditation decrease attachments -- e.g. to alcohol or social media -- by increasing willpower, or by other mechanisms? I would think shamatha increases willpower in the long-term, but does it produce some other effects that decrease attachments?

Thank you.

Meditation can result in samatha (tranquility & joy) and vipassana (insight).

On a very basic or crude level, meditation can provide an intimate insight into how addictions & habits disturb, trouble & enslave the mind, which can help the mind develop a distaste or dispassion towards these more coarse/gross addictions & habits.

As for samatha, if well developed, it provides an alternate, more healthy & free source of pleasure.

All minds require 'pleasure' however some sources of pleasure are more healthy than others.


Differences in attainments among Arahants In the Anguttara Nikaya it is said that by possessing seven qualities one can attain direct knowledge of the Four Analytical Knowledges:

Mastery.

"Bhikkhus, possessing seven qualities, Sāriputta exercises mastery over his mind and is not a servant of his mind. What seven? Here, (1) Sāriputta is skilled in concentration, (2) skilled in the attainment of concentration, (3) skilled in the duration of concentration, (4) skilled in emergence from concentration, (5) skilled in fitness for concentration, (6) skilled in the area of concentration, and (7) skilled in resolution regarding concentra- tion. Possessing these seven qualities, Sāriputta exercises mas- tery over his mind and is not a servant of his mind".
"Bhikkhus, when he possessed seven qualities, Sāriputta realized for himself with direct knowledge the four analytical knowledges".
-- The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha - A Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi: The Book of the Sevens, Sutta 39, p. 1023

What are the Four Analytical Knowledges?

In the Pali Canon Study "Nibbana as Living Experience / The Buddha and The Arahant" by Lily de Silva a well described section on the Four Analytical Knowledges can be found. Here is a quote from the study:

Among arahants too there are differences in attainment. In one place the Buddha states that in a group of 500 monks sixty are arahants with the six higher knowledges (cha.labhi~n~naa), sixty are arahants with the three clear knowledges (tevijjaa), another sixty are arahants liberated from both parts (ubhatobhaagavimutta), while the rest are arahants liberated by wisdom (pa~n~naavimutta).
The highest qualifications among arahants are the six higher knowledges (cha.labhi~n~naa) and the four analytical knowledges (catupa.tisambhidaa) . The former comprise psychic powers, the divine ear, thought reading, retrocognition (the ability to recall one's former births), clairvoyance (the ability to see beings dying and being reborn according to their kamma), and the knowledge of the destruction of defilements. The four analytical knowledges comprise insight into the meaning of words (attha), truth (dhamma), use of language (nirutti), and originality of ideas (pa.tibhaana) . They seem to pivot round the ability to teach the Dhamma through the medium of verbal communication with appealing and meaningful ways of presentation.
Some arahants are endowed with the special accomplishment of the fourfold analytical knowledge (pa.tisambhidaa-~naa.na), which qualifies them even more thoroughly for creative work. These are spelt out as analytical knowledge of the meaning or goal, profound truth, language or the medium of communication, and originality of expression (attha, dhamma, nirutti, pa.tibhaana). These four special qualifications make arahants experts in communicating to their audience the exact meanings and goals of the profound truths they have discovered, through the medium of refined language, using their own original modes of expression such as eloquent similes, metaphors, etc. Several arahants, both male and female, are recorded as eloquent speakers and erudite exponents of the Dhamma. Special mention must be made of the Theragaathaa and Theriigaathaa, which comprise poems of exquisite beauty. They are utterances of monks and nuns embodying their varied experiences. Literary critics rank them among the best lyrics in Indian literature. They remain unrivalled in the literary history of the world as creative writing issuing forth from the undefiled purity of the human heart and the nobility of human wisdom. They are ever-fresh fountains of inspiration to the truth-seeker and lasting monuments to the creative genius of the liberated beings.

For more information on this topic there is a comprehensive and detailed exposition called "The Fourfold Analytical Knowledge in Pali Literature" by Ven. Bhikkhu Kusalaguṇa. Here is a quote from the abstract:

The fourfold analytical knowledge (catu-paṭisambhidā) is an integrated set of knowledge gained by the noble persons (ariya) who had developed necessary conditions eligible for this distinctive attainment. The fourfold analytical knowledge consists of:
(1) The analytical knowledge of result (attha-paṭisambhidā),
(2) The analytical knowledge of cause (dhamma-paṭisambhidā),
(3) The analytical knowledge of language (nirutti-paṭisambhidā), and
(4) The analytical knowledge of knowledge (paṭibhāna-paṭisambhidā).
The noble persons who possess these kinds of knowledge are able to penetratingly understand the four types of ultimate realities (paramattha-dhammā), namely, consciousness (citta), mental concomitants (cetasika), matters (rūpa) and Nibbāna, the unconditioned element, and are capable of elucidating them with lucid language and exposition. The Buddha, Venerable Sāriputta and other great noble disciples were real legends in this field of comprehension and explanatory dexterity, as evidently described in the Pāḷi literature.
Each of the fourfold analytical knowledge possesses different analyticities. The analytical knowledge of result has the power to understand fully the so-called resultant phenomena including all cause-produced things, meanings of the Buddha’s Word classified into nine categories such as sutta (discourses in prose), geyya (discourses in prose and verse) and so on, and the unconditioned element, Nibbāna. Similarly, the analytical knowledge of cause has the ability to know various causative phenomena that comprise all result-generating causes, the Buddha’s Word, and the Noble Path leading to the realization of Nibbāna. The analytical knowledge of language, on the other hand, is endowed with the capability of recognizing the grammatically correct usage and the grammatically incorrect usage of Pāḷi language, and is able to understand a wide range of Pāḷi terminologies connected with the ultimate realities. The analytical knowledge of knowledge is, however, capable of taking the foregoing knowledge as objects, and of comprehending their functional activities.
The attainment of the fourfold analytical knowledge is nothing but the accomplishment of collectively conditioning factors accumulated in both the past and present lives. The eight conditions must be fulfilled in order to give rise to the fourfold analytical knowledge, they are: attainment of the highest mundane insight knowledge (knowledge of equanimity towards formations) in the past lives, great erudition, proficiency of dialects, knowledge of Scriptures, inquiry, attainment of the Noble Path, association with teachers, and acquisition of good friends.


Can an objective criticism of somebodies work, which might hurt feelings, violate 'Right Speech' precept? If we write or verbally express an objective criticism of someone's work, for e.g. if I write a bad(but honest) review of my friends movie, or if I tell my friend that I don't like her cooking (instead of lying to keep her mind), or if I tell an honest truth to someone about something related to him/her, but if in all these situations the words will cause hurtful feelings to the other, will that constitute 'wrong speech' adding up to bad karma or not?

Note: I will be telling truth in all situations as perceived by me. And the intention here is not to do harm but just to express my feelings.

MN58 Abhaya Sutta:

  (1) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual/untrue, unbeneficial, and unendearing/disagreeable [i.e. painful - AV]  to others -- he does not say them.

  (2) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true but
  unbeneficial and unendearing/disagreeable to others -- he does not say
  them.

  (3) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true and
  beneficial, but unendearing/disagreeable to others -- he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.

  (4) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual/untrue, unbeneficial, and yet endearing/agreeable to others -- he does not
  say them.

  (5) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true,
  unbeneficial, and endearing/agreeable to others -- he does not say
  them.

  (6) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true, and
  beneficial, and endearing/agreeable to others -- he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

Also:

  It's as if a man were shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. As a result of being shot with the arrow, he would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon. The surgeon would cut around the opening of the wound with a knife. As a result of the surgeon's cutting around the opening of the wound with a knife, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would probe for the arrow with a probe. As a result of the surgeon's probing for the arrow with a probe, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would then pull out the arrow. As a result of the surgeon's pulling out the arrow, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would then apply a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound. As a result of the surgeon's applying a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. But then at a later time, when the wound had healed and was covered with skin, he would be well & happy, free, master of himself, able to go wherever he liked. The thought would occur to him, "Before, I was shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. As a result of being shot with the arrow, I felt fierce, sharp, racking pains. My friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives provided me with a surgeon... The surgeon cut around the opening of the wound with a knife... probed for the arrow with a probe... pulled out the arrow... applied a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound. As a result of his applying a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound, I felt fierce, sharp, racking pains. But now that the wound is healed and covered with skin, I am well & happy, free, master of myself, able to go wherever I like."

Can an objective criticism of somebodies work, which might hurt feelings, violate 'Right Speech' precept? -- Yes, it can: 1) if it is not beneficial; 2) if it is not said at the proper time.


Huayan Buddhism Flower Garland Is Huayan Buddhism the one that teaches about infinite universes being held on a jeweled flower garland, or is it another branch/sect of Buddhism?

華嚴 (Hua-yan) literally means "flower garland". The name is the Chinese translation of "Avatamsaka". The name Flower Garland is meant to suggest the crowning glory of a Buddha's profound understanding of ultimate reality. The Avatamsaka sutra contains the following verse:

In each dust-mote of these worlds
Are countless worlds and Buddhas...
From the tip of each hair of Buddha's body
Are revealed the indescribable Pure Lands...
The indescribable infinite Lands
All ensemble in a hair's tip [of Buddha]


How can someone integrate the Buddhist philosophy on life's purpose into daily life? The question 'What is the purpose of life?' has been asked before. What I understood is that if I were to set a purpose to life, once I achieve my goal, life becomes meaning less. There is no single thought great enough to spend an entire lifetime. So, life has no intrinsic meaning.
In everyday life, we try to plan things. Setting goals provide clarity about what exactly to do, what's important and what's not. Reaching goals help building self-confidence and motivates to move forward. It also helps to work efficiently while dealing with big tasks (Makes big tasks into smaller, more manageable units, Helps good decision making that are inline with the final goal).
Both sound reasonable to me but they also seem contradictory. Then how should a lay man approach his life to be productive and at the same time seek liberation from the sufferings of samsara?

The essence of dukkha (suffering) is clash, conflict, discord, disharmony - of some kind, whether inner conflict in one person's mind or outer conflict between persons or groups of people.
The opposite of that is happiness, whose essence is peace and harmony.
A lay person could make meaningful contribution to society and make progress towards liberation from samsara by dedicating his or her life to reducing the causes of suffering and creating causes of happiness.
Specifically, reducing, preventing, reconciling inner and outer conflicts and helping with implementation of behaviors that lead to peace and harmony.
For example, a professional peacemaker/negotiator in armed conflicts is someone who resolves external conflicts. Resolving external conflicts he or she removes causes of suffering. Making peace he or she creates causes of happiness.
You can come up with more ideas like this. A psychologist reduces suffering that happens due to inner conflicts. A teacher reduces suffering that happens due to ignorance and confusion.
Various professions work in different areas and have different level of influence: some work at individual level and some work with large groups of people.
The important thing to realize is what I started my answer with. As long as your job is reducing causes of suffering such as conflicts, clashes, greed, hatred, confusion, ignorance - you will both make a nice contribution to society and make progress on the Path.