Is the age of monastic life over? Is it societal conditioning or keeping up with the times? I hear a lot of "spiritually awakened" people, on shows like batgap.com and on forums like dharmaoverground.org claim that the age of the monastic life is over, and in the present day one must learn to mix the spiritual life with the ordinary life. There is also evidenced by popular lay leaders like John Kabat-Zinn, one-time monastic Jack Kornfield, Ram Dass, Shinzen Young, Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, Eckhart Tolle and others. Perhaps a lot of lay people on this forum are in this boat too.

These are largely sincere people from what I can tell, who have spent a lot of time looking for the truth. So why do they say this?

There have always been scandals and corruption in monastic orders since the time of the Buddha, as well as rather rigid and dogmatic views taken by some abbots. So, that cannot be a new reason to decry the tradition. The Buddha certainly appears to have spent a lot of time dealing with problem makers of this sort.

And both problems continue to be pretty common in almost all Buddhist traditions today (Tibetan, Theravada, Zen etc) who in addition seem to have also confused culture with the pursuit of the truth.

Now, a monk who isn't a local, enrolling in any foreign tradition spends a lot of time learning the new culture, the language, the food, the social mores, often dealing with racism to boot - all of which appear to be a waste of time, taking away from actual time spent on spiritual development. The saving grace is that it teaches perseverance, patience and doggedness, but is it enough? What's the alternative?

Maybe it is this?

Religion is largely becoming a taboo word in modern times with the trend towards secular materialism ascending. So, it's not like the times of the Buddha when the entire Sakhyan clan decided to follow the Buddha into monkhood. The bar is quite high for someone in the west or in any westernized country really, to forsake all known things, and head off to the other side of the world to become a monk.

Of course many still do.

Maybe it is this?

In the time of the Buddha lay arhats were pretty rare, the general route was to become a monk. Certainly if one must remain immersed in meditation and dhammic thoughts all day and night, lay life with its smells, noises and temptations is far more dangerous today than at any time previously. This alone must make monasticism all the more necessary today.

Yet, some lay teachers I can think of like Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk (at least one of them claims to be an arhat) declare that the idea of 24x7 meditative or dhammic immersion is impossible. One must allow for simple lay pleasures they say. KF even teaches in Silicon Valley, a rather central hub of material pleasures.

It doesn't help that in Buddhist countries like Thailand and Indian-Tibet most monks don't spend all day in dharmic duties either - they can often been seen out in the city, listening to music or idly browsing their smart phones or even smoking. All variously (dubiously?) justified as not contravening the Vinaya.

So, is it this?

Is the monastic life still relevant? The theoretical idea of samsaric seclusion, wise teachers and rigid routine is certainly attractive - but one's resolve is weakened when looking at the reality which often appears far different.

I'd certainly be interested in hearing from monks on the forum like Ven. Yuttadhammo if possible.

This series of questions is quite involved and surely a book could be written to properly assess the status of how well a very traditional monastic community is holding up in modern times.

But a few things did come to mind that can be easily stated. Your comments are from people who are not currently part of the monastic tradition. They've made their decision and had their reasons. But the monastic community is alive and well without those individuals. It's far more interesting to hear the perspective of those actively a part of the monastic community.

  The bar is quite high for someone in the west or in any westernized country really, to forsake all known things, and head off to the other side of the world to become a monk.

I suppose that's true. And yet people do it and stick with it and find it to be a meaningful way to live. As far as forsaking material things, an interesting example of this is Ajahn Siripanno. His father is a billionaire and he could have lived a life of extraordinary wealth and privilege. And he choose to ordain as a Theravada monk instead. That's a powerful statement about priority when people see clearly.

  Now, a monk who isn't a local, enrolling in any foreign tradition spends a lot of time learning the new culture, the language, the food, the social mores, often dealing with racism to boot - all of which appear to be a waste of time, taking away from actual time spent on spiritual development.

The head monk are our local Theravada monastery, originally from Laos, does not speak English despite having been in the US for a number of years now. Bilingual lay followers at the temple have told me his reason for not doing so is so that he will have fewer distractions. I think this is a smart approach really. Of course, he is not in a position of having to actively seek out lay followers, it's an ethnic community which seeks out the monastery. But that's certainly one way of avoiding the waste of time you speak of.

As far as whether we are moving towards some sort of a "permanent" secularization in society, that would be short sighted speculation. Throughout history, societies have changed and become more or less religious. Religious traditions have become corrupted and then reformed. Religious traditions become more heavily focused on one aspect over another and additional sects emerge (I think this latter is roughly how the "forest traditions" revived in modern times.)

It's not for everyone. But I would think for those "with little dust in their eyes" monastic life will survive all that modern life can throw at it. :)


Why are pleasant feelings "stressful" & "unpleasant"? I read the following in the internet:

All feelings are categorically classed as unpleasant in the
Dhamma...'Three feelings have been spoken of by the Blessed One: a
feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain & a feeling of neither pleasure
nor pain.,,,Now in what connection was this stated by the Blessed One:
"Whatever is felt comes under stress (yaṃ kiñci
vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmin)"

Why are pleasant feelings "stressful" & "unpleasant"?
If all feelings are unpleasant, why are some feelings called "pleasant"?

This is what it says in MN 44 sutta.

"Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing,
friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in
changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in
occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without
knowledge."


Scheduling Formal Meditation Is it considered better practice to stick to a strict schedule of walking/sitting meditation even if doing so will involve trying to settle into meditation while being plagued with hindrances (pañca nīvaraṇāni)? Or just wait until things are calmer and conditions are better even if that isn't until the next day?

I.e., is there value to just forcing yourself (as people sometimes have to do to engage in physical exercise regularly) or would the poor mind state negate your efforts anyway?

(I practice vipassana meditation if that makes a difference.) Thanks for any help.

I would view the answer to this through the lens of right effort. Your practice should aim to be formal enough so that you stick to it and fluid enough that you don't just end up going through the motions. That said I would err on the side of regular times and being a bit stricter with yourself - particularly if one is just starting out (not certain that applies to you).

As far as hindrances go I wouldn't let that stop from either meditation practice. I've been advised to use the hindrances as an object for meditation so could potentially led to some interesting insight.

More generally, at various points I have been give various advice to help maintain an effective practice. So in no particular order

Find a particular time of day that is better for you to practice. Typically this would be early mornings or late evenings but doesn't have to be
Get a place for meditation. Set up a shrine if that helps but have a spot. Keep your cushions set up so you can just slide onto them when the time for meditation is there
It's better to meditate for 5 minutes than not at all. Sometimes you can just sit and connect with yourself and others as best you can. It's enough.
If you can't meditate one day don't beat yourself up about it. Be very kind and patient with yourself. It's a long journey.

Generally it's the middle way which seems easier said than done. But that's the middle way for you.


Could someone provide a list of all Buddhist schools? If someone could provide a list of all Buddhist schools (both extinct and extant) it would be much appreciated. If this is unmanageable due to the high number, major schools would be good, or a link to such a list would be great. Thank you

Out of thousands schools, sub-schools, and hybrids, here are some of the most notable outlines:

Early Buddhism and conservative descendants

=======Popular wing=======

Mahasanghika (developed into Mahayana)

Gokulika (in Varanasi/Pataliputra)

Bahusrutiya (in Kosala)

Satyasiddhi / Tattvasiddhi (Chinese, extinct)

Jojitsu (Japanese)

Prajnaptivada (in Magadha)

Lokottaravada
Caitika

Pudgalavada heresy (extinct)

Vatsiputriya (extinct)

Sanmitiya (extinct)

=======Conservative center=======

Tamraparniya (the Sri Lanka offshoot)

Theravada

Mahisasaka (absorbed into Theravada)
Dharmaguptaka (in Gandhara, extinct)

Ritsu (Japanese)

=======Abhidharma wing=======

Sarvastivada (in Gandhara, extinct)

Vaibhashika (extinct)
Sautrantika (developed into Yogacara)
Kusha (Japanese, extinct)

Mahayana

=======Prajnaparamita / emptiness group=======

Yogacara line

Faxiang (Chinese)
Hosso (Japanese)

Madhyamaka line

Tibetan family

Kadam (extinct)

Gelug (Dalai Lama's school)

Sakya

Sanlun (Chinese, extinct)

Sanron (Japanese, extinct)

Chan (Chinese)

Zen (Japanese)

Soto
Rinzai

Fuke (extinct)

Obaku

Seon (Korean)

Jogye / Chogye (my Zen Master's school)

Thien (Vietnamese)

=======Tantric group=======

Tibetan tantra

Nyingma

Aro gTér

Kagyu

Karma-Kagyu (Chogyam Trungpa's school)

New Kadampa (Gelug breakaway)

Tangmi (Chinese)

Shingon (Japanese)

=======Sincretic group=======

Bon-Nyingma hybrid (Tibetan)
Shugendo (Japanese)
Ari Gaing (Burma, extinct)
Newar (Nepal)

=======Popular wing / Ekayana=======

Pure Land / Amitabha line

Jodo (Japanese)
Yuzu Nembutsu (Japanese)

Lotus Sutra line

Tiantai (Chinese)

Cheontae (Korean)
Tendai (Japanese)
Nichiren (Japanese)

Nipponzan-Myohoji (my first encounter with Buddhism)

Avatamsaka Sutra line

Huayan (Chinese)

Kegon (Japanese)
Hwaeom (Korean, subsumed by Seon)


Seeking attention and validation? Over my life I've realized that my behavior has always been set to the point of wanting attention and validation. A lot of times it's subtle, like the way I move or speak. But other times I find myself shouting out inappropriate jokes and sometimes making a fool of myself, kind of a comedian thing. And sure people laugh, but a lot of the time, I feel as though I'm not being honest to myself when I act in this way. And sometimes think back that "damn, that kind of was stupid."

On the other hand, when I try to control myself (like being mindful) I become completely quiet and introverted. Almost like I got 2 extremes- silent and outlandish.

Did the Buddha ever speak of anything regarding this? Thoughts?

Great question. Sure, Buddhism speaks about seeking praise and fame. The reason we seek praise and fame (to which seeking attention and validation is very similar) is because they give us a sort of energy, they pump us up. In modern terms, they trigger the reward mechanism in our brain, which produces dopamine, the happy hormone.

Now, according to Buddhism, this is not the right way to get energy. This way of getting energy makes us dependent on our (projected) image in the eyes of others. This image, also known as "ego" then gets its own life of sorts and makes us do crazy things, like being a comedian you mention, in order to get its "fix". Needless to say, having a big ego makes one very vulnerable to the opinions of others, very emotionally unstable.

Instead, Buddha said (SN 22.43):

  Monks, be islands (alt. trans. lamps) unto yourselves, be your own refuge, having no other; let the Dhamma be an island(/lamp) and a refuge to you, having no other.

Initially, this means crosschecking our choices and actions against the Dharma and the opinions "of the wise" - instead of trying to get attention and validation from everyone around. This process of crosschecking everything against the reference point of Dharma/guru/elders is called "mindfulness". Taking Buddha (as the role model), Dharma (as the conceptual framework), and Sangha (of elder practitioners, as confirmation/validation) as your reference point for all decision making is called "taking the refuge". For as long as you are on the path, the Triple Gem becomes your source of praise and validation, your source of energy.

Eventually, we should develop our own wisdom to see what's right and our own mental/emotional stability to the point where we can be independent of others as far as our energy. Basically we become egoless - meaning, we can now stop worrying about our image in the eyes of others, because we have completely internalized Dharma, we become the proverbial "wise" and "worthy".

When that happens, attaining the second Jhana occurs spontaneously, since you have now rid yourself of the perpetual conflict between differing opinions and can truly become your own source of clarity, praise and energy.


What is the story where some of the Buddha's followers commit suicide? There is a Buddhist story when some monks (or followers of the Buddha) misinterpret what the Buddha is saying and commit suicide. Does anyone know anymore details about the story and where it comes from? I think it is in the Pali Canon.

What you're looking for is Vesali  sutta.
vesali sutta

  Then the monks — [thinking,] "The Blessed One, with many lines of
  reasoning, has given a talk on the unattractiveness [of the body], has
  spoken in praise of [the perception of] unattractiveness, has spoken
  in praise of the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness"
  — remained committed to the development of [the perception of]
  unattractiveness in many modes & manners. They — ashamed, repelled, &
  disgusted with this body — sought for an assassin. In one day, ten
  monks took the knife. In one day, twenty monks took the knife. In one
  day, thirty monks took the knife.

Edit: I don't think the monks didn't misinterpret the teaching. Perhaps since they're still under training, their mind is not developed and overcome by disgust.


If someone constrain me to build my bad Karma or it wouln't be Karma? If someone building their bad Karma by manipulating against me and if I've do something for revenge then It'd be my bad karma or wouldn't considered as Karma? Or It'd be same as "The Lady and the Ogress - Dhammapada Stories." Not in other, next life but in this life.

If due to some contain you cannot follow through with your action this does not become a potent karma with the potential to give rebirth but the volition forms a mild karma which can give result after rebirth.

Regardless of if you follow through with a action of intend to do some action as retaliatory or not, action and intention will become karma.


Is there a higher alaya in Vajrayana? Is there a higher alaya in mahamudra that is separate from the lower alaya the vijnana skandha?

Is there a higher alaya in mahamudra that is separate from the lower alaya the vijnana skandha?

Vajrayana is a term used to denote Tantric Buddhist schools.
Practitioners of those schools might have somehow different views.
For example, Gelugpa School is based on teachings of Atisha, who was a legendary teacher of 11th century, famous due to his outstanding practitioner's skills, modest and kind personality, and deep understanding of unity of Buddhist Sutric and Tantric teachings.
Atisha wrote a "Lamrim" ("Steps of the Path"), explaining all the Buddhist theory and practice, including Tantric practice, as a unified system.
Later Tsongkhapa based his larger treatise on Atisha's works.
According to their views, Tantric Buddhism means using specific (Tantric) methods for realization of usual (Sutric) concepts.
So in terms of teachings, there is no essential difference between Tantrayana and "Sutric" Mahayana.
Mahamudra is just practical realization of the wisdom of emptiness, expounded by Mahayana teachers such as Buddha Shakyamuni, Vimalakirti, Nagarjuna etc. In Mahayana, those teachings are classified as "Maha Prajnaparamita" class teachings, i.e. teachings about The Great Perfection of Wisdom. They include "Vimalakirti sutra", "Diamond sutra", "Heart sutra" etc.
Madhyamaka school, stemming from Nagarjuna works, is the most focused on prajna paramita teachings.
The model of Eight consciousnesses, where Alaya vijnana is the eighth, is considered belonging to the Vijnanavada school. See "Lankavatara sutra".
Though there were Buddhist teachers criticizing Vijnanavada views, e.g. Chandrakirti, their criticism actually does not refute Vijnanavada views; only primitive ways to understand Vijnanavada views.
So both Vijnanavada and Madhyamaka views are useful and are studied in some Vajrayana schools.
I don't know any specific interpretations of Alaya vijnana by any Vajrayana teachers which would differ from views of those Mahayana schools.
There are some practitioners who would deny the unity of Sutra and Tantra, and could even claim that "Sutric Buddhism" is inferior, but upon investigation such views never hold water.
Such views actually come from lack of prajna, from absolutization of notions, for example, categorizing Buddhism into different parts and levels. Such categorizations are just concepts, relatively true in particular regards and particular limits, nothing more.
So those people may claim that they represent, for example, Nyingma school views, or even something that goes beyond the limits of Buddhism (Dzogchen), but in fact "Sutric" Buddhism is well aware of limits of words and concepts, and goes beyond them itself.
As far as I know, Padmasambhava, from whose teachings and activities Nyingma school has developed, did not contradict or modify usual Mahayana teachings.
With all that in mind, my answer is:
I don't know of any ideas of "higher alaya separate from the lower alaya".
That would be a strange idea, because the concept of alaya represents the highest level of inseparability and non-conceptualization.
Let's examine your expression, "the lower alaya the vijnana skandha".
Vijnana skandha is a concept that describes the reactive nature of mind.
We can talk about my personal mind, your mind, and minds of other beings. Also, we can notice that all things in the material world exhibit the quality of reactivity. We could generalize and say that all the world has a nature of reactivity, and it goes beyond and in between of sentient beings. In other words, reactivity does not belong only to sentient beings, but it's a nature of everything.
We can see everything as reacting and happening beyond limits of individual minds. Thus the notion of the all-encompassing, universal mind, alaya, can be roughly understood.
But it's just our notion. We take various phenomena, we group them and create notions. That's how our notion of mind appears, for example.
In the direct perception there is no "mind". The mind, or consciousness, is a concept created by dualities like perceived and perceiving.
Trying to liberate our minds from the slavery of absolutized notions, we can try to see our concepts as relative. We can say that in the original perception phenomena just appear; they aren't divided into the perceiving and the perceived.
That original non-divided phenomena can be viewed as the reactive space, and conceptualized as vijnana skandha or Alaya.
But there is no actual "vijnana skandha" or "Alaya" in the original direct perception; those terms are concepts or images we use to understand.
The actual reality isn't grasped by such concepts, or any other concepts; concepts are, in the best case, pointers at the experience.
So we use terms like "vijnana skandha" and "Alaya" in order to get close to the truth, but they never actually encompass it.
It's like using items on your boat in order to point at something in the surrounding ocean; they don't actually exist there in the ocean.
So speaking about some higher alaya or higher vijnana would be like trying to add more things to the things that can't capture the ocean.
Our items on the boat can't capture the ocean, and if we therefore try to add more such things, it's of no benefit.
To get closer to the truth we should instead try to grasp how concepts are relative; how pointers at the reality aren't what they point at.
Then we could understand and use concepts properly, and manifest Mahamudra in practice.


Is owning a restaurant considered wrong livelihood? The Vaṇijjāsutta:

Pañcimā, bhikkhave, vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā. Katamā pañca? Satthavaṇijjā, sattavaṇijjā, maṃsavaṇijjā, majjavaṇijjā, visavaṇijjā — imā kho, bhikkhave, pañca vaṇijjā upāsakena akaraṇīyā”ti.
Sattamaṃ

There are many translations regarding above quoted text, not sure which one needs to be included. But from what I understand, if one raises a pig and kill it in order to sell its meat, this is considered wrong livelihood.
But what if the restaurant owner simply buys meats and cook them and then sell them, is this considered wrong livelihood?

It's not wrong livelihood unless you ask the butcher to kill for you.


Is Jhana Required For Awakening? I've found this to be an interesting question with highly respected monastics falling on both sides of the answer.

Actually, a point that is not well understood is that, among those who follow the Pali canon, there is no controversy over whether some jhāna is necessary; the answer is in all cases yes. The controversy is really over which jhāna is necessary.

There are three types of jhāna in total:

samatha-jhāna - jhāna based on a conceptual object that, due to its conceptual nature, cannot lead to the realization of the nature of reality.

For example, in the Visuddhimagga:

  The colour should not be reviewed. The characteristic should not be
  given attention. But rather, while not ignoring the colour, attention
  should be given by setting the mind on the [name] concept as the most
  outstanding mental datum, relegating the colour to the position of a
  property of its physical support. That [conceptual state] can be
  called by anyone he likes among the names for earth (pathavī) such as
  “earth” (pathavī), “the Great One” (mahī), “the Friendly One”
  (medinī), “ground” (bhūmi), “the Provider of Wealth” (vasudhā), “the
  Bearer of Wealth” (vasudharā), etc., whichever suits his manner of
  perception. Still “earth” is also a name that is obvious, so it can be
  developed with the obvious one by saying “earth, earth.” It should be
  adverted to now with eyes open, now with eyes shut. And he should go
  on developing it in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, and
  even more than that, until the learning sign arises.

  Path of Purification, IV.29

2. vipassana-jhāna - jhāna based on ultimate reality that allows one to see the three characteristics and thus attain nibbana. As the Mahasi Sayadaw states:

  The tranquillity that occurs while one contemplates various phenomena is called momentary concentration, the concentration that lasts momentarily during contemplation. No insight is possible without this momentary concentration. The meditator who has no basic [samatha] jhānic experience and relies on insight meditation alone develops insight through momentary concentration and attains the noble path. This concentration for insight is not confined to a single object. The meditator practising it notes all the mental and physical phenomena that arise. However, at the moment of noting, his mind is fixed on the object and free from distraction. This is obvious to the meditator who practises effectively.

  http://www.aimwell.org/sallekha.html

3. lokuttara-jhāna - jhāna that takes a supermundane object (nibbana), and is equivalent to attaining the noble path and fruition. According to Bhante Gunaratana:

  But the four jhanas again reappear in a later stage in the development of the path, in direct association with liberating wisdom, and they are then designated the supramundane (lokuttara) jhanas. These supramundane jhanas are the levels of concentration pertaining to the four degrees of enlightenment experience called the supramundane paths (magga) and the stages of liberation resulting form them, the four fruits (phala).

  http://www.budsas.org/ebud/jhanas/jhanas01.htm

It is this third type of jhāna that everyone agrees is necessary. The problem is with deciding which type of jhāna the Buddha is talking about in specific contexts. Since these three types of jhāna are not enumerated in the sutta pitaka, the debate centres around whether lokiya (mundane) samatha jhāna are necessary, since that is the only type of jhāna recognized by certain Buddhists.

This too can be seen as a misunderstanding, since samatha jhāna according to those who hold that it is not necessary is not exactly the same as jhāna according to those who hold that lokiya jhāna is.

According to those who say lokiya jhāna is necessary, they seem to believe that lokiya jhāna is a practice which allows for the realization of insight, in which case it cannot be samatha jhāna as understood by those who believe that samatha jhāna cannot lead directly to insight, unless the former group actually believes that jhāna based on a conceptual object can allow for the realization of insight into reality, which I'm pretty sure is not the case.

So, the debate is really not all it is cracked up to be, unless there are people who believe meditation based on a non-real conceptual object is sufficient for attainment of understanding of reality, in which case they are in contradiction with the sutta pitaka, not to mention the abhidhamma and commentaries.

I suppose there could still be room for debate over whether samatha jhāna based on a concept must be cultivated prior to Vipassana; the yuganaddha sutta probably shows this to be false:

  Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.170.than.html

Of course for anyone actually adhering to the Theravada (I.e. the commentaries, patisambidhamagga, and abhidhamma), there isn't much room for controversy. Most of the debate is over whether to follow the existing commentaries or create one's own.


Celibacy and contradiction with modern medical science Buddhism stress on Celibacy at the same time insists on revoking everything that could not be proved by scientific method or rational thought. I am a graduate student of physics and I found that modern medical science or the proponents of medicine recommends controlled masturbation as a healthy way to relieve sexual desire or tension. I find it contradictory that what the medical practitioners found by scientific methods is completely against the view of masturbation in Buddhism and still Buddhism as far as I know advocates the scientific method be more fruitful than the intuitive way of reasoning. Is it contradictory?

I  will quote/extract a few sentences from Wikipedia's article on that subject, below (you can read the whole article and its references for further details):

An article from Beliefnet and Brian Schell, a writer for DailyBuddhism.com, both suggest that masturbation is essentially harmless for a layperson, at least outside the realm of karma[3][4] The accomplished Theravadin monk Bhante Shravasti Dhammika cites the Vinaya Pitaka in his online Guide to Buddhism A to Z, stating the following

Some people during the Buddha’s time believed that masturbation could have a therapeutic effect on the mind and the body (Vin. III, 109), although the Buddha disagreed with this. According to the Vinaya, it is an offence of some seriousness for monks or nuns to masturbate (Vin. III, 111) although the Buddha gave no guidance on this matter to lay people. However, Buddhism could agree with contemporary medical opinion that masturbation is a normal expression of the sexual drive and is physically and psychologically harmless, as long as it does not become a preoccupation or a substitute for ordinary sexual relations. Guilt and self-disgust about masturbating is certainly more harmful than masturbation itself.

The emphasis on chastity in Buddhism is much more so for bhikkus and bhikkunis (monks and nuns, respectively), who are expected to follow the Vinaya (traditional code of ethics for Buddhist monks and nuns). Not only are monastics celibate, but they also must strive to conquer their desires much more so than a layperson.
Thus, in Buddhism, masturbation and its permissiveness is most often viewed as situational, depending on one's level of precepts and monastic standing.

The "Buddhist stress on celibacy" which you refer to is (arguably) 'stressed' for monks and nuns; and it is not stressed in exactly the same way for laypeople.
Some of the other Vinaya rules too (e.g. not eating after noon), which are only applicable to monks and nuns, might or might not not be perfectly in line with every recommendation of "modern medical science", but apparently they are good enough for their purpose, which I think is to 'allow the holy life to be lived'.
Also, science and Buddhism don't contradict each other on this subject, they say different things about it:

Science suggests that masturbation might have some effect on the incidence of some types of physical illness.

Perhaps Buddhism doesn't say much on that subject (see "Buddha gave no guidance on this matter to lay people" above), but if anything IMO it suggests that masturbation might have some other effects (e.g. on discipline, views about desire, profitable use of time, etc.).


Is Nirvana the goal for all Buddhist? If I understand it correctly, Nirvana is the liberation from the endless cycle of rebirth, thereby terminating all sufferings.

Is Nirvana a goal which every Buddhist must achieve?

Is there any other things more important than attaining Nirvana?

No, Nirvana is not the goal of all Buddhists. According to Sakya and Nyingma schools of Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhist liberation methodologies can be divided in three major classes, corresponding to sentient being's mental capacity:

students of lower capacity seek pleasant living conditions and personal happiness. For these beings the teaching focuses on fundamental principles such as karma, and posits the goal of better rebirth (and better luck in this life). When a being is born to conditions more favorable for deeper study and practice, or in the same life its interests raise beyond basic day-to-day existence, it is now considered as one of the
students of middling capacity, who seek spiritual realization. For them the teaching focuses on personal transformation through removal of mental and emotional obscurations and posits the goal of Nirvana. Once the student removed enough obscurations to have a glimpse of how things really are (tathata), he or she realizes that both Samsara as well as Nirvana are two sides of the same equation, and a projection of one's Thirst due to one's mind having been intoxicated with The Three Poisons. At this point they find themselves on the level of:
students of higher capacity, who practice Natural Great Perfection. For them the teaching focuses on manifesting unhindered compassionate action, union of wisdom and skillful means, and does not posit any goals.

The three capacities model should not be confused with the three yanas model (Hinayana/Mahayana/Vajrayana) which can be seen as three levels spanning the second and third capacities, nor with the three schools model (Theravada/Mahayana/Tibetan Buddhism) which are three alternative paths, with beings of all three capacities found in each school.

Another model defines goals according to one of the Six Worlds the being finds itself in:

For beings in Hell realm the goal is defined as Escape from Suffering
For beings in Animal realm the goal is defined as Wisdom
For beings in Preta realm the goal is defined as The Only Possession of Real Value
For beings in Human realm the goal is defined as Liberation
For beings in Asura realm the goal is defined as Perfection of Excellence
For beings in Heaven realm the goal is defined as Protection from Impermanence

There is also a nine-yanas model that provides a finer classification of enlightenment contexts, with a slightly different provisional goal utilized in each. Please note that all models exist solely for their explanatory value and are vastly simplifying reality, which is a lot less pigeonholed.

To answer your second question, is there any other thing more important than attaining Nirvana, this is like a school student asking, is there any other thing more important than finishing school. For the school student to finish the school is the most important thing. Nothing else can happen until then.


What is the ultimate goal of Buddhism? Is it nirvana? What is the ultimate goal of Buddhism? Why should a person practice Buddhism, what will it provide to him? Various religions have various goals. For example, the ultimate goal in Christianity is everlasting life in Heaven through faith in Jesus Christ, while in Islam the ultimate goal is Jannah (Paradise). In Hinduism the ultimate goal is moksha, which means becoming one with the Brahma after death. But what is the ultimate goal of Buddhism? Is it nirvana? If it's nirvana then it doesn't seem to be a very great goal. The goal to achieve nirvana is basically dying and never coming back, because Buddhism believes in rebirth and the cycle of samsara, which it believes is filled with sorrow and suffering. Hence to put an end to this constant cycle of sorrow and suffering one should try to achieve nirvana. Am I correct??

But what is the ultimate goal of Buddhism?
To begin with maybe it's not entirely about, perhaps even not at all about, an "ultimate goal".

Just as the great ocean, monks, gradually inclines, gradually slopes, gradually slants, certainly does not fall away abruptly, so, monks, in this Dhamma and Discipline there is a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual practice, it certainly does not have an abrupt penetration of knowledge. That, monks, in this Dhamma and Discipline there is a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual practice, and it certainly does not have an abrupt penetration of knowledge, is the first wonderful and marvellous thing, monks, about this Dhamma and Discipline, which, having seen and considered, the monks delight in this Dhamma and Discipline.
from Ud 5.5

Perhaps it begins with doctrines of morality, harmlessness, kindness, prudence, duty -- for well-earned (albeit perhaps temporary) bliss, for the sake of others ... and an "absence of remorse" (which should result from "skilful virtue", and which doctrinally is one of the first steps towards towards proper joy and so on).
The goal to achieve nirvana is basically dying and never coming back, because Buddhism believes in rebirth and the cycle of samsara, which it believes is filled with sorrow and suffering.
That's kind of debatable, I guess. One venerable, on this site, wrote earlier,

I've talked about the subject before myself, and the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death

Instead of saying "dying and never coming back", perhaps you might just as well say "living and never going away", eh?
One of the Buddha's titles the Tathagata and I'm not sure whether that means "thus-come" or "thus-gone" (someone said its etymology is ambiguous -- i.e. gata or agata).
And then there's e.g. this story from another Buddhist tradition (i.e. Zen), i.e.

If you think you really come and go, that is your delusion. Let me show you the path on which there is no coming and no going.

the cycle of samsara, which it believes is filled with sorrow and suffering
I'm not sure. Some schools teach that "suffering" is impermanent too -- that some "beings" suffer.
See also Did the Buddha really say that "life is suffering"?
one should try to achieve nirvana. Am I correct??
I'm not sure even of that: one "should"? Perhaps one "will"? Or that one "has", even, the Buddha himself for example?
I like the "four noble truths" i.e. which say that perpetually "craving" for what you can't have, craving to keep what you can't keep, etc., is a cause of "suffering" -- and that suffering and craving are both subject to cessation.
Some people don't much like that message though (or the way in which someone might try to explain it), see e.g. How to explain what Buddhism is? -- see also Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople?


Pleasant feelings/Unpleasant feelings & craving/aversion In dependent origination after sense-contact occured, craving is the next condition, which in turn forms attachment at its basis and so on...

Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving?

Similarly with unpleasant feelings; Suppose I have a bike accident and I fall down the ground and my immediate reaction is: "Arghhh", and no other cursing; Is this considered aversion to unpleasant feelings?

Furthermore, if I go to toilett to take a pee is this good feeling connected with craving?

It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving,  pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

Short Answer:

When you think "it would be nice to have more(/less) future contact with object X" - then you have craving; when you think "this feeling is (un)pleasant and it came from object X" - then you are creating/sustaining potential for future craving; and when you think "this feeling came from the mind, it is empty, dependently originated, transient, ephemeral, unreliable, like a phantom - therefore craving to have more(less) of it would lead to suffering, and instead I keep training the mind of suchness." - then you don't have craving nor do you create/sustain potential for future craving.

Long Answer:

It is a popular misunderstanding of Dependent Origination -- to assume that it describes a process as it unfolds moment-by-moment. No, it does not. Instead, according to Mahayana (esp. Karma-Kagyu lineage), it describes a logical sequence of stages of development of individual mind.

The "contact" described in D.O. is not the momentary contact of sense organ with an external stimulus. It is a stage of development of individual mind when "contact with an object" is delineated, designated, and recognized.

Then, Vedana described in D.O. is a stage when "feeling that comes from contact with an object" is delineated, designated, and recognized.

Once this stage is reached, "Craving for feeling that comes from contact with an object" has a basis to develop on.

A more detailed description of this phase (vedana => tanha) is given e.g. in MN 18 as vedana => sañña => vitakka => papanca.

In other words, as one learns to separate the feeling that comes from contact with an object from the experience of contact itself, one learns to formulate ideas like: "it would be nice to have another contact like that, to bring that feeling again" or "it would be nice to avoid a contact like that, to not bring that feeling again". Eventually, such an idea gets simplified to something like: "It's nice and I want it" or "It's bad and I don't want it".

Then, holding such idea, mulling over it, and pursuing it in practice - making it one's goal and one's mode of operation - is what's known as upadana or grasping.

Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving?

As I said, D.O. describes the development of mind in general, not one particular instance. So, most of the time, experience and craving do not follow one another immediately. Instead, most of the time craving occurs on the basis of remembering some past experience.

But generally speaking, when you're eating something or taking massage, and at that moment you experience a pleasant feeling, if you attribute that feeling to the external object, thinking "this food gives me the feeling" or "this massage gives me the feeling" - then, on the basis of this attribution, your thinking about that experience in those terms will fuel and sustain the potential of the future craving towards that object (food or massage).

If on the other hand, you think "this pleasant feeling is born in the mind, is a product of the mind" and you think "this comfort is mind-made, empty, dependently-originated" or "this discomfort is mind-made, empty, dependently-originated" - then on the basis of thinking in these terms you will not fuel and not sustain potential future craving towards the object and will instead develop the mind of sufficiency in suchness.

It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving, pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

In my Mahayana understanding, it boils down to your frame of reference, your attribution of experience to an entity. if you attribute pleasant/unpleasant experiences to what you think are "external" objects, then you will develop and sustain future craving to them - and if instead you recognize that all pleasant/unpleasant experiences are mind-made, empty, like phantoms - and learn to control your mind's frame-of-reference, your perspective, your interpretation - then you are not developing craving and are developing the mind of bodhi instead.

As for detecting the presence of craving in the here-and-now, if your mind is leaking to imaginary past or future and grasping onto an imaginary experience (whether positive or negative) - then that's craving/aversion right there. And if your mind is not leaking anywhere but is seeing things as they are, then that's a moment of suchness.

Here, I explained craving (leaking), the root of craving (attribution of experience to external objects), and path to cutting the root of craving (learning to reframe the experience in such a way as to no longer reify it as something real coming from the external objects and to instead think of it in terms of D.O. and 4NT). I explained it according to my understanding and in my own words. Hope it helps.


What is meant by escape from all signs? Good will , compassion , equanimity etc are objects of meditation.
Good will is used to escape from ill-will. Compassion is used to escape from viciousness. Equanimity is used to escape from passion.
All the above ideas are familiar to me and I understand them well.

Along the similar lines there is a concept of signless (I guess signless is also an object of meditation). Signless is used to escape from all signs.

Following quote from aṅguttara nikāya explains signless :

  “Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, ‘Although the
  signless has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a
  basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken
  by me as my awareness-release, still my consciousness follows the
  drift of signs.’ He should be told, ‘Don’t say that. You shouldn’t
  speak in that way. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One, for it’s not
  right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn’t
  say that. It’s impossible, there is no way that—when the signless has
  been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given
  a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an
  awareness-release—consciousness would follow the drift of signs. That
  possibility doesn’t exist, for this is the escape from all signs: the
  signless as an awareness-release.’

I am having difficulty in understanding what are signs?

My question is : what is signless (or what is sign) and what is meant by escape from all signs?

According to Mahayana interpretation, "signs" or "marks" are concepts, or conceptual designations, also known as preconceptions.

The problem with conceptual designations is that we tend to confuse them with reality (=to reify; noun "reification"). To give a canonical example, when someone is attached to his own personal stereotype of what an "attractive woman" should look like, when he meets one that matches his stereotype he no longer sees her as a complete person, instead he only sees his own concept of woman, he sees a sexual object! Then we tend to look with our conceptual brain, instead of looking with an open mind. Then, all we see is our preconceptions or biases - instead of seeing what actually is. Not only we see nothing but our preconceptions, we completely confuse them for reality, we think that what we "think" is what really "is" - but it is not, we see our own mental fabrication! Then on the basis of that fabrication, we develop certain attitude toward the object - for example we want to make acquaintance with the woman, with an implicit intent to get close with her. This is called "following the drift of signs".

Another example of this is racial stereotyping. You see a person of a national origin that you generally associate with ignorant violence - and then all you see is your preconception, you no longer see the real person. On the basis of this you develop aversion to this person, which ends up causing a conflict.

This happens with inanimate objects as well. Once we know that a given object is "a tree" - we no longer really see it as-is, we see our concept: "a tree". It takes a special effort to unsee our abstract concept and see the actual tree.

According to Mahayana, the entire Samsara is an illusory world completely made of such concepts! The notion of "I" or atman is one of such preconceptions. It is on the basis of attachment to preconceptions that we have unsatisfied craving, which manifests as suffering. Complete cessation of reification is "escape from all signs".

This is a rather simplified presentation, it actually goes much deeper than that, but this can get you started. Entire Mahayana was born from study and development of this teaching, passed in the oral form from Buddha's students to next generations. In Mahayana we refer to this as "shunyata" and "prajna-paramita", but it is also present in the Pali Canon in quite a few places like this one, using terms like "groundless", "having no position", "signless" etc.


Difference between neutral Karma and no Karma I've read an article that mentioned something like neutral Karma, and it seems it is no more/less than no Karma. Does anything differentiate neutral Karma from no Karma?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as neutral karma. As you rightly surmise, it would be the same as non-karma. This is because karma in Buddhism refers to ethical intention, not the act itself:

  cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi. cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti — kāyena vācāya manasā.

  It is intention, bhikkhus, that I say is karma. Having intended, one performs karma, by body, speech, or mind.

  (AN 6.63)

In Theravada Buddhism, consciousness without ethical intention is called "avyakata" or "indeterminate", and is "karmically neutral", which is not the same as being "neutral karma", a term that doesn't make much sense from a Buddhist point of view.

  avyākata

  lit. 'indeterminate' - i.e. neither determined as karmically 'wholesome' nor as 'unwholesome' - are the karmically neutral, i.e. amoral, states of consciousness and mental factors.

  They are either mere karma-results (vipāka, q.v.), as e.g. all the sense perceptions and the mental factors associated therewith, or they are karmically independent functions (kiriya-citta, q.v.), i.e. neither karmic nor karma-resultant.

  http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/avyaakata.htm


Can Buddhists make very eccentric vows? Can Buddhists make very eccentric vows, and in what sense might these affect their karma?

I do believe in karma, in some sense, but am struggling to understand something specific -- and a little strange. Suppose person A vows that, as person B is about to be hurt, they will suffer in their place. The event occurs, but person B, in some ill defined sense, does not suffer as much as they otherwise would. Person A then suffers some grave misfortune (perhaps unconnected).

Is person A at fault for their misfortune, karmically speaking?

But this is a just so story. Specifically: is there any form of vow, in any tradition, which can lead to suffering for you, but good karma for others?

Not sure if vows alone are sufficient to auto-magically make things happens as one wishes. It's much more likely that intention coupled with concrete actions that will bring about the desired result. So in the case of person A, the event's more likely to happen due to s/he following up with actions that helps person B and maybe at the cost of some suffering to himself. About the concept of collective kamma, it probably is just individual kamma bundled together. An example is the atrocities committed by soldiers during a war campaign. Together they all took part in killing, raping, and plundering their enemies' city. So in some distant future, some catastrophic event happens to a group of people, which on the surface seems like "collective" kamma, but in fact the underlying driving force is still individual kamma manifesting itself.


How can a person be abstinent? How can a person be abstinent and overcome all sexual urges including self-gratification in accordance with the Buddhist tradition ? What prescription do the teachers give to get over such obstacles ?

Any such urge gives rise to feelings. What you should do is look at the feeling equanimously and objectively so that cravings for sensual pleasures do not arise. This is in Dependent Origination.

Initially the success would be very limited with only a few seconds of success, but as you go on the duration would increase and at one point you would be able to continuously be equanimous. To be able to do this you have to do Vipassana Meditation.

For a lay person the general recommendation is to abstain from sexual misconduct. You do not have to go to this extent, but this would become natural when you become Anāgāmi which is one Stage of Enlightenment.


How To Follow Buddhism Without Offending I am wondering how to go about starting on the path of Buddhism without offending or appropriating the culture. As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged with the ability to overlook the repercussions of my actions when adopting a new practice/lifestyle what have you.

I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it - but I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist. I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture" and I also don't want to offend those who's cultures were shaped by it.

I guess what I'm asking is - how can I start myself on the path respectfully in a manner that shows my true reverence for the teachings of the Buddha? I have privately tried my best to follow the path for some time now, but I've realized I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it.

Advice?

As a white male I am well aware that I am privileged

That's as may be.

Nevertheless I think that "cultural appropriation" is a relatively modern obsession: that it has become fashionable for "holier-than-thou" people in college to fuss about it; but sfaik other people are less likely to think that way (to see or preconceive it as a concern).

I suppose if you've heard of Buddhism, maybe "Buddhism" has begun to be present "your culture" too.

Also your being born into a place and time where you're able to be interested in Buddhism (not only human, but able to hear and understand Buddhist teaching) might be seen as a good thing, a fruit of good kamma. I suspect that Buddhists might feel Mudita towards your good fortune, such as it is.

I've always felt uneasy declaring myself buddhist

Yes. Well there are other ways to phrase a declaration if the situation arises; for example:

I'm interested in Buddhism
As you said, "I have spent nearly four years with a great interest in buddhism, reading books, texts, and listening to others talk about it"
I find Buddhism helpful for X or Y reason
I study or practice with this or that group, or with such and such a teacher

Some people on this site (see these topics) don't like the -ism (Buddhism) word. Buddhist as an adjective is a bit more precise, maybe paired with a noun like (Buddhist) Dharma or (Buddhist) practice etc.

I too have "felt uneasy", by the way:

If said to someone, "I am Buddhist" or "I am a Buddhist", then would that misrepresent Buddhism ... am I a bad examplar, might I put other people off Buddhism?
Is it even true (is that a true statement about myself)?
Is it an view of self, a conceit, a misguided thing to say?
Would it make other people inclined to see me (and Buddhism) as alien?

Such unease could be egocentric nonsense, but anyway, with that kind of thing in mind I have preferred to make declarations that are more concrete, kind of objectively true, sensible (tangible), justifiable: for example "I have been interested in" etc. ("I verb a noun" rather than "I am an adjective").

In a slightly analogous way I'm content to be vegetarian (i.e. to eat vegetarian food) but I'm usually less comfortable with saying so to other people ... in case people think I'm weird (I've been doing it for so long that I think it's normal, it's normal for me) or that I'm judgmental i.e. that I think that they too ought to be vegetarian (it's common but not normal in my culture, some 10% of the total population).

I don't want to be seen as "some white guy with an obsession with asian culture"

I suppose we don't have total control over how other people see us. If someone sees you as a white guy, that's their privilege burden. :-)

Maybe how you see yourself (or attach to a view-of-self) that's more to the immediate point.

If having "an obsession with asian culture" is said to be wrong, my guess would be that's because "culture" is ephemeral and distant, and "obsession" might be harmful. Whereas instead, Dharma (as opposed to culture) is meant to be akalika (timeless or immediate) ... practical. And being harmless (causing no injury) is one of the Buddhist virtues.

I also don't want to offend those whose cultures were shaped by it

I don't see why you'd offend. To be inoffensive, don't claim to know more or to be better, "don't criticize what you can't understand", be a friend. Beware of the elements of Right Speech.

I don't remember anyone telling me I shouldn't be interested in Buddhism.

Normally if you share someone's interest they see that as a good thing.

Look at the "Dhamma gifts" available (i.e. people trying to share Dhamma), I think they're there because the donors want the gifts to be available to us.

how can I start myself on the path respectfully

One answer (or non-answer) is that there are many "dharma gates": i.e. it's up to you and your environment.

Some people choose to "Take the Triple Refuge".

You can practice with (and/or live with) a group of Buddhists, study with a teacher, study texts, find or make a good friend, do good, be generous.

I can never truly embrace it until I find the courage to be open about it

Ah yes. I don't know if that's true. :-)

If you look at, the 'fetters' which are abandoned at the first stage of enlightenment in the Theravada tradition, the question is maybe tangled up in two of these fetters: i.e. maybe "identity view" includes "I can never truly embrace it" and "declaring myself Buddhist"; and "making a declaration" might be mistaken for a "right and ritual".

And what you said about needing "courage" also isn't necessarily quite canonical: maybe what you want instead of "courage" is a "confidence" or a lack of doubt.
Or maybe it's called faith and energy.

I'm not trying to say you're wrong about courage, but if you can't seem to summon enough of it maybe it's something else (e.g. confidence and so on, right view, etc.) you could develop instead.

Or I suspect that courage and so on might be part of a Buddhist training, but maybe a Mahayana training of a sort that requires a teacher or at least a group to practice with?


Sexual thoughts coming with full pace to silent mind I'm being very mindful and aware nowadays.  My mind is now very much quite and I am able to watch handful of thoughts in day to day life.  The problem is at a particular instant of quite mind, sexual thoughts come with full vigour.  Don't know why.

Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?

Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?

Thoughts arise and disappear on their own. If you are plagued by any particular thought, consider that relishing is the root of suffering. Find that delight, look at it and simply understand that "this is not mine, this is not who I am, this is not my self." This simple declaration will loosen your grip on the thoughts and they will disappear. Thoughts and feelings persist because there is relishing. Disavow the relishing and the thoughts and feelings pass like clouds in the sky. Be mindful of your breath as you do this. The breath is very much a part of your life. The thoughts simply come and go.


What did Buddha taught about space time? It echoes in my mind that space time is not fundamental. I thought I read this in some psychics experiments, saw it in YouTube videos and/or read it in a book related to Buddhism. But I far from recall the details. I searched for space time not being fundamental on the topic of Buddhism but I am not really finding much about it.

With space time not being fundamental I mean to say that it is a construct of the mind. One can understand it is a mental construct, but still experience space time.

I am asking about the Buddhist view on space time, and the implications of that view.

I am asking because of the following experience I had. Recently I experienced some different perception during meditation. It was like my perception of the room I was sitting in vanished and there was no perception anymore of me having a body, sitting in a room. But I would not say I changed, I was still present. And I had my eyes closed all along. This experience of no longer having a body happened to me a couple of times during meditation now.

More recent I was doing a mental exercise to get the difference more clear about experience coming from sensory perception, and experience coming from the mind. I did so by focusing on my body, and then on some memory of how something felt tactically, and then switch focus back on my body, and so forth. I was switching like this continuously. Every time that I switched I mentally called out the difference (using my inner voice, so not out loud):

  Experience from sensory perception

and

  Experience from mental perception

At some point the distinction became more clear. At that moment it was clear to me the experience of space time arises because of a mental process.
At that moment I could solely focus on sensory perception, and the awareness of space time was gone. And I could go back as well to experience space time again. I then experienced having a body again, sitting in the car, on a parking lot in front of the office.
And I could go back again, focusing solely on sensory perception, where there was no experience anymore of me having a body.
It was like space contracted to be dimensionless and I had no awareness of my body anymore, nor the car I was sitting in. Or maybe I should say that there was nothing more but the experience of the body. The bodily awareness was different. All encompassing vs being part of something else. I am having difficulties to describe my experience. I could still think of my body and the car though, but the experience of having a body and sitting in a car stayed away. It stayed away for as long as I kept this focus on sensory perception. It was like I was withholding my mind from creating the spatial awareness or something.

I'm so curious to explore this more. Also how it relates to the self-awareness and experience of space time in dreaming (so a lucid dream).
And I am really curious if there is some perspective from Buddhism on this kind of experience.

In terms of meditation experiences involving space and time, it may be useful to read up on suttas that describe such experiences. For example in AN8.66 Liberations, we have:

  Going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space

However, these designations are subjective, so one has to be very careful assuming anything about one's own experiences without consultation with teachers.

For example, your experience might also be a pre-cursor to first jhana in its seclusion from bodily sensation:

  It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected.

The Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) have many suttas that describe such meditative experiences. Study as many as you can to develop a feeling for the landscape of meditation. Don't get too caught up about attainment, however, since that would trap you in Identity View.

To understand this caution about identity view, it is useful to read MN44:

  “Ma’am, they speak of this thing called ‘the cessation of identity’. What is the cessation of identity that the Buddha spoke of?”

  “It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not adhering to it. The Buddha said that this is the cessation of identity.”

MN44 also has critical advice on the cessation of perception (ant that includes time and space) per your question:

  “But ma’am, how does someone attain the cessation of perception and feeling?”

  “A mendicant who is entering such an attainment does not think: ‘I will enter the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I am entering the cessation of perception and feeling’ or ‘I have entered the cessation of perception and feeling.’ Rather, their mind has been previously developed so as to lead to such a state.”

Note that since you feel that your body has disappeared, you are still perceiving and therefore not in the cessation of perception and feeling. There are many subtleties here. Read much and be very cautious about conclusions and easy answers.


Are all non-monastic ways of life wrong livelihood? Leading on from this answer - is it true that ultimately most or even all non-monastic lifestyles are wrong livelihood. Not being a monk I find this point of view quite challenging but just because I don't like it doesn't stop it from being true.

Also I suspect that this might differ between traditions so if the school that the answer comes from can be highlighted in the answer that would be really helpful.

"Is it true that..." is a difficult question to answer. If you mean, according to a certain school, then yes, according to the Theravada, it is true, since an arahant is unable to practice non-monastic livelihood. They are said to either leave the household life or pass into parinibbana.
See, for example, the enlightenment of Khemā:

At the conclusion of the lesson Khemā was established in Arahatship; the multitude also profited by the lesson.
Said the Teacher to the king, “Great king, Khemā ought either to retire from the world or to pass into Nibbāna.” The king replied, “Reverend Sir, admit her to the Order; as for Nibbāna, never!” She retired from the world and became one of the Teacher’s foremost female lay disciples.
Dhp-A 347 (from Buddhist Legends)

N.B. the word "never" should actually be "enough!", in the sense that it's not time to think about that now.
The point is that, as mentioned in the linked answer, there is a difference between conventional morality and ultimate morality. Conventionally, only those livelihoods mentioned explicitly are wrong, just as only adultery is wrong for one who keeps five precepts. That doesn't mean that ordinary sexual desire is not ultimately misguided; it is. Likewise, any livelihood for the purpose of maintaining a household life is ultimately misguided.
The only exception I can think of is where one's household life is identical to a monastic setting (i.e. no need for ambition, concern for belongings, etc.).


If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now? If a kind and generous Christian died 20 years ago today, 21July2015, might their rebirth have resulted in there being a 19 year old person in the human realm now? I want to assume that the kindness and generosity perhaps trumped the ignorance about samsara, resulting in a new individual array of aggregates and store consciousness inclined toward learning about Buddhism and Nibana. I wonder this basis Theravada approach to rebirth.

I think it's difficult to talk about rebirth as if it were a sure thing: for example because kamma comes from a being's previous life, but it also comes from the life before that, etc.

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma" is said to be unconjecturable.

Actually being able to directly see others' karmic destinations is one of the miraculous powers attributed to the Buddha:

  Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.


How does craving cause self-identity or self-habit? From craving, there arises clinging, then from clinging, there arises existence or becoming, and then from becoming, we get the birth of the self-identity or self-habit.
But how does craving really cause self-identity or self-habit? How are they connected?
Does self-identity or self-habit arise out of a collection of likes and dislikes? How is that so?

It's kind of complex and would take a long time to explain in full details, but here's a simplified version:
There's a chain of reifications leading from craving to selfish action to self.
This is what was supposed to be explained in Dependent Origination but unfortunately most of the detailed descriptions  seem to be lost. From bits and pieces available in Theravada and Mahayana traditions we can try and recover what the full explanation probably looked like.
The exact sequence of reifications is likely impossible to determine, indeed that would require a detailed record of a developing mind, experience by experience and thought by thought, but getting at that level of details is not important anyway. What's important is to understand the general principle, the mechanism. Without further ado let's dive in.
When we crave something our mind projects a memory of a past experience onto an imaginary contact with an object. We reify this projection as "that object is nice". There's no "nice object" in reality, both "nice" and "object" parts come from our mind. The "object" is a reification as explained in my Emptiness answer. "Nice" is a past memory turned into an imaginary quality. Combining the two parts together and playing a game of make-believe pretending that there's in fact an actual "nice object" - is reification.
When mind gets obsessed with this idea of "nice object" it keeps coming back to it again and again. It keeps feeding this reification by adding more and more imaginary details and associations. It imagines the circumstances that would precede a contact with the object, a kind of automatic planning. Then at some point it elevates this obsession to the status of intent. That's when we feel that we have made up our mind, decided to pursue the object, made it our goal. This is the second reification, of obsession becoming an intent, a fixation on a plan of action towards a goal.
(Of course when I say "when we crave something the mind gets obsessed and keeps coming back" or "the mind imagines" etc. - the subject of such sentences is only a figure of speech. There's no mind apart from its content; the cravings, obsessions, reifications, projections - are the mind. In other words, the mind is not an agent that does things, it's just a process that's "happening".)
Then as we pursue the object and obtain it, we navigate the space (either physical space or the space of intermediate objectives) to get closer and closer to the desirable object. As we navigate the space we have to track our progress. We have to evaluate our position against the background of the circumstances. As we do that, we mentally "split" the totality of our mind into "the world" (our idea of the world to be precise) and the subject of navigation whose position we're tracking. The world serves as a semi-static background for the imaginary point moving towards its goal. We then reify this moving point to the status of "I".
Craving for an experience (just like its negative twin, aversion, or craving to get rid of something) creates motivation to act deliberately and selfishly - towards a goal. Deliberate pursuit of a goal requires position evaluation and status tracking, which creates an imaginary pair of "object & its background": the world vs the current position. This position is what gets reified as the self.


Chinese Buddhists consider all people to be potential Buddhas Do the Chinese Buddhists of all Chinese schools of Buddhism regard all people as potential Buddhas or just Buddhists? Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment? What is the difference between their relationship to people whom they consider potential Buddhas from their relationship to ordinary people? Thanks everyone.

Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment?

In the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding, the Buddha teaches that "in any doctrine or discipline" that does not contain the Noble Eightfold Path, enlightened beings cannot be found:

Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Venerable sir, these brahmans & contemplatives, each with his group, each with his community, each the teacher of his group, an honored leader, well-regarded by people at large — i.e., Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Gosala, Ajita Kesakambalin, Pakudha Kaccayana, Sañjaya Belatthaputta, & the Nigantha Nataputta: Do they all have direct knowledge as they themselves claim, or do they all not have direct knowledge, or do some of them have direct knowledge and some of them not?"

"Enough, Subhadda. Put this question aside. I will teach you the Dhamma. Listen, and pay close attention. I will speak."

"Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of arahants."


When should one ask a question of someone other than themselves? Is it just that we share our knowledge with others and then they interpret it as per their own individuality and spot benefit?
Do Buddhas ask questions of other humans as well?

Asking questions is interesting in Buddhism; the Buddha had his own version of the Socratic method, and many of the discourses are comprised of back and the Buddha asking questions in order to lead his audience to their own wisdom.
See, for example, the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, the Buddha's second discourse:

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
(Nyanamoli, trans)

Other discourses are more traditional, wherein the Buddha is asked a question and responds in one of various ways. The Buddha himself said he responded to questions in one of four ways:

“Bhikkhus, there are these four ways of answering questions. What four? (1) There is a question to be answered categorically; (2) there is a question to be answered after making a distinction; (3) there is a question to be answered with a counter-question; and (4) there is a question to be set aside. These are the four ways of answering questions.”
-- AN 4.42 (Bodhi, trans)

Yet other teachings show the Buddha using questions out of compassion, to bring up a topic that his students are disinclined to bring to his attention out of consideration for his welfare. As the commentary explains:

jānantāpi tathāgatā pucchanti, jānantāpi na pucchanti; kālaṃ viditvā pucchanti, kālaṃ viditvā na pucchanti; atthasaṃhitaṃ tathāgatā pucchanti, no anatthasaṃhitaṃ. anatthasaṃhite setughāto tathāgatānaṃ. dvīhi ākārehi buddhā bhagavanto bhikkhū paṭipucchanti — dhammaṃ vā desessāma, sāvakānaṃ vā sikkhāpadaṃ paññapessāmāti
Sometimes, knowing, the Tathāgata asks, and sometimes, knowing, he doesn't ask. Knowing the time, he asks; knowing the time, he doesn't ask. He asks what is connected with benefit, not what is not connected with benefit; for the Tathāgata has destroyed the bridge in regards to what is not connected with benefit. With two intentions the Buddha, the Bhagava,  asks questions back to Bhikkhus: "We will discourse on the dhamma, or we will establish training rules for our disciples."
-- Pārājika, verañjakaṇḍa

To this end, we can see that the Buddha himself gave some significance to asking and answering questions.
As to the purpose of questions, it is most obviously related to the way in which we acquire information, and how information informs our behaviour. Since asking questions can lead to hearing useful things, to broadening one's perspective, to reminding one of what one has forgotten, to helping one discard wrong views, and to many other good things as well, it seems obvious that questions should be asked and answered.
I can't think of a specific reference for the above paragraph, though, except to say that a read through of the Buddha's forty-five years of teaching should give a good idea of how questions are effective in helping us progress on the path. The only specific teaching on benefits of questions I can think of off the top of my head is:

“Here, student, some man or woman does not visit a recluse or a brahmin and ask: ‘Venerable sir, what is wholesome? What is unwholesome? What is blameable? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What kind of action will lead to my harm and suffering for a long time? What kind of action will lead to my welfare and happiness for a long time?’ Because of performing and undertaking such action…he reappears in a state of deprivation…But if instead he comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is stupid. This is the way, student, that leads to stupidity, namely, one does not visit a recluse or brahmin and ask such questions.
“But here, student, some man or woman visits a recluse or a brahmin and asks: ‘Venerable sir, what is wholesome?…What kind of action will lead to my welfare and happiness for a long time?’ Because of performing and undertaking such action…he reappears in a happy destination…But if instead he comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is wise. This is the way, student, that leads to wisdom, namely, one visits a recluse or brahmin and asks such questions.
-- MN 135 (Bodhi, trans)

So, there you have it. Asking questions leads to wisdom.
As with all sorts of learning, it is important not to mistake asking questions with actual meditation and empirical realization of the truth. On the other hand, asking questions certainly has greater benefit that simply producing theoretical knowledge; it can challenge and encourage and be quite beneficial as a means of producing wholesome mind states.


What does one need to give, for liberation? A twofold question for the sake to become even one.

General theoretical, general practical and personal answers of reflection (and generously let others have part of it) are suitable. Or even incl. all the views on it, to give a broad spectrum to grasp.

(Liberation here means the highest goal a living being can archive: end of suffering and stress)

All you have to give up are your preconceptions.  All you need to give is your trust in the process.


What are the verses relating to meditation in the Tripitaka? And to what type of meditation does it relate to? Works like Visuddhimagga covers 40 types of meditations. I am looking for the original source of these meditations within the Tripitaka. Ideally with complete bibliographical references to the occurrences within the Tripitaka.

The excerpt given below provides some references but in the pages following this one, the meditation subjects are explained and many more references are given. With this in mind, I suggest going to the link provided at the end of the excerpt and read these pages to extract the additional references.

§75 FORTY CONCENTRATION EXERCISES
There are forty concentration exercises (kammatthana) leading to the tranquility of the
absorptions. They are:
I. Ten kasina exercises: (1) earth kasina, (2) water kasina, (3) fire
kasina, (4) wind kasina, (5) blue kasina, (6) yellow kasina, (7) red
kasina, (8) white kasina, (9) light kasina, (10) space kasina. The
older suttas replace the light kasina with the consciousness kasina,
as at AN 10:29.
II. Ten perceptions of loathsomeness (asubha-sañña): a swollen-up
corpse, a bluish discoloured corpse, a festering corpse, a split
corpse, a gnawed corpse, a scattered corpse, a dismembered and
scattered corpse, a blood-stained corpse, a corpse full of worms, a
skeleton. More or less identical with these exercises are the nine
cemetery contemplations in MN 10 and DN 22, and the contemplation in
AN 4:14, quoted below.
III. Ten contemplations (anussati): (1) on the Buddha, (2) the
Doctrine, (3) the Community of Noble Disciples, (4) morality, (5)
liberality, (6) heavenly beings, (7) death, (8) body, (9)
in-and-out-breathing, (10) peace. While 1-6 are mostly explained in
one and the same sutta, (7)—(10) are described each separately in
different suttas, e.g. (7) in AN 8:73f. (8) in MN 119 (but not as in
MN 10, while in Vism the meditation refers to the thirty-two parts of
the body); (9) in MN 118; (10) in AN 9:52-61, 10:26.
IV. Four divine abodes (brahma-vihara): (1) all-em bracing kindness
(metta), (2) compassion (karuna), (3) altruistic joy (mudita)), (4)
equanimity (upekkha).
V. Four immaterial spheres (arupayatana): (1) sphere of boundless
space, (2) sphere of boundless consciousness, (3) sphere of
nothingness, (4) sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
VI. Perception of the loathsomeness of food.
VII. Analysis of the four elements.
Neighbourhood concentration may be reached by III 1-7, 10; VI; and
VII.
The first jhana may be reached by II 1-10 and III 8.
The first three jhanas may be reached by IV 1-3.
The four jhanas may be reached by I 1-10 and III 9.
The fourth jhana may be reached by IV 4.
The immaterial attainments may be reached by V 1-4.
The acquired image (uggaha-nimitta) and counter-image
(patibhaga-nimitta) will arise only on realizing I 1-10; II 1-10; III
8, 9: hence in twenty-two exercises.
For a full explanation of these forty exercises, see Vism III—XI.
For further details about jhana, etc., see Fund. IV.
-The Buddha's Path of Deliverance, p.75 by Nyanatiloka Thera


Non duality and eternal life Is there really any evidence that anything goes beyond death ? By that I mean our self awareness.  That our awareness transcends death? I know there is absolutely no concrete evidence of reincarnation.  I'm not denying its possible.  Just denying there is any scientific evidence
However i have read claims that the self aware part of us-the part thats aware we are thinking goes beyond death and was here before birth ? Is there any hard evidence for this ?

I know there is absolutely no concrete evidence of reincarnation. I'm not denying its possible.

First, you need to understand what is an Empirical evidance, with that, you have to understand that in the matter of the object of your question, an empirical evidence based on pure observation cannot be provided, no matter what.

The accounts of rebirths are purely subjective if you google about such matters, you will find that some authentic psychologists have indeed written books based on tons of interviews they have conducted. Now as a direct evidence cannot be obtained and all the data collected is subjective, all this research goes down the drain as 'pseudoscience' or worst 'woo-woo'.

So when you say the concrete evidence is not present, the problem is concrete evidence cannot be given in the first place. On similar lines even, 'human consciousness' has no concrete evidence, the only way I know you are conscious is because I am conscious and based on your activity and my experience I can only infer that you are conscious. This has led few scientists to say that consciousness itself is an illusion.  So lack of empirical evidence doesn't imply the non-existence of something.

the self-aware part of the us-the part that's aware we are thinking goes beyond death and was here before birth?

This is again the Hindu theory of eternal Aatman, but in the Buddhist context, the Buddha said in Assu Sutta,

  This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

So, he clearly indicated that part of you goes on living even after death, but where the Buddha contradicts with the Hindus is that He insisted that the self itself is an illusion, so what lives of you after the bodily death is an interplay of five aggregates, the exact dynamics has not been mentioned.

Is there any hard evidence for this ?

I will tell you a small exercise, do it for yourself, you will get a hard subjective experience.

Lie down and relax on your back, be completely relaxed, now try to
remember the memories early on your life as possible, do this for
2-3 days.
Next, try to remember and focus the memories of your life between 3-4 years of age, this is the time you would have just started feeling the sense of 'I', sense of separateness.
Now focus on all the memories where you are in action, where you are doing something, there will be memories where you will be motivated to do something unusual, there will be memories of you doing things instinctively which have not come from your parents or siblings or from TV or from any source possibly there. These are instincts you have followed from past lives. Mant things in our current life, we go on doing in oblivion.

Now, this is not a hard empirical evidence, it's solely your own worldview out of your own experience. There is an obvious ability of human mind to know things. Skeptics are mere Physicalists.


The idea of transfer merit It is said that merit transfer is a later development. We reap what we sow, it is not possible for the merit to be transferred. Is it true any recipient will not be able to receive any merit that is done and transferred by someone?

Of course merit can be transferred, such as when the love or goodness of one person makes another person feel love or goodness, such as when parents love their children & thus transfer their merit to their children.
However, transferring merit to dead or unconnected people, yes, that would bring the results to the giver similar to a metta or gratitude meditation.
Whether there is actual merit being transferred to the dead would be not knowable.

In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his
parents as the East:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their
duties, (iii) I shall keep the family tradition, (iv) I shall make
myself worthy of my inheritance, (v) I shall offer alms
in honor of my departed relatives.
Sigalovada Sutta


What is Buddhism’s beliefs on humans living with the environment ? was just wondering really how buddhists engage and see  the environment around them  and whether or not there are consequences if one does shows a disregard for the environment

Answering one of the questions from a Deva, Buddha gave a discourse on the merit gained by planting groves.

“Those who set up a park or a grove, the people who construct a
bridge, a place to drink and a well, Those who give a residence:
“For them merit always increases, Both by day and by night; Those are
the people going to heaven, Established in Dhamma, endowed with virtue.
Planters of Groves (SN 1.47)

Although there are no rules for lay people, there are several vinaya rules for monks for harming the environment such as cutting down trees, burning forests.
In one occasion, monks who were making some repairs, were cutting down trees and when Buddha heard about this he criticized them,

“How can you, foolish men, cut down trees and have them cut down? It
is not, foolish men, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased …
And thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:

and imposed a vinaya rule,

“For destruction of vegetable growth there is an offence of
expiation.”
Monks’ Expiation (Pācittiya) 11

In Aṅkurapetavatthu, it is mentioned that if one gets some benefit from a tree such as lying in the shade, he should not harm even a leaf of that tree.


What is done with offerings after they've been on the altar awhile? This is an altar maintenance question.

What are the sort of typical things done with the food, water, flowers and so on that gets put on the altar for altar maintenance?

Once an offering is made to the Buddha, it becomes the property of the Buddha, the person who offers it no longer has the ownership. However, Buddha is no longer present to consume them, so the place must be cleaned before things become messy.
In Theravada, the common practice is according to the Dakkhinavibhanga sutta commentary. However, I wasn't able to find an English translation of it in internet. So I'm giving the translation as I can.
It mentions,

  if there's a monk who's an attendant of the Buddha, the offerings
  should be given to that monk. Other monks are also worthy of receiving them, [as the saying goes] son inherits what belongs to the father. Oil that's left must be used to light the lamps in the temple. Cloths that are left must be used as flags.

If there's no monk in the temple, a lay person who's an attendant can also take them. If there's no such person, there's no harm if anyone else uses them. Nonetheless, if  something's offered to the Buddha that can be used in the temple e.g. oil, taking them for personal use can be stealing. Otherwise there's no harm in eating food or even giving them to beggars or animals, you can get more merit :)

That being said, in Dhammadayada sutta, Buddha asks the monks to be the inheriters of his teaching and not the inheriters of his material.
Further, he says that the monks who don't eat his leftovers are more praiseworthy than the monks who eat them because it conduces to that monks' few desires, satisfaction, purity, the nature of being supported easily, and for arousing of effort.

  ...
  `Bhikkhus, I have partaken of my meal, is satiated and do not desire any more, there is some morsel food left over to be thrown away, If you desire, partake of it, if you do not partake it I will throw it to some place where there is no green, or I will put it in some water where there are no living things. '

  To one of those bhikkhus, it occurs thus: `The Blessed One has partaken of his meal, is satiated and does not desire any more of it. There is some morsel food left over to be thrown away. If we do not partake of it, he will throw it to some place where there is no green, or will put it in some water where there is no life. Yet it is told by the Blessed One this: Bhikkhus, be the heirs of my Teaching and not the heirs of my material. Morsel food is one of the material, What if I spend this day and night bearing up this hunger and discomfort? He not partaking that food spends that night and day bearing up that hunger and discomfort. '

  To the other bhikkhu it occurs thus: [repitition] What if I partake of that morsel food and put an end to my hunger and discomfort and spend the night and day?'

  So he partakes of that morsel food puts an end to his hunger and discomfort and spends the night and day. Bhikkhus, whoever the bhikkhu who partook of the morsel food, overcame the hunger and discomfort and spent the night and day, yet the earlier bhikkhu is more reverential and praiseworthy. What is the reason? Because it conduces to that bhikkhu's few desires, satisfaction, purity, the nature of being supported easily, and for arousing of effort
  MN 3

So I think this is applicable to lay people who are doing the altar maintenance as well.


Should I use autosuggestion to make myself meditate Would like to hear what people here think about subconsciousness and autosuggestion

Is using autosuggestion to make myself do sitting meditation a good idea ? If so how to do it  ?

Because I have a very bad procrastination problem and I tried many solutions to it without success but heard of autosuggestion and wondered if it can help me doing the meditation sessions daily.

Autosuggestion engages the subconscious mind, and or a hypnotic state where one can induce self-oriented behaviors. This is not in keeping with calm abiding meditation, or insight meditation. One needs to stay awake and mindful in order to direct the meditation. In calm abiding the goal is to empty the mind of conceptual thoughts or at least push them aside so as not to dwell on them. One can use a focal point such as a picture of a deity, or the breath. However, when using an aid do not allow yourself to become hypnotized...keep mindful. This clear mind meditation will eventually lead to insight meditation, where one can meditate solely on matters related to dharma, without being interrupted by what needs to go on your grocery list!! Your success will come with practice. Your procrastination is an obstacle to be overcome, and that too is a beneficial practice.


Is the lotus position more prone to knee injury? I've seen it mentioned once or twice, a great teacher or master who has knee injury due to lots of sitting practice. I know that if the posture is incorrect or if one is forcing it, it will lead to injury (I've read scary reports of people who permanently harmed their body because they tried it without proper guidance). But, seeing some teachers with such injuries as well made me wonder if even with a correct posture one may still harm its own body. I don't know if those cases I heard are exceptions (does anyone have seen other cases as well?). But, if this is because of really lots of practice, perhaps other "safer" postures could have prevented that?

So, my question: given ideal conditions, such as correct posture and enough strength for it, is lotus position more susceptible to injury (in the long run) than other postures, such as burmese or half-lotus? Or, are all these injuries we see due to lacking necessary conditions?

If someone could point me to a reference, that would be great.

But, seeing some teachers with such injuries as well made me wonder if even with a correct posture one may still harm its own body.

Lotus position is not a "correct" posture. Correct posture has having the spine erect. The Buddhist scriptures instruct to meditation in four postures, namely, sitting, standing, walking & lying down. Lotus posture has no inherent benefit, apart from convenience. People have attained the deepest meditation states (called 'jhana') sitting on a backless chair. Because jhana is such a heightened state of mental alertness, there is no possibly of falling off the chair in jhana due to drowsiness. Lotus is useful for sloppy meditators who end to fall asleep in meditation; who pretend they are meditating but are, in reality, sleeping or day-dreaming.

  So, my question: given ideal conditions, such as correct posture and enough strength for it, is lotus position more susceptible to injury
  (in the long run) than other postures, such as burmese or half-lotus?
  Or, are all these injuries we see due to lacking necessary
  conditions?

This question is unrelated to Buddhist philosophy. The suitability of the Lotus Posture depends of the physiology of the individual. If a person can sit in lotus but does not have a natural erect & supple spine, sitting in lotus is both pointness & will probably cause physical damage.

  If someone could point me to a reference, that would be great.

There are no Buddhist references for this matter. It is all a matter of physiology.


How does the story of General Siha's Meal for the Buddha at Vaisali vindicate the Buddha? I'm working on a radio history of vegetarianism and featuring a dramatisation of the story of General Siha in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka because it shows the difference between Jain (there called Niganthas - "tieless ones") and classical Theravada Buddhist attitudes to meat-eating.

Here is a nineteenth century translation on archive.org. The story begins with the first sentence on the page:
https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/324/mode/2up

The story is told as if it vindicates the Buddha of the Jains angry accusations of himsa. But that seems flawed to me. General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for (in the Pali canon account) Gautama's influence. And grounds for suspicion had literally been shouted through the streets, albeit by a rival sect.

I want to make sure that I accurately reflect the Theravada understanding of the story, but I can't find it anywhere. How is Gautama the wise sramana vindicated?

Here is a version of the story as told by Ajahn Brahmavamso ("a British Theravada Buddhist monk"), in an an essay titled, What the Buddha said about eating meat:

Once, a rich and influential general by the name of Siha (meaning 'Lion') went to visit the Buddha. Siha had been a famous lay supporter of the Jain monks but he was so impressed and inspired by the Teachings he heard from the Buddha that he took refuge in the Triple Gem (i.e. he became a Buddhist). General Siha then invited the Buddha, together with the large number of monks accompanying Him, to a meal at his house in the city the following morning. In preparation for the meal, Siha told one of his servants to buy some meat from the market for the feast. When the Jain monks heard of their erstwhile patron's conversion to Buddhism and the meal that he was preparing for the Buddha and the monks, they were somewhat peeved:

"Now at the time many Niganthas (Jain monks), waving their arms, were moaning from carriage road to carriage road, from cross road to cross road in the city: 'Today a fat beast, killed by Siha the general, is made into a meal for the recluse Gotama (the Buddha), the recluse Gotama makes use of this meat knowing that it was killed on purpose for him, that the deed was done for his sake'..." [1].

Siha was making the ethical distinction between buying meat already prepared for sale and ordering a certain animal to be killed, a distinction which is not obvious to many westerners but which recurs throughout the Buddha's own teachings. Then, to clarify the position on meat eating to the monks, the Buddha said:

"Monks, I allow you fish and meat that are quite pure in three respects: if they are not seen, heard or suspected to have been killed on purpose for a monk. But, you should not knowingly make use of meat killed on purpose for you." [2]

There are many places in the Buddhist scriptures which tell of the Buddha and his monks being offered meat and eating it. One of the most interesting of these passages occurs etc.

I think that answers your questions: I think it's basically that meat was bought from the market, instead of animals "killed on purpose for him".
You could probably find more references to the story using this Google search: vinaya siha meat

See also this explanation of meat-eating, in The Bhikkhus' Rules —
A Guide for Laypeople.
Another explanation I read (I don't remember where, at the moment) is that the Buddha wanted monks to be easy for the laity to support: i.e. not too demanding/fussy about what kind of food they will accept.