What meditation practice(s) are encompassed by 'asubha' (non-beautiful)? What meditation practice(s) are encompassed by 'asubha' (non-beautiful)?
I've heard one teacher say that in the EBT (early buddhist texts), asubha practice only refers to 31 body parts, and later Theravada expanded it to include 9 cemetary corpse decay, and perhaps other practices as well?

Does anyone know for sure? In the pali suttas, most of the references to asubha do not specify a specific meditation practice(s).

Is AN 10.60 the only place where asubha is specifically assigned to 31 body parts?

I'd prefer to believe asubha meditation encompasses more practices than just the 31asb, unless there is conclusive evidence. Simply because in an oral tradition where memory of teachings is mandatory, it's helpful when a label, 'asubha' in this case, covers all the practices that could qualify for doing that job.

We know that the purpose of asubha (ugly or non-beautful), is to counter the effects of subha (beautiful) have in inducing lust/passion/desire for sensual pleasure, especially for sex.

Clearly the stages of decomposition of corpses, the discharge from the 9 orifices of the body, all qualify in accomplishing that goal.

AN 10.60 defines the practice of asubha as 31 body parts contemplation:

  Katamā cānanda, asubhasaññā?
  And what is the perception of ugliness?
  Idhānanda, bhikkhu imameva kāyaṃ uddhaṃ pādatalā adho kesamatthakā tacapariyantaṃ pūraṃ nānāppakārassa asucino paccavekkhati:
  It’s when a monk examines their own body up from the soles of the feet and down from the tips of the hairs, wrapped in skin and full of many kinds of filth.
  ‘atthi imasmiṃ kāye kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco, maṃsaṃ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṃ vakkaṃ, hadayaṃ yakanaṃ kilomakaṃ pihakaṃ papphāsaṃ, antaṃ antaguṇaṃ udariyaṃ karīsaṃ, pittaṃ semhaṃ pubbo lohitaṃ sedo medo, assu vasā kheḷo siṅghāṇikā lasikā muttan’ti.
  ‘In this body there is head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.’
  Iti imasmiṃ kāye asubhānupassī viharati.
  And so they meditate observing ugliness in this body.
  Ayaṃ vuccatānanda, asubhasaññā.
  This is called the perception of ugliness.

summary of my research on this so far:
(lots of hyperlinks embedded within source link)
http://lucid24.org/tped/a/asubha/index.html

a-subha  = un-attractive
✅in EBT meditation, it refers to 31asb body parts contemplation. See AN 10.60, AN 6.29.
⚠300+ years after EBT, in Vimt. and Vism., Theravada re-defines asubha meditation to refer to 10 stages of corpse decay, and they reclassify 31asb under kāya-gatā-sati . It's important to know this, because in EBT suttas, an instruction to "develop asubha" is frequently mentioned, but without detail (examples: SN 8.4, SN 54.9). 31asb is immediately accessible, corpse contemplation considerably more complex.
• What's the purpose of asubha meditation? To counter perversions of our inverted perception AN 4.49, SN 8.4.
• But be careful, this is an advanced practice. Best to first have foundation in breath meditation SN 54.9.
• SN 12.61 and SN 12.62 is the more general case of seeing 4 elements via dependent origination 12ps as not being worth clinging to.

The core buddhism's meditation is not about body parts or anything related to outer world. It's always about the dependent co-arising.

Below is about the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person from Assutava Sutta

  "Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted
  with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow
  dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that?
  Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this
  body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the
  uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might
  grow dispassionate, might gain release there.

And below is about instructed disciple of the noble ones from same Assutava Sutta

  "The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends
  carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising:

Therefore based on above, the famous asubha meditation conflicts with that sutta. So the reason should be asubha is misinterpreted.
Explained detailed on Asubha meditation is in Kuddaka Nikaya-1 -> Asubhanupassi Sutta (If anyone found an english reference please add). This says that sabba sankharesu aniccanupassino viharathi That's the abstracted meaning of asubha meditation. (I'm referring to sinhala - pali cannon, sorry I can't translate this to english)

There's another sutta which clearly says that, Noble meditation should not be based on air, fire, water etc. I'll try to find the reference to that as well.

With this you might be confused by now. Yes, most of the meanings are mis-interpreted. The real dhamma is out there now, It will come famous but will take sometime to accept by people.

With Metta...!


Who was the King Okkāka mentioned in Sutta Nipāta? I have come across the following verse from Sutta Nipāta (verse 305 - P.104) mentioned by Buddha.

  Then they composed some Vedic hymns and went chanting to Okkāka king:
  “Great your wealth and great your grain, make sacrifice to us with
  grain and wealth”.

Who was the King  Okkāka mentioned in the verse above?

Check out Pali Dictionary of Proper Names:

Okkāka

  A king, ancestor of the Sākyas and the Kolians.
  In the Ambattha Sutta (D.i.92) it is stated that Okkāka, being fond of his queen and wishing to transfer the kingdom to her son, banished from the kingdom the elder princes by another wife. These princes were named Okkāmukha, Karakanda, Hatthinika, and Sīnipura.

  The Mahāvastu (which confuses Iksvāku with his ancestor Sujāta) mentions five sons of Iksvāku: Opura, Ulkāmukha, Karandaka, Hastikasīrsa and Nipura (i.348). See also Rockhill, p.9ff.

  They lived on the slopes of the Himalaya and, consorting with their sisters and their descendants, formed the Sākyan race. The legend, thus briefly given, is enlarged on with great detail in the Commentaries. According to Buddhaghosa, there are three dynasties with a king named Okkāka at the head of each, all of them lineal descendants of the primeval king, Mahāsammata, and in the line of succession of Makādeva.
  The Okkāka of the third dynasty had five queens - Bhattā, Cittā, Jantū, Jālinī and Visākhā - each with five hundred female attendants. The eldest queen had four sons - mentioned above - and five daughters - Piyā, Suppiyā, Anandā, Vijitā and Vijitasenā. (The Mtu. calls them Suddhā, Vimalā Vijitā, Jālā and Jālī).

  When Bhattā died, after the birth of these nine children, the king married another young and beautiful princess and made her the chief queen. Her son was Jantu, and being pleased with him, the king promised her a boon. She claimed the kingdom for her son, and this was the reason for the exile of the elder children (DA.i.258f; SnA.i.352f).
  The Mahāvamsa (Mhv.ii.12-16) mentions among Okkāka's descendants, Nipuna, Candimā, Candamukha, Sivisañjaya, Vessantara, Jāli, Sīhavāhana and Sīhassara. The last named had eighty-four thousand descendants, the last of whom was Jayasena. His son Sīhahanu was the grandfather of the Buddha. The Dīpavamsa (iii.41-5) list resembles this very closely.

  Okkāka had a slave-girl called Disā, who gave birth to a black baby named, accordingly, Kanha. He was the ancestor of the Kanhāyanas, of which race the Ambattha-clan was an offshoot. Later, Kanha became a mighty sage and, by his magic power, won in marriage Maddarūpī, another daughter of Okkāka (D.i.93, 96).

  According to the Brāhmana-Dhammika Sutta (Sn.p.52ff; AA.ii.737), it was during the time of Okkāka that the brahmins started their practice of slaughtering animals for sacrifice. Till then there had been only three diseases in the world - desire, hunger and old age; but from this time onwards the enraged devas afflicted humans with various kinds of suffering.

  It is said (DA.i.258) that the name Okkāka was given to the king because when he spoke light issued from his mouth like a torch (kathanakāle ukkā viya mukhato pabhā niccharati).
  Although the Sanskritised form of the Pāli name is Iksavāku, it is unlikely that Okkāka is identical with the famous Iksavāku of the Purānas, the immediate son of Manu, son of the Sun. The Pāli is evidently more primitive, as is shown by the form Okkāmukha, and the name Iksavāku looks like a deliberate attempt at accommodation to the Purānic account. For discussion see Thomas, op. cit., p.6.

  According to the Mahāvastu, Iksavāku was the king of the Kosalas and his capital was Sāketa - i.e. Ayodhyā. See also s.v. Sākya.

  The Cūlavamsa mentions among Okkāka's descendants, Mahātissa, Sagara and Sāhasamalla (q.v.).

  Okkāka.

  King of Kusāvatī in the Malla country. He had sixteen thousand wives, the chief of whom was Sīlavatī. As a result of her consorting with Sakka, two sons were born, Kusa and Jayampati.

  The story is related in the Kusa Jātaka. J.v.278ff.


Two types of satipaṭṭhāna - which has jhana? In Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond,  Ajahn Brahm writes -

  The Buddha taught two types of satipaṭṭhāna. The first type is supported by jhāna and leads to enlightenment in a short time.

Which satipaṭṭhāna is the first type, and where can it be found ? (By "two types" does he mean the two versions DN 22 and MN 10?)  Please reference both types and specify which is the "first type".

Which satipaṭṭhāna is this, and where can it be found?

This is the direct path for purifying of beings, for overcoming sorrow and distress, for vanquishing pain and distress, for attaining the right approach, for realizing Nirvana – namely, the four applications mindfulness’

Was this the satipaṭṭhāna which led to the Buddha's awakening?

My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'


Buddhism and Semiotics? Does anyone know any research or publications on the intersection of Buddhism and semiotics/biosemiotics? I don't mean the study of Buddhist schools with the help of semiotics, but rather an interpretation of Buddhist doctrine itself as a kind of ancient proto-semiotics. Any references are appreciated.

So far I have found three texts providing more or less clear interpretation of Buddhism as ancient form of applied semiotics:

A 2003 article by Mario D'Amato titled "The semiotics of signlessness: A Buddhist doctrine
of signs":

  [There is a] distinction between an analysis of Buddhist semiotics and a semiotic analysis of Buddhism: While the former would be an analysis of a Buddhist doctrine of signs (as, for example, is given in this paper), the latter would be a semiotic analysis of Buddhist cultural forms.

  ...

  Through seizing on the signs or characteristics of things, mind functions according to a conceptual matrix that is not in accordance with the way things really are, and this occurrence is the very basis of suffering. Thus, to give a semiotic interpretation to the three entrances to nirvana — signlessness, desirelessness, and emptiness — if signs and semiotic processes were to be properly understood, signifying could be brought to an end, seizing on things would terminate, and the ultimate emptiness of all phenomena would be realized.

  ...

  The ultimate goal is not to ‘regress’ to a pre-semiotic condition, but rather to arrive at a completely perfected mode of semiosis wherein there is no longer a barrier between the sign and reality itself: When everything has been signified, when the sign encompasses all possible interpretants (signs), then a state of semiotic perfection has been attained and semiosis has been brought to its completion.

  ...

  Thus, all phenomena (all signifieds) are to be ultimately understood
  as nothing more than conceptual constructions. And because there are
  ultimately no objects, there is nothing for signs to refer to. Hence, the
  highest awakening entails the end of semiosis.

  ...

  The perfected signifier is
  reality itself. ...  I take this to imply that the perfected
  signifier should be understood in terms of Peirce’s category of firstness. ... The perfected signifier is thusness itself, without the mediation of discursivity and without unreal imagination.

Chapters 9-14 of Nalin Swaris' 1997 PhD dissertation titled "The Buddha's Way: A Socio-Historical Approach". Can be purchased on Amazon or downloaded here:

  The Buddha developed a method for realising in practice what Derrida understood in theory. That is to say a way of achieving "bare perception" and realising "signless freedom of the mind"

  ...

  Humans suffer because of their ignore-ance of the true character of actuality as impermanent and without substance. Ordinarily, we do not see mere things or beings. We perceive them in terms of what they mean to us - 'good for me'/ 'bad for me'. In other words see not things, but signs, and we measure everything in relation to our interests. As a result beings and things trigger lust or hatred in us. We are not aware of what transmutes perceived forms into signs of lust or hate. It is therefore far more important to understand, not so much how things come into
  existence - ontogenesis - but semiosis - the processes by which everything in the universe is converted into 'Signs'. People live under the sway of signs which are identified by names. ...  It is by turning an ephemeral form into a fixed 'thing' that it can be made an object of lust, hatred and delusion. The diagnosis is illuminating. Lust, hate and delusion are not the result of qualities intrinsic to what is perceived. It is the gaze of the beholder which, under the sway of craving, transforms perceived
  forms into lustful, hateful or delusive 'things'. ... Craving transforms
  what is pleasant into lustful objects. But how does craving achieve this? Sariputta lays bare the stratagem - "lust is a sign-maker; hate is sign-maker; delusion is a sign-maker".

  ...

  Suññatā ... is emptying the mind of signs and liberating it
  from its sign-making proclivity - the habitual compulsion to project significations on to percepts. Overcoming this compulsion, says Sariputta, is animitta cetovimutti - "signless liberation of the mind". It is nibbanic freedom. It is liberation from what the Buddha called "the tyranny of names".

A 2008 article by Mario D'Amato, "Buddhism, Apophasis, Truth" says:

  According to Buddhist semiotics, there is a significant sense in which semiosis itself is systematically deceptive, binding one further to cyclic existence. According to Buddhist metaphysics, conditioned phenomena—phenomena which comprise “the world,” including whatever we refer to as “the self”—are radically impermanent and without inherent nature or essence. Signs, on the other hand, function to posit stable entities where there are none, affixing inherent natures onto hypostatized existents. While phenomena are in flux, signs posit enduring objects. While phenomena are without essence, signs posit essential natures. Signs point to a realm of stable referents, but the purported “objects” to which they refer are always on the move. So coming to a proper understanding of semiosis, and bringing about its end or terminus through a radical transformation, is understood in Buddhist traditions to be one of the very “doors to deliverance.”

  ...

  This is understandable insofar as according to certain
  strands of Buddhist thought, the fundamental cause of suffering, or the
  fundamental problem that must be overcome, is some form of conceptualization (sajñā), conceptual discrimination (vikalpa), conceptual construction (parikalpa), or conceptual proliferation (prapañca) — in short, the fundamental problem is some form of semiosis.

  ...

  All of this seems to quite clearly imply that when the goal is attained, even Buddhism itself will not ultimately be taken to be true: when awakening is attained, Buddhist doctrine is to be left behind. In the end, Buddhism should serve as a means of achieving the realization of signlessness, an attainment which dissolves the possibility for affirming any truth at all.


What do different schools of Buddhism say about Mara Does the concept of "Mara Devaputta" (The being called Mara) exist in all schools of Buddhism?

What is mentioned about that concept?

Mara , according to the specific Buddhist and Hindu Cosmology, is the leader of the heaven above Sakra, prince of the Devas (see The Thirty-one Planes of Existence).

According to Wikipedia's Mara (demon) article:

  In Mahayana Buddhism. There are traditionally
  these four types of Mara
  In traditional Buddhism, four metaphorical forms of "māra" are given:

  Kleśa-māra, or Ma̋ra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions, such as greed, hate and delusion.
  Mṛtyu-māra, or Māra as death.
  Skandha-māra, or Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
  Devaputra-māra, the deva of the sensuous realm, who tries to prevent Gautama Buddha from attaining liberation from the cycle of rebirth on the night of the Buddha´s enlightenment.

This Devaputra Mara is, according to Buddhists, a real sentient being.
He is destined to become a  Pratyeka Buddha. His followers might not be so fortunate.

The above image quoted from The Thirty-one Planes of Existence. Note especially:

  Realm: 11) Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)
  Comments: These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them. Mara, the personification of delusion and desire, lives here.
  Cause of rebirth here:

  Ten wholesome actions (MN 41)
  Generosity


Nibbana: Not an Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth? A certain Brahman (lay priest, as he uses this term) here told:

Nibbana is simply what is experienced by the mind which is free from defilements and fetters. It is not an Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth.

So according this, Nibbana isn't real but something, a maybe 'unconditioned Mind' experianses, and mind is obiviously assumed to be real.
What did the Buddha told in regard of Nibbana and Mind?
"Nibbānaṃ anicca. Cittānaṃ saraṇaṃ hotu."?
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades or to entertain the mind, but for an escape to lasting freedom from debt]

"Nirvāna has been described by the Buddha not as the ending of rebirth (jāti nirodho), but as the ending of the delusion of existence (bhava nirodho Nibbānaŋ), by awakening from the dream of existence (samma sambodhi)." Page 57 from here
"The paradigm shift (nirodha samāpatti) where the meditator withdraws from the paradigm of existence (bhava) and gets established in the paradigm of experience (nirodha), brings about the freedom or liberation (vimutti) from emotional excitements (tanhā) and accompanying suffering (dukkha), ending in the imperturbable serenity, Nibbāna. This means the mind that was purified will never become polluted again." Page 78 from here


What does Śāripūtrābhidharma Satipatthana sources mention about food? Does other Theravada source have such references? According to Satipatthana Mula (By Sujato Bhikkhu edited by Piya Tan) Śāripūtrābhidharma versions of the Satipatthana contains a reference to food. What exactly does it say about food and does Theravada sources have similar references else where? Is food referenced as one of the elements (Mahābhūta)?

Basically it cautioned the practitioner not to crave and endulge the 6 sense objects (form, sound, smell, etc.), clothing, food, drink, medicine, etc. for craving of those leads to suffering.
The Pali source mentioned the Four Nutriments which includes food as the physical nutriment, contact, mental volition, and consciousness. Analysis and various suttas are available here


What can I practise to avoid expectations? Today, I have realized that I have lot of expectations about my life and about others. Until today, I didn't aware of it because,today I face a big disappointment.So, Experiences of expectations and hopes breakings are  way to understand the nature of expectations. Other than that, What can I do to avoid expectations ?

I don't think one can avoid having expectations in general because if we know the possibilty of an outcome we can be said to expect it to the extent to which it is known to be a possibility.

What one can prevent is having false expectations as these are due to general bewilderment and are a cause of suffering.

Understanding counters ignorance, removes delusion and is supported by learning.

Whether we favor one outcome over another and it causes grief is a related matter of attachment rooted in delusion.

Correct knowledge & understanding begets right expectations and dispassion.


watching myself everywhere? During meditation sessions, morning 4 to 5, I have started watching myself everywhere. I didn't experienced it before. The garden where I am used to take a morning walk after meditation, there I saw my duplicates, same me in different-2 attire, casual-formal-pyjamas-with friends-cycling.
There was a moment in real world when I thought that if I could see everyone as me then I can percieve real peace. I think that thought merged into meditation and showed me the same but it was very different. I was so attached to myself when no one other was present as a special appearance. I want to know 'was that of my thought was wrong or right ?

When meditating you might get imaginative experiences which might seem very real. Just do not give any importance to them. Just be aware that you are experiencing something. These experiences has sensations associated and if you get attached to them unsatisfactory experiences will follow. Whenever you get some experience just see if you like or dislike or neutral towards the experience and the sensations that follows.


What does a monk think on a day to day basis? I go through my daily chores and it has become habituated to the extent that i do not need to concentrate on the action and my mind has some time to do thinking or just wander.

Now monks life is also similar in that they repeat the activities over life time.
So my question, what does monk think on daily basis?
Does one control his thoughts or let it wander without attaching oneself to the thought? How does a monk achieve oneness or prepare to be in present?

Regards,
Contemplating One

I'll disregard the emphasis on monks, because mindfulness isn't exclusive to monastics, and secondly, the monk as a super-hero trope needs some critical examination. Most monks, like 90% of them in traditionally Buddhist countries follow the herd, and ordain because it is better than farming, or because their family gets some respect in the village, or some motive other than nibbana and buddhahood. This means, it is the rare monk generally that graduates to being a real super hero in the sense of an Arhat, or who can practice or even attempt 100% mindfulness. This doesn't mean the rest of them are bad monks, not at all. Monks are human after all, and they are attempting the near impossible, which is more than one can say of most. Even in the time of the Buddha, there were a good many monks who were earnest at least initially, but were not so special, it appears.

I say all this because I respect and love the idea of monasticism, and don't want to see it become a Potemkin village. I live in India, where the popular notion of a monastic (Hindu, Buddhist, what have you) has taken a real beating, and a monastic is viewed by the urban educated as a sex and money crazy conman. There are still enough of course who unquestioningly fall at the feet of anyone in saffron robes, but that isn't very healthy either.

Politicians all claim to be incorruptible because no one votes for the one who is honest enough to admit he is a little dirty, because politics in general is a little dirty. And, monks and dharma teachers are similarly forced to at least tacitly let on that they are beyond simple human frailties, at least the really bad ones, and they constantly endeavor to live in mindfulness and bliss and speak in soothing voices.

The love of Nibbana cannot be born out of a hatred for anything, not even Samsara. In fact there cannot be Nirvana without Samsara, they inter-depend.

The old Zen saying is when sleeping sleep, when showering shower, when walking walk. This no-mind state is easier said than done.

By being regular in one's schedule and routine, and by having a time set apart each day to meditate one can bring about mindfulness.
Meditating daily or regularly, and attaining jhanas often is another good way to ensure constant mindfulness.
Being in the presence of an enlightened teacher who radiates mindfulness is yet another way to boost our own mindfulness energy.
Regular and heartfelt practice of Metta is another way to increase mindfulness.
Making a habit of returning to the present moment, is another good way. See, Thich Nhat Hanh's mindfullness moment practice
Not dwelling in negative thoughts and practicing the Bramha viharas is another method.


Are monks allowed to have prescriptions? What did the Buddha say of medicine? Are Buddhist monks allowed to have prescriptions, or would that be considered an attachment? Did the Buddha say anything of medicine?

Providing the services of a medical practitioner or pharmacist to lay people  is not allowed for monks according to DN2:

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."

Monks can use medicine for their own use, according to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

  MEDICINES OR TONICS

  We have dealt above with food and fruit juice. There is now the
  category of 'tonic-medicines' (sattaahakaalika). These can be consumed
  at any time but cannot be stored longer than seven days (after they
  are offered).

  These tonic-medicines were originally regulated when Venerable
  Pilindavaccha's great feats of psychic power made him so famous that
  he received many offerings of the five 'tonics.' Even though he
  distributed these among other monks there was so much that the excess
  had to be stored away and their dwellings were overrun by rats.
  Visiting lay people criticized the monks for "storing up goods in
  abundance like a king." The Buddha therefore set down this rule:

  "Keeping any of the five tonics — ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or
  sugar/molasses — for more than seven days is [an offence of Confession
  with Forfeiture.] (Summarized Nis. Paac. 23; BMC p.242) ◊ There are
  various translations and interpretations about these 'tonic-
  medicines' — according to different Communities and different
  countries. Some places consider only liquids allowable while a few
  communities will drink only plain water in the afternoon. Some
  communities will not accept re-offered tonic-medicines (after the
  seven days period is over), some will under certain circumstances.
  Therefore lay devotees need to enquire about the practice of their
  local Community and follow that way.[94]

  Some contemporary observations:

  "The five medicines — ghee, navaniita.m, oil, honey, and suga — were
  allowed by the Buddha to be consumed by 'sick' monks at any time of
  the day or night. According to the Mahaavagga, these five were 'agreed
  upon as medicines and, although they served as nutriment for people,
  were not considered as substantial food.' The degree of infirmity
  required before a monk is allowed to consume these [tonic-]medicines
  is a controversial point... It seems that feeling rundown or feeling
  tired after physical exertion would be sufficient cause to be able to
  make use of the Five Medicines."(AB)

  "The main effectiveness of these medicines seems to be in their
  nutritional value. They do not have medicinal value as commonly
  understood today, for example, relieving pain or as an antiseptic.
  However, as nutriment they would help to maintain bodily strength and
  assist in recuperation while, since they are so rich, would not be a
  substitute for normal food." (HS ch.10)

  Also, if the tonic-medicine is mixed with a tiny amount of food then
  it would be acceptable according to this allowance:

  "...if sugar has a little flour mixed with it simply to make it firmer
  — as sometimes happens in sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar — it is
  still classed as a tonic as it is still regarded simply as 'sugar.'"
  (BMC p.238-9) If the flour is for more food-like reasons then it would
  be counted as food. See also Mixing Edibles above.

  LIFETIME MEDICINES

  The fourth category of edibles (see The Four Sorts of Edibles) is that
  of Lifetime Medicines (yaavajiivika). which includes what we generally
  think of as medicines.

  The basic principle set down by the Buddha about all medicines is in
  this reflection:

  "Properly considering medicinal requisites for curing the sick, I use
  them: simply to ward off any pains of illness that have arisen, and
  for the maximum freedom from disease." [OP p. 47; (Paali: M. I, 10; A.
  III, 387)] In the beginning, the basic (herbal) medicines allowed by
  the Buddha were those pickled in urine. Later, nearly all other types
  came to be considered allowable.[95] (See the separate allowance above
  for 'tonic-medicines.')

  Medicines that may be consumed without time limitation are called
  yaavajiivika. The Texts mention different sorts of herbal medicines
  such as: plant roots, e.g., ginger, turmeric, sweet flag, etc.;
  decoctions, such as of the neem or nux-vomica; tree-leaves, such as
  neem-leaves, tulsi or holy basil; fruits, such as long peppers,
  myrobalan, wormwood; resins, such as asafoetida; salts, such as
  sea-salt, rock salt, etc. Any other medicine or herbs similar to these
  that is not reckoned to be food is included under this 'lifetime'
  category.[96]

  ◊ Modern western medicines are usually included — using the Great
  Standards — under this category and therefore can be taken at any time
  of the day and kept as long as necessary.

In "Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill", Lily de Silva quotes the Buddha as exhorting monks to care for and look after other monks:

  "He who attends on the sick attends on me," declared the Buddha,
  exhorting his disciples on the importance of ministering to the sick.
  This famous statement was made by the Blessed One when he discovered a
  monk lying in his soiled robes, desperately ill with an acute attack
  of dysentery. With the help of Ananda, the Buddha washed and cleaned
  the sick monk in warm water. On this occasion he reminded the monks
  that they have neither parents nor relatives to look after them, so
  they must look after one another. If the teacher is ill, it is the
  bounden duty of the pupil to look after him, and if the pupil is ill
  it is the teacher's duty to look after the sick pupil. If a teacher or
  a pupil is not available it is the responsibility of the community to
  look after the sick (Vin.i,301ff.).

  On another occasion the Buddha discovered a monk whose body was
  covered with sores, his robe sticking to the body with pus oozing from
  the sores. Unable to look after him, his fellow monks had abandoned
  him. On discovering this monk, the Buddha boiled water and washed the
  monk with his own hands, then cleaned and dried his robes. When the
  monk felt comforted the Buddha preached to him and he became an
  arahant, soon after which he passed away (DhpA.i,319). Thus the Buddha
  not only advocated the importance of looking after the sick, he also
  set a noble example by himself ministering to those who were so ill
  that they were even considered repulsive by others.


Why has the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts been interpreted as being so permissive? It seems to me that according to one interpretation of the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts one could even engage in various sexual acts with a vast number of prostitutes nonstop and that still wouldn't be considered as breaking the "3rd precept". (I am doubtful of it being possible to attain stream-entry with that indulgent behavior therefore I believe the Buddha did not teach that as being a way to attain stream-entry.)

Why has the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts been interpreted as being so permissive?

I find it concerning how the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts has been interpreted as being so permissive.

I have explained the original Buddhist teachings about sexual conduct & misconduct, before.

The 3rd precept in the Pali suttas (e.g. AN 10.176) says a daughter is to be "protected" by her family.

  Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He
  does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their
  mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their
  relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail
  punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.

  AN 10.176

Per the later Commentary, the word "protected" means, per the DN 31 sutta, the daughter is "restrained from unskillful behaviour" until the "parents arrange a suitable marriage" for her into a good family.

  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) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives.

  In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by >their children, show their compassion:

  (i) they restrain them from evil,

  (ii) they encourage them to do good,

  (iii) they train them for a profession,

  (iv) they arrange a suitable> marriage,

  (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

  DN 31

This is no different to the instructions in any other major religion.

Also, the suttas (Snp 1.6) literally condemn having sex with prostitutes.

  Unsatisfied with his own wife, with others’ wives he’s seen in tow,
  corrupted too with prostitutes— that’s the way to disaster’s woe.

  Snp 1.6

The impression is contemporary Buddhism is so permissive because monks don't want to make any waves with Cultural Marxist Hollywood brainwashed laypeople, which monks view as "metta".


What is happening to Lord Buddha after "parinirvana"? We all know that after Lord Buddha's parinirvana, he will never be born again. So my question is, if Lord Buddha does not have a rebirth after parinirvana, what is actually happening to him (after death)?

Nothing

Because there is no person to happen anything, and there is no samsara. So that's The End. When a person achieves nirvana , there is no person anymore. Death is not the end of a person, nirvana is. After achieving nirvana, 'he' can help others to achieve nirvana , and just wait for the physical death.


Is it complete shut down of perception and detachment of physical world? As we know people who stay in coma or unconsciousness "experience" timeless,space-less, absolute emptiness and total detachment from physical world. Even though I used the word "experience" will not suitable to describe the situation in coma or unconsciousness state. It is a condition with no happiness or sorrow, no pain,no darkness or light,no noise or sound etc....and finally we can say "unconditional state of mind." and closer to description of "Nirvana"

what happen when person die during the coma or unconsciousness state?
Is this similar to Nirvana? (as total detachment of world.)

It is a condition with no happiness or sorrow, no pain,no darkness or light,no noise or sound etc....and finally we can say "unconditional state of mind." and closer to description of "Nirvana"

Actually that's far from Nirvana. If that was the case any sleeping newborn baby would've been in Nirvana without the need for any Dhamma cultivation. A person in a coma might seem to be at peace and without happiness or sorrow, but hidden in those deep layers of his consciousness are still the seeds of defilements, of greed, hatred, and ignorance. As long as these "fuels" are still there and have not been eradicated, the Samsara cycle still goes on for him. In constrast, a person who has attained Nibbana has perfect awareness, but due to the total elimination of all the "fuels", s/he's able to be 100% at peace while being 100% conscious.


How come Devdutta is also Buddha's brother-in-law? In this wiki article it says Devdutta is his Brother in law but how?

Marrying within the family was common in many parts of the ancient world, especially among royalty. The Buddha’s family was no exception.

Yasodharā (who married Siddhārtha who went on to become the Buddha) and Devadatta were children of Suppabuddha. Suppabuddha was Siddhārtha’s uncle, being the brother of the sisters Māya (Siddhartha’s birth mother) and Pajāpatī ( his stepmother who actually raised him after Māya died at childbirth ).

So Devadatta was the Buddha’s cousin, brother-in-law, playmate/rival while growing up, follower and ordained student after Siddhartha was enlightened, an important leader in the Sangha*, a causer of a schism in the Sangha, a would-be plotter of his death.  A complex figure  who has been caricatured and narrowed down in the eagerness to paint everybody as either hero or villain.  A book that discusses this is Buddhist Saints of India by Reginald Ray 1994.

As an aside, it was said that Devadatta’s father, Suppabuddha also was pretty antagonistic towards the Buddha, first because of anger that he had abandoned his beloved daughter to go forth as a samaṇa and later also on account of tensions that his son had with the Buddha.


Nimitta - sutta references Please provide references from the Pali suttas on nimitta.

Are they mentioned in the context of jhana?

In the article below, it is mentioned that nimitta is found in the Anapanasati Sutta, but I couldn't find it. Is it there?

In the article "Stepping Towards Enlightenment", Ajahn Brahm wrote about nimitta:

  THE NINTH STEP OF the Anapanasati Sutta describes a very important
  creature that comes to visit the still, silent mind—a nimitta. Pali
  for “sign,” a nimitta is a reflection of the mind. This step is called
  citta-patisamvedi, “experiencing the mind,” and is achieved when one
  lets go of the body, thought, and the five senses (including awareness
  of the breath) so completely that only a beautiful mental sign, a
  nimitta, remains. This pure mental object is a real object in the
  landscape of the mind, and when it appears for the first time it is
  extremely strange. For most meditators this mental joy, is perceived
  as a beautiful light. But it is not a light. The eyes are closed, and
  the sight consciousness has long been turned off. Other meditators
  choose to describe this first appearance of mind in terms of a
  physical sensation such as intense tranquility or ecstasy. It is
  perceived as a light or a feeling because this imperfect description
  is the best that perception can offer.

SN 35.120:

Sujato

  ...And how does someone guard the sense doors?
  -- When a mendicant sees a sight with the eyes, they don’t get caught up in the features and details.
  (Idhāvuso, bhikkhu cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī.)

Bodhi

  ...And how, friend, does one guard the doors of the sense faculties?
  -- Here, having seen a form with the eye, a bhikkhu does not grasp its signs and features.

This is not in the context of jhana. The word seems to be used synonymically with "feature" or "detail". The other word, nānubyañjana (Sanskrit anuvyañjana) means "a secondary or minor characteristic, a secondary attribute, mark or sign".

Also, MN138

Sujato:

  Take a mendicant who sees a sight with their eyes [, hears a sound etc]. Their consciousness follows after the features of that sight [sound, odor etc.] and gets tied, attached, and fettered to gratification in its features. So their consciousness is said to be scattered and diffused externally.
  (Idhāvuso, bhikkhuno cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā rūpanimittaanusāri viññāṇaṃ hoti rūpanimittassādagadhitaṃ rūpanimittassādavinibandhaṃ rūpanimittassādasaṃyojanasaṃyuttaṃ bahiddhā viññāṇaṃ vikkhittaṃ visaṭanti vuccati.)

Here, Mahākaccāna elaborates on a phrase uttered by Buddha that "A mendicant should examine in any such a way that their consciousness is neither scattered and diffused externally nor stuck internally, and they are not anxious because of grasping." Here, the piece about nimitta is a detailed exposition of how consciousness gets "scattered and diffused externally".

The consciousness "follows after the features" of a rupa, and gets "tied, attached, and fettered" to gratification in the rupa's features.

Here again, the meaning seems to be that nimitta is a specific attribute of a visual object, sound, odor, flavor, tactile sensation, or a mental phenomenon (dharma).

Also, in Visuddhimagga:

  All [saññā] has the characteristic of recognition [sañjānana]; its property is the making of nimitta that is a condition of recognizing again, 'this is the very same thing' [...] its manifestation is the producing of conviction by virtue of a nimitta that has been accordingly learnt - [...] its basis is whatever object that has come near - like the recognition [saññā] 'people' that arises for young animals in respect of scarecrows.

Here it becomes clear that nimitta can play role of an identifying feature that the mind learns to associate with an object, in order to recognize it again.

In SN 46.51 Buddha speaks about nimitta in context of two of the five lower fetters, sensual desire and ill-will:

  And what fuels the arising of sensual desire, or, when it has arisen, makes it increase and grow?
  There is the feature of beauty.
  (Atthi, bhikkhave, subhanimittaṃ.)
  Frequent improper attention to that fuels the arising of sensual desire, or, when it has arisen, makes it increase and grow.

In MN 5, the word is used in a similar context:

  Take the case of the person who doesn’t have a blemish [sāṅgaṇa - issue, flaw] but does not understand it. You can expect that they will focus on the feature of beauty, and because of that, lust will infect their mind.
  Tatrāvuso, yvāyaṃ puggalo anaṅgaṇova samāno ‘natthi me ajjhattaṃ aṅgaṇan’ti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti, tassetaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ—subhanimittaṃ manasi karissati, tassa subhanimittassa manasikārā rāgo cittaṃ anuddhaṃsessati;

P.S.

As you can see, in most if not all cases, the word is used in context of phenomenology of perception and the resulting emotional response - not in context of jhanas. And yet, in Theravada tradition there is a definite case of using the word to refer to experiences arising in meditation. Why?

Here is my theory:

One of the key doctrines the Buddha established is the doctrine of this-that conditionality. In my understanding, this doctrine does not refer to mere causality, but to the mutual co-definition of the object and its counterpart. For example, when we identify an object, we implicitly identify its background. When we identify "top" we implicitly identify the middle reference point etc.

This mechanism is behind everything: The 2nd and 3rd Noble Truths define suffering as counterpart of craving. Dependent Origination relies on this-that-conditionality for explanation of how development of the mind that recognizes external forms and learns to act in pursuit of them leads to development of Self as the counterpart.

So, in context of meditation, I think the idea is for the meditator to learn to see both the sign and its counterpart at the same time. This counterpart is dubbed "reflection of the thought" or "the mirror". Once this ability is acquired and refined, the meditator can directly see his or her issues that lead to suffering, and completely overcome them.


Establishing What is Not Dhamma I realized that often, individuals provide insight which differs from typical Buddhist philosophy. For example, people either allude to a self in some way, or deny the dissatisfactory nature of phenomena. They might, in this last case, advise spiritual achievements leading to joy, but not equanimity and detachment.

My question is : what is the best way to recognize such non-Buddhist teachings?

I mean this especially in regards to (1) obviously non-Buddhist teachings (e.g. a person putting forwards an existing self) and (2) seemingly Buddhist teachings (e.g. deviating views on emptiness, compassion).

So: What is the best way to recognize authentic Buddhism?

I think this question is complex, and study and contemplation might be involved, but I am curious as to your answers.

Thank you.

Any teaching that has one or more of the following elements is not the authentic Dhamma:

eternalism (god or self or soul or world is eternal)
annihilationism (there is no self and nothing after death)
an independent, standalone and eternal entity or agent at the core of all experience (the self or the soul)
extreme asceticism
extreme sensual indulgence
does not contain the four noble truths
does not contain the noble eightfold path
promotes non-virtue (killing other beings, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, intoxication, hurtful speech etc. - typical example is "waging holy war")
promotes wrong livelihood (trade in prostitution, slavery, meat, weapons, poisons, intoxicants etc.)

The authentic Dhamma is the opposite of the above.


Did Buddhists ever actively participate in a major violent conflict? The great "religions of peace" like Christianity and Islam had some quite turbulent events that seem in major conflict with their primary commandments, but still in the name of faith - even "within" (like bloody wars between catholics and protestants).

Buddhism shuns all violence, but I'm curious how true to this philosophy did the believers remained through ages. Was there ever any major conflict involving violent confrontation, in which Buddhists would fight (violently, not passively) in defense of their religion? Are there any "shameful moments of Buddhism" like there are so many in other major religions?

Suggested reading: Buddhist Warfare - Michael K. Jerryson and Mark Juergenmeyer. A view of the contents:

Making Merit through warfare according to the Arya-Bodhisaattva-upayavisaya-nirdesa-sutra
Sacralized Warfare: The Fifth Dalai Lama and the discourse on religious violence.
Soldier-zen in wartime Japan
Buddhists in China during the Korean War
Onward Buddhist Soldiers: Preaching to the Sri Lankan Army
Militarizing Buddhism: Violence in Southern Thailand


nupassana or upassana? A Wikipedia article about Sati uses the word "upassanā"

According to Grzegorz Polak, the four upassanā have been misunderstood by the developing Buddhist tradition, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(Buddhism)

However, I could not find the word in Pali dictionary and a Google search did not explain the term.
The term 'nupassana' however is found on Google but neither in Pali dictionar .
There is upasana in Sanskrit.
What is this term upassana or nupassana and where is it used?

I think the word you're looking for is Anupassanā

[abstr. of anupassati, cf. Sk. anudarśana] looking at, viewing, contemplating, consideration, realisation

It's used in compound words like Kāyānupassanā (and Vedanānupassanā, Cittānupassanā, and Dhammānupassanā).
The fact that the second 'a' in "Kāyānupassanā" is long (i.e. with an accent on it, 'ā') is I think a hint that it's a compound of two 'a's, i.e.
Kāya + anupassanā = Kāyānupassanā

Wikipedia's Vipassanā (Etymology) says ...

Vipassanā is a Pali word derived from the older prefix "vi-" meaning "special", and the verbal root "-passanā" meaning "seeing". It is often translated as "insight" or "clear-seeing". The "vi" in vipassanā has many possible meanings, it could mean to '[see] into', '[see] through' or to '[see] in a special way.

... so there's a "root" "-passanā" -- which doesn't have an independent entry in the PTS dictionary, it just says ...

Passanā (p. 447) Passanā Passanā see anu˚, vi˚.

... i.e. referencing anupassanā and vipassanā.

The Sanskrit is Pashyana or Paśyana -- meaning "see", apparently.
Also there's https://www.buddha-vacana.org/toolbox/pref.html#anu which gives six possible meaning for the prefix "anu".

after, behind (motion viewed from the front backward).
ex: dhāvati: to run > anu·dhāvati: to run after
bala: military force > anu·bala: rearguard
bhāsati: to speak > anu·bhāsati: to speak after, repeat

for, towards an aim, on to, into, over to, forward (motion viewed from the back forward).
ex: pavecchati: to give, bestow > anu·pavecchati: to hand over
rodati: to cry, weep > anu·rodati: to cry for
pavisati: to enter > anu·pavisati: to enter into

(emphasis).
ex: dayā: sympathy, kindness > anu·ddayā: pity
yoga: application, endeavour > anu·yoga: devotion, dedication
vitakketi: to consider, reflect > anu·vitakketi: to ponder over

according to, in conformity with, along.
ex: ñāta: kown, well-knwon > anu·ñāta: permitted, allowed
mati: opinion > anu·mati: consent, agreement
rūpa: form > anu·rūpa: conform
anu·dhamma: in conformity with the dhamma
karoti: to do > anu·karoti: to imitate

secondary, supplementary, inferior, minor, smaller.
ex: pabbajā: ascetic life > anu·pabbajā: discipleship in ascetism
majjha: average > anu·majjha: mediocre
pavatteti: to set in motion > anu·pavatteti: to keep in motion

each, every, one by one.
ex: disā: direction > anu·disā: each direction
pubba: previous, former > anu·pubba: 'each after the previous one' ie. gradual
pañcāha: five days > anu·pañcāha: every five days.


How many levels of enlightenment are there? I have experienced enlightenment multiple times.

I have found many religions have a similar way of describing it, though they can differ about how many experiences occur and if they are sudden or spread apart over long periods of time.

I have also heard it referred to as
 Kundalini Awakening where it is a process that can take years to go through the 7 stages.

According to this article there are Four stages of enlightenment

  My question is this, How many levels or layers of enlightenment are there? Does it happen all at once?

How many levels of enlightenment are there?

I think it depends on the school, which defines and describes enlightenment.

You mentioned that Theravada defines four stages.
Wikipedia says that Mahayana defines Five Paths and Ten Bhumis.
"Kundalini awakening " is (I think) generally seen as Hinduism rather than Buddhism.


Should Buddhists in India celebrate diwali (New moon of November)? On the occasion of diwali I've to ask, should Indian Buddhists celebrate diwali?

Because recently I've read dark history behind diwali:

That
Tathagata Gautama Buddha had entrusted the team with the Saraiputa and Mahamoggalan.
He made Dhanmaseva for 44 years. The entire generation of Kartik Purnima was performed. The 15-day Kartik Amavasa (New moon of November) Mahamoggalan was brutally murdered on the Isigil mountain, that day was of Diwali.
The last Buddhist king of Maurya Brahadrath, was brutally murdered by Brahmin commander Pushyamitra Shung. That day was of Kartik Amavassa(Diwali, New moon of November).
The Buddhist power was overturned.
The monks are slaughtered.
Pushyamitra Sung left the decree for giving 100 gold coins to cut the monk's head.
Viharas, Stupas was destroyed. That day was Kartik Amavasya (Diwali, New moon of November).
Conferred best King Bali of the Bahujana and was murdered in a fraudulent by vishnu.
Their power, science, education, wealth were taken away.
Their children were killed one after the other.
On the day of Bali Pratipada, victim King Bali was assassinated.
That day was Kartik Amavasya (Diwali, New moon of November).

Therefore, Buddhists, the Bahujans(Indian backward people who being Buddhist after Dr. B. R Ambedkar gave gift of Buddhism to them) should not celebrate Diwali festival.

But other thing is about diwali that Emperor Ashoka started the Digvijay campaign this day. The public had greeted them by burning lamps.

Also In Buddhism, after 18 years, Gautam Buddha returned to Kapilavastu with followers on this day. Then Diwali was celebrated burning millions of lamps in their reception by the citizens. During his first discourse, Buddha gave a new dimension to Deepawali(Diwali) by preaching:

  "Atha Deepa Bhava".

So let me know with what perspective we have to celebrate or not this day?  Cause there's no importance of new moon in Buddhism and observance day is on full moon.

It's a Hindu festival. So a Buddhist should not be a part of the religious aspect of the festival if those activities are incompatible with Buddhism. That does not mean a Buddhist cannot meet up with his Hindu relatives and have a good time.


Meaning of the Pali-word "sampajanasi"? In the Parayanavagga,Gatha #93, the Buddha says to Dhotaka: "Yam kinci sampajanasi"

What is the exact meaning of the word sampajanasi ?

It means to 'know' or have an intelligent understanding of something as being true. So when the Buddha says "yam kinci sampajanasi..." it means "whatever you know...".


How I can live longer as well as peaceful by doing practices taught by Buddhism? How I can live longer and healthier as well as peaceful by following practices taught by Buddha, Buddhism and Sanga?
I like to live long as a normal person (not being a monk). Live long here, I means if possible 100 years. If not, 90s. If not I like live longer than average of people at least.
I like to live longer but I don't want to lose the opportunities of -

Having many things to see which make me cheerful and pleasing.
Listening music which make me pleasing.
Smelling good things and fragrances.
Savour what I like and people says the best things I can have in life.
Touch of aesthetically pleasing woman, touch of delicate fabrics

I would like to follow the practices, rules, dos and don'ts said by Buddha or Buddha's teachings or from Sanga or from a Buddhist monk. The goal I like to achieve is to live longer and heathy (practically live much more longer than current generation like 100 years, 90-100 years). Is it possible instance that I can achieve if I am passing my teenage years? Or If I am not, is it possible for age of child or new born baby by applying teachings, guidance, practices and care by Buddhism, he/she can live longer and healthy for the rest of his/her life?
Can you point me out any reference about living longer and healthier from Buddhism teachings, book of monk, audio/video recording, web link or Suttas?

Here is a list of a few things you can do to live a longer and healthier life.

Meditate: Stress will make you age quicker and die younger.
Eat vegetarian meals: Most meats will cause inflammation which lowers your life-span.
Intermittent fasting or only eating for the first half of the day. This will help you keep thin, slow down your metabolism (the idea is animals who have slower metabolisms live longer than those with faster), and your body has the chance to clean out it's system.
Put aside yourself and help others. Helping other people makes you active, social, younger, and happier.
Simplify your lifestyle. Buddha always encouraged his followers to live a simpler life, why? Because it helps you live longer by lowering your stress and finding happiness.
Finish all your work in the morning so you can rest in the afternoon. This is a pretty common practice in the monasteries.
Don't Procrastinate! Buddha encourages us to keep up with our work so we don't add unnecessary stress to our lives.
Buddha gave us a purpose in life which helps you live longer. We're not just piles of flesh waiting to die.
Many Buddhist sects believe in early to bed, and early rising. Life becomes much easier when following this pattern of living. Stress decreases significantly! Less stress means a healthy body.

This is but a few practical tips given by Buddha, with external sources (supporting) the reasons for why you should follow them. I hope this helps and have a wonderful day!


Can Mahayana and Theravada learn from eachother? What can those following the Theravada learn when studying the Mahayana as the Mahayana see it?

What can those following the Mahayana learn when studying the Theravada as the Theravada see it?

Is it possible for individuals to use different concepts and arrive at the same goal even though those concepts are misinterpreted by many people in both schools?

Learning -- If by this word within infinite spiritual domain, you mean as ," a type of simple but pure(dedicated towards goal) practice to understand, feel & get established into dhamma(Right teaching)".

Then yes, One can follow any path(householder or homeless or mix like this and this) and will be able to arrive at the same goal through learning.

Goal-- means to achieve state of enlightenment.
It's the behaviour through which it can be said that the stated person/s above or below were either stream-enterer or enlightened ones.

Assuming that you are not a blind fan of buddha to the extent that you call only Gautama the buddha to be an enlightened one, whereas there are still other respectables like this 1, this 2, this 3 etc., there might be others of whom you would have heard in your locality as well. Along with this as per buddhism, once stream-entry occurs- journey will definitely end at same goal.

Even if you are, dhamma teaches us to respect other philosophies as well.

So here is my experience till now,

What can those following the Theravada learn when studying the Mahayana as the Mahayana see it?

My Ego remains satisfied with only a small portion of  theravada but when I see in my locality, it's the mahayani and other similar religions who wins my emotions by showing so much generosity by helping poors, providing free food, free medicines etc. whereas theravadins remain buisy in free abroad travelling  and this becomes a greatest learning for me without the need to even look at mahayani texts or of others.

Is it possible for individuals to use different concepts and arrive at the same goal even though those concepts are misinterpreted by many people in both schools?

As far as practicality of life is there in this modern world, mahayani wins over this race also because of it's vast support in every direction and for almost every type of person(even for the bad-asses, there is tantra way to deal with them as per mahayani texts). Even if this tantra way might not be approved by theravadins, still end purpose of this way is only to change bad behaviour of bad••• ones ,i.e. enable others to have an 'insight like in theravada'.

What can those following the Mahayana learn when studying the Theravada as the Theravada see it?

Still, when it comes to the fastest way of rectifying defiled behaviour pattern within, it's the Theravadin way as in this, we directly deal with the behaviour within our body by temporarily ignoring outside world like various types of Vipassana, whereas in Mahayani way, one may take vows to rectify outside world temporarily,  like here -- even these vows might differ & hence thereby increasing samsara cycle. Still, end goal is same ,i.e. to get enlighten and help others too.

::::::::::::: That's All for now ::::::::::::

Can Mahayana and Theravada learn from each other?

In short, Learning never stops till enlightenment.


Is it correct to say that 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self? Buddha says in saṃyuktāgama:

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

Clearly Buddha did not hesitate to say "One who craves for dukkha will not attain liberation from dukkha".
The "One who craves " should not be a valid statement because Dhamma says we can not frame statements like the above. We can only ask or say depending upon what the craving arises or ceases.

Following is what Buddha had to say on the matter :

  “Venerable sir, who craves?”

  “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One
  craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a
  valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus.
  Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with
  what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid
  question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition,
  craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with
  clinging as condition, existence…. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.’

There is some contradiction is framing the statements above. One statement statement says 'One who craves'( a self is implied) and the other statement says it is invalid to ask 'who craves' instead we should ask depending upon what the craving comes to be(no self is implied)?

My question is : Is it correct to say 'one who craves for ...' and imply existence of self?

The Buddha indeed spoke of people or individuals, for example, in AN 4.98:

  “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.
  “Cattārome, bhikkhave, puggalā santo saṃvijjamānā lokasmiṃ.

Puggala means individual or person.

Your question is different from this other question. The other question asks about the Buddha saying "I am the unexcelled teacher" - would that be considered as having identity view or conceit.

Your question is about the Buddha referring to a person or individual or self.

Does a self not exist at all? That's not what the Buddha says.

In the Attakari Sutta (AN 6.38), he says:

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

So, there are individuals. There is such a thing as a self.

On the other hand, the Buddha also says in SN 12.12:

  “Venerable sir, who craves?”

  “Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “I do not say, ‘One
  craves.’ If I should say, ‘One craves,’ in that case this would be a
  valid question: ‘Venerable sir, who craves?’ But I do not speak thus.
  Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, ‘Venerable sir, with
  what as condition does craving come to be?’ this would be a valid
  question. To this the valid answer is: ‘With feeling as condition,
  craving comes to be; with craving as condition, clinging; with
  clinging as condition, existence…. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.’

So, how can we understand this? The Buddha says on the one hand that there is a self-doer, that is an endeavoring being, who moves himself forth and back at will. But on the other hand, when it comes to explaining dependent origination, the Buddha prefers not to speak of a self, but rather speak of the 12 links of dependent origination. There is no suffering person, but there is simply suffering.

The Acela Sutta (SN 12.17) says (paraphrased here):

  Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)"

So, this is an important principle in Buddhism. If you say there is no self, no being at all, then that is annihilationism. If you say there is an eternal being at the core of every person, that is eternalism. Both are to be avoided.

The self is existent. However, it is not permanent or eternal or standalone. This is explained using the vina or lute analogy in the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205).

  "Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'

  "Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'

  "In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

Just as music arises from the inter-working of the different parts of a vina or lute, similarly, the self is like a piece of entertaining music which arises when the orchestra of the five aggregates are playing.

The only way self is related to suffering is according to Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85):

  "In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no
  regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their
  Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or
  disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self,
  or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as
  in form. (and the same applies to the other aggregates)

So, when we read the suttas, we need to understand the context of it. Is the Buddha speaking of beings who do exist in a conventional sense? Or is he digging into the nature of suffering and speaking of dependent origination?


When is the right time to meditate? I was watching "how to meditate" in internet. In one video, a master said, not to meditate in the night in dark. If one meditates in dark, they should light candle or incense stick. The reason he gave was, one meditating in night will be possessed by spirits. Is this true? When is the right time to meditate.

The right time is whenever you can, wherever you are, starting if possibile with a calm mind. Try to maintain a constant practice, whichever technique do you follow. As a reminder read Webu Sayadaw's To Light a Fire.


Is Buddhism Free will or Determinism What is the position of Buddhism in regards to free will and Determinism? What would be the correct position of Buddhism and could you use an analogy  to describe to me the correct view of Buddhism

Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

In my opinion, the Dhamma is in-between those two extremes. The Dhamma teaches us Dependent Co-arising.

One's mind is not free from the influence of past conditions. What affects the aggregates in the present will influence its future state (or the state of the next group of aggregates causally derived from and connected to a past group of aggregates). In that sense, the mind is not free, at least not in an absolute sense.

On the other hand, is not only the past what influence the way the aggregates are or present themselves; the present, "external conditions" (external to the aggregates) also play a part in determining the state of the mind and the body. When we say "external conditions", we mainly refer to sensory stimuli and sense information, including thoughts (which are the stimuli of the mind, the sixth sense door in buddhism). That's why I think "external" is not a precise word for what I'm trying to say; maybe a better word could be "sense objects". In sum, sense objects contacting with sense organs/doors influence the aggregates, so we cannot say that only the past is responsable for present conditions; and so, we are not determined only by the past, at least not in the absolute sense.

The aggregates are conditioned by both past and present events, and this is precisely what allows us to change and to overcome and eradicate past kamma, to create new habits and tendencies leading to liberation.

Kind regards, and welcome to the site!


Difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)? What's the difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)?

From my understanding, tanha is always unwholesome but chanda can be wholesome or unwholesome. How is this the case?

Craving (tanha) arises from feeling as many suttas say "from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving". What does desire (chanda) arise from?

There are three types of craving (tanha) - sensual, becoming and unbecoming. How many types of desire (chanda) are there?

Chanda is acceptation to do something to an object. However, it is not decision (adhimokkha), or attachment (taṇhā). In vinaya pitaka, it often use as "agreement" (i.e.).

There are:

Unwholesome chanda

Unwholesome chanda without tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with sensual tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with becoming tanṇhā
Unwholesome chanda with unbecoming tanṇhā

Resultant chanda

Lokiya resultant chanda
Lokutara resultant chanda

Ineffective action chanda

Ineffective action chanda of sekkha (puthujana and 3 noble one)
Ineffective action chanda of asekkha (arahanta)

Wholesome chanda

Lokiya wholesome chanda
Lokutara wholesome chanda

See Conation in Sangaha chapter 2.


Saving for the future Is it okay to save money, asset for the future financial security for a person with family following the Buddhist Path? There is always this dilemma in making financial decisions based on the Path and security for future. How to go about it?

The wise endowed with virtue shine forth like a burning fire,
  gathering wealth as bees do honey and heaping it up like an ant hill.
  Once wealth is accumulated, family and household life may follow.

  By dividing wealth into four parts, true friendships are bound; One
  part should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth
  set aside against future misfortunes." - Singalovada Sutta

This kind of dilemmas can occur when you confuse lay life with monk's life.


significance of buddhism in this age of terrorism tyrannies and insolence i would like to know the answer to the question from your point of view:
what is the significance of buddhism in this age of terrorism, tyrannies and insolence?

It's all about money and power

In modern world , almost everything happens according to money and power. So people and governments try to have money and power . Some people try to get those by force. We call them terrorists . And there are terrorist governments as well. There is a huge competition nowadays to be the richest or the most powerful.

But why...

Let's ask why those things happen. There is one simple answer. Greed.
It is one of the worst qualities one can have , greed drives people crazy. Never ending desires , anger , jealousy and suffering , everything above is happening because of greed .

So according to Buddhism, we have to get rid of greed , then only we will be able to create a better world than this. We have to make ourselves better first, if everyone thought it that way , the whole community will be better eventually, we can't change government, we can't change the world, only way we can change the way world works is to change ourselves. To do that Buddhism will help a lot. Everyone should follow the path to nirvana. If we all did this , those cruelty, terrorism and rudeness will fade away.


What is meant by "divorcing the view and the action" and why is it considered so dangerous? In Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, there is a debate with the Charvakas (ancient materialists) about the existence or non-existence of past and future lives. In the commentary, Rinpoche compares and contrasts the Charvakas tenets with modern day scientists who would deny the conventional existence of past or future lives.
Rinpoche accuses modern scientists with the phrase "divorcing the view and the action" and advises that this is a saying among masters to describe something considered very dangerous:

As Rinpoche implies that this phrase is commonly used by masters to describe something very dangerous I am wondering if there are other examples of masters using this phrase and why it is considered so dangerous. Can anyone find Sutra/Treatise/Commentary/Anecdote of other masters using this phrase?
I'm also wondering if it is appropriate to describe modern Secular Buddhists who also deny the conventional existence of past or future lives as holding the same view as modern scientists and subject to this same phrase? If so, why is this so dangerous and what is meant by "divorcing the view and the action?"
What is the translation of this phrase in Pali, Sanskrit, or Tibetan to the extent that there are examples of masters using this phrase in a similar way in any of these languages?

...we should at least hope for additional evidence, better controlled
experimentation, showing that it is possible to recover memories that
are not encoded in neural tissue, that it is possible to sustain
consciousness in organisms that lack nervous systems, that it is
possible for mental causation to cross time and space and alter
physical substrates.
Negative experiments along these lines are legion, though they rarely
find their way to the front page of your local newspaper, since nobody
has any reason to promote them. One can find mention of them in places
like Skeptical Inquirer magazine, or outlined at websites like the
Skeptic’s Dictionary or Quackwatch.
It is for reasons such as these that any contemporary, scientifically
informed Buddhist practice should reject belief in rebirth and its
associated kammic causation.

Quoted above is from the link you attached with regards to Secular Buddhists. In short, the set of arguments is... because we can't experimentally recover memories that are not encoded in neural tissue, etc.. it follows that rebirth is false. That right there is a pure materialist view, similar to the Charvakas idea which the Rinpoche said has no place in Dharma.
Following the same analogy, the Secular Buddhist will not find a different neural tissue memory imprint representing intention between the monk approaching a certain nun and the lover.
So the danger in the materialistic view is that the modifiability of Kamma (intention) is denied and without that, there is no liberation from the samsaric cycle of suffering.
Quoted below is from Kamma and its Fruit by Nyanaponika TheraNyanaponika.
However, a scientist's view is not finalized, a scientist doesn't start with a premise that everything is material or that the equipment he/she has can recover everything knowable thus will not reject the unproved rebirth idea or any unproven idea for that matter. That is why I think Rinpoche says a scientist could be a vessel for the Dharma.

Most writings on the doctrine of kamma emphasize the strict lawfulness
governing kammic action, ensuring a close correspondence between our
deeds and their fruits. While this emphasis is perfectly in place,
there is another side to the working of kamma — a side rarely noted,
but highly important. This is the modifiability of kamma, the fact
that the lawfulness which governs kamma does not operate with
mechanical rigidity but allows for a considerably wide range of
modifications in the ripening of the fruit.
If kammic action were always to bear fruits of invariably the same
magnitude, and if modification or annulment of kamma-result were
excluded, liberation from the samsaric cycle of suffering would be
impossible; for an inexhaustible past would ever throw up new
obstructive results of unwholesome kamma. Hence the Buddha said:
"If one says that in whatever way a person performs a kammic action,
in that very same way he will experience the result — in that case
there will be no (possibility for a) religious life and no opportunity
would appear for the complete ending of suffering.
"But if one says that a person who performs a kammic action (with a
result) that is variably experienceable, will reap its results
accordingly — in that case there will be (a possibility for) a
religious life and an opportunity for making a complete end of
suffering."
— AN 3.110


Broken kapala as a sign of what? It was said in a book by my spiritual master that 'breaking unloyalty to one's spiritual master is worse than breaking a kapala', of which I deduce that breaking a kapala is a really bad sign.

Is there any root text explaining what is particularly bad about breaking a kapala and what is the meaning of it?

Just a "non-scholar" and principle answer.

Kapala, used here (Cambodia, spelled 'kpal' in Khmer) as word for head.

If one cuts of oneself the a/the master - in regard of the Buddha here, or what ever transports his way - is therefore more worse than to throw away a life by breaking the kapala because another live is secure, a good or better seldom and to meet the Buddha and/or his guidiance(s) very, very seldom.

When we remember even the Buddha, not even he break up or had been unloyal to his previous teachers.

That is also why the wise say:

  "Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful. This ingratitude, this lack of thankfulness, is advocated by rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & thankful. This gratitude, this thankfulness, is advocated by civil people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity."

  Kataññu Suttas: Gratitude

While the parents are called the "first Gods", followed by those who give skills (normal teacher), those giving guardians toward heaven or beyond are the highest gods one should wisely honor and venerate.

Where would one headless run around if not have been supported by them?

The lesser such values and the lesser such as right view and gratitude the more near it runs in direction of communism and there most worse breaking of heads.

So ungreatfullnes and lack of gratitude for what serves such leads itself to ones breaking of the kapala, anyhow personally and sometimes at large as genocide, killing then the current gods, parents, masters away.

But it is not just physical to understand. Most having done a very bad deed in regard of gratitude suffer sooner or later as if the head is broken or spitted.

To Kesi the Horsetrainer

One does good to "kill" the Demon Kesi, the childhood disease, in one self, when ever he arises.

It's good to take as much as possible care never show signs of ingratitude in regard of what possible needs regards generally.

At least hete a very useful talk on gratitude and going beyong: Karma & Gratitude.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpoes or other gains in the world]


How to show compassion for attention-seeker I like the way this site tries to focus on practical advice so I have a specific question concerning compassion.
I have a close person that used to be closer in the past. Mainly I distanced somewhat because I can not really avoid to feel annoyed by some of their behaviour. I often describe them as a 'loud' person, but it is not only a problem of noise but of noticable behaviour.
Things like walking, eating and laughing loudly, taking as much room as possible if standing or sitting somewhere, excessive gestures while talking and so on.
Also they spend a probably unhealthy amount of time with consuming and producing social media.
I feel like the person has a hole inside them to fill somehow but I don't know the specific origin of their suffering. And I believe giving attention won't solve the problem.
Advice on compassion seems to focus on mostly revenge-relevant extreme themes like violent pirates.
This person has not harmed me in any form, still I can not really sympathize with their position.
Do you have any advice on how to develop compassion instead of annoyance? How come people can take what is considered 'mine' without me getting angry at them or frustrated about the loss but I can not bear somebody seeking my and the worlds attention?

I have had similar experiences of both - being the observer (the quiet one) and the performer (the loud one) - neither is wrong. However, what a wonderful opportunity to practice compassion


Is it possible to Take Refuge in the Three Jewels, but still learn spiritual wisdom from teachers in other religions? I am quite fond and connect deeply to the Buddha's teachings. I have been a soft lay buddhist for almost a year now. I am sure that it is one of the best ways to develop as a being, as well as help others, although some deep stuff about shunyatta still confuses and eludes me. However, I am also sure that "other religions" (in quotation marks since it is debatable whether buddhism is a religion) also have a lot of wisdom to teach, help and love to give.

This exerpt from The Triple Refuge, by Sayagi U Chit Tin made me worry:

"Taking refuge will be broken for ordinary people when they die, but this breaking is blameless and does not bring bad results. On the other hand, breaking the taking of the Triple Refuge during one's life is very serious. This is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation or when a person is disrespectful to the Triple Gem."

It seems to me that after taking refuge, if you go to other religions and religious teachers for their teachings on how to develop further down the path, it would be a bad thing (the author does not seem to say why this is a problem nor what happens if you do it).

So, is it possible to take refuge, follow the buddhist path to nibbana and still to other religions for help with the path? What about religions that directly contradict buddhist teachings or precepts?

When it is said that one's refuge "is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation[...]" the meaning is that one should not go for ultimate refuge in anything but the three Jewels. It is Lama Je Tsongkhapa's interpretation.

When one is sick, (1) fearing the suffering of illness and (2) trusting that the doctor can protect him from it, he goes to the doctor to seek protection. This is called taking refuge. But this is not ultimate refuge.

A Buddhist can uphold this type of refuge. Other common instances are: relying on a deity or a spirit in the hope of being prosperous... or having children... or having good crops, etc. These are worldly concerns.

Now, the Buddha is the one true doctor that can protect you from the suffering of cyclic existence, as well as from the suffering caused by self-cherishing (that impedes you from being able to benefit other sentient beings). There are these two "definite goodness": (1) individual liberation, and (2) complete buddhahood.

One cannot go for refuge to anything but the three Jewels to obtain either of these two definite goodnesses, thereby becoming a holly being, a saint, a foe destroyer an arhat. The actual foes (afflictive obscurations and knowledge obscurations) cannot be destroyed but by actualizing the three Jewels in one's continuum.

There is no issue for you to attend Muslims or Christian, etc. teachings and drawing conventional wisdom from them at all. The most important is that it helps you destroy the foes, the enemies of ignorance and self-cherishing. A Theravada might say: as long as it helps you destroy the foe of craving, but you get the gist.

This morning still, I sent a passage from Rudolph Otto (a Lutheran theologian) to a brother of mine, also a Buddhist monk. The quote went:

  For one of the chiefest and most general features of mysticism is just
  this self-depreciation (so plainly parallel to the case of Abraham),
  the estimation of the self, of the personal "I," as something not
  perfectly or essentially real, or even as mere nullity, a
  self-depreciation which comes to demand its own fulfillment in
  practice in rejecting the delusion of selfhood, and so makes for the
  annihilation of the self. And on the other hand mysticism leads to a
  valuation of the transcendent object of its reference as that which
  through plenitude of being stands supreme and absolute, so that the
  finite self contrasted with it becomes conscious even in its nullity
  that "I am naught, Thou art all."

And that can definitely speak to Buddhist yogis.


What is the visa process for ordaining foreigner monks in Sri Lanka? I heard that the monk candidates outside of Sri Lanka have to make two trips to Sri Lanka in order to get an extended visa. I would prefer just making one trip to Sri Lanka(in the future) being enough to get an extended visa to be able to ordain as a monk. Is there a special way that don't require the foreigner monk candidates to make two trips to Sri Lanka?

Note: I would like to ask the same question for the foreigner monk candidates in Thailand but I heard that they don't accept foreigners to be monk there anymore. If anyone has any informations about the foreigner monk situation in Thailand I would be glad If they inform me.

Previous discussion from Dhamma Wheel.

1) I have obtained a residency visa by this method in the past and it states it clearly in the NUA information:

After arriving in Sri Lanka with the entry visa, you can apply for the resident visa. You will be given a 30 day-visa on arrival, and the monastery will help you to apply for the resident visa. Visas for monks and nuns are free. Lay people need to pay for the application. (~Rs 20,000/USD200 per year).

In relation to the visa, understand that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country and the religion carries great influence in the secular sphere as well, it is part of Sri Lankan nationalism, just as Hinduism is in India. Don’t worry about the visa, if you have a genuine intention to become a monk, then NUA will organise it.

2) This, including the language barrier, has a disadvantage for foreigners, as they are regarded as outsiders and you will have to find your own way within the monastic system. You will be able to choose your own teacher and in many other ways will have to make your own decisions. The situation will not be a clear-cut training as you expect. It is not a training monastery (pirivena).

NUA APPROXIMATE TIMELINE TO BHIKKHU ORDINATION

1-4 months: Upāsaka (8 Precepts)
6-12 months Pabbajjā (going forth) and abiding as a Sāmaṇera (Novice monk) (10 Precepts and 75 Sekhiya rules) January – March: Vinaya Classes
April: Vinaya Exam
June: Upasampadā (higher ordination) at Galduwa Monastery

3) You should be familiar with the eight precepts and the history of Buddhism in Sri Lanka as custodian of the dhamma after it declined in India.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=30722


Was Alan Watts a Buddhist? I've just answered a question referencing Alan Watts. I'm aware he isn't a straightforward figure though I've always found him provocative and interesting. At one point I though he was a Buddhist having written books such as The Way of Zen. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case now.

So the question is what kind of relationship did Alan Watts have to Buddhism. Was he a practitioner at any point in his life or did he just use the ideas in a kind of heady new age type of mix that he was pushing at the time?

Alan Watts appears to be a renaissance man that is not feeling constrained by any religion or philosophy. You can read general history and maybe get clues to who he was at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts
here is an excerpt

  "Alan Wilson Watts (6 January 1915 – 16 November 1973) was a
  British-born philosopher, writer, and speaker, best known as an
  interpreter and populariser of Eastern philosophy for a Western
  audience. Born in Chislehurst, he moved to the United States in 1938
  and began Zen training in New York. Pursuing a career, he attended
  Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, where he received a master's
  degree in theology. Watts became an Episcopal priest then left the
  ministry in 1950 and moved to California, where he joined the faculty
  of the American Academy of Asian Studies.

  Watts gained a large following in the San Francisco Bay Area while
  working as a volunteer programmer at KPFA, a Pacifica Radio station in
  Berkeley. Watts wrote more than 25 books and articles on subjects
  important to Eastern and Western religion, introducing the
  then-burgeoning youth culture to The Way of Zen (1957), one of the
  first bestselling books on Buddhism. In Psychotherapy East and West
  (1961), Watts proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of
  psychotherapy and not a religion. He also explored human
  consciousness, in the essay "The New Alchemy" (1958), and in the book
  The Joyous Cosmology (1962)."

Watts proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of psychotherapy and not a religion.

So if this is what he thought, he may have not taken an eastern view of making peace with the eternal within as Buddhism proposes. He may have seen Buddhism as a means to a joyous life.

To me, what I think about Buddhism is inconsequential compared to how I practice Buddhism. Not knowing him personally I would not know if his irreverence was a way past dualities that disguised a heartfelt practice.

It reminds me of the story of the zen master who laughed at 4AM in the morning every morning and awoke the whole sangha. Students would ask him why he was laughing but he would just laugh more. Even approaching his death bed he would not vocalize a reason.

After the master died his students searched through all his papers searching for the reason of his laughter, but no clues. I guess the zen master had the last laugh!


In which sutta does a lay disciple of the Buddha tell a non-buddhist mendicant that he has experienced jhana? I remember reading a sutta some time ago in which a lay disciple of the Buddha held a conversation with a non-Buddhist ascetic. I don't remember the topic of their conversation, but at one point the lay buddhist talked about having experienced jhana. Does anyone know which sutta this is?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

your best first try is this essay

perhaps this

When Do the Jhānas Become Necessary?

  While there seem to be no suttas that impose an inflexible rule to the
  effect that a lay noble disciple must possess the jhānas, there are at
  least two texts that explicitly ascribe all four jhānas to certain
  householders. One, found in the Citta-saṃyutta (SN 41:9/IV 300-2),
  features Citta the householder, the foremost lay preacher, in a
  conversation with a naked ascetic named Kassapa. Kassapa was an old
  friend of Citta who had embraced the life of renunciation thirty years
  earlier, and this is apparently their first meeting since that time.
  Kassapa confesses to Citta that in all these years he has not achieved
  any "superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision befitting the
  noble ones" (uttarimanussadhammā alamariya-ñāṇadassanavisesa); all he
  does is go about naked, with a shaved head, using a feather brush to
  sweep his seat. He then asks Citta whether, as a lay disciple of the
  Buddha, he has reached any distinguished attainments. Citta says that
  he has, and then declares his ability to enter and dwell in the four
  jhānas (he uses the standard formula). To this he adds: "Further, if I
  were to die before the Blessed One, it would not be surprising if the
  Blessed One would declare of me: 'There is no fetter bound by which
  Citta the householder might come back to this world.'"[32] Through
  this bit of coded text, partly a stock formulation, Citta is informing
  his friend that he is a non-returner with access to the four jhānas.

  The other sutta is AN 7:50/IV 66-67 and concerns the lay woman
  Nandamātā. In the presence of the Venerable Sāriputta and other monks,
  Nandamātā has been disclosing the seven wonderful and marvellous
  qualities with which she is endowed. The sixth of these is possession
  of the four jhānas, again described by the stock formula. The seventh
  is as follows: "As to the five lower fetters taught by the the Blessed
  One, I do not see among them any as yet unabandoned in myself."[33]
  This too is a coded way of declaring her status as a non-returner.

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha267.htm


What are the 5 cords of sensual pleasures? I looked it up but the person answer was unclear. I read greed which is a sense desire of unprofitable things (Which if I'm correct is different from sense desire of objects) has all 5. So doesn't that mean when suppressing the defilement i should suppress all 5 cords separately kind of like you do the hindrances.

The five kāmaguṇa are:

color
sound
smell
flavor
phoṭṭhabba (=temperature, matter, and vayo).

They tie the kāma-person to live in kāma-bhava.

kāma means "living in kāma loka"; and guṇa means "a binder".

So, the five kāmaguṇa are things that kāma-taṇha (addicting to drug), and bhava-taṇha (addicting to becoming, born to be, future birth).

See the first part of the mahadukkhakkhandhasutta for more information:

  Now what, monks, is the allure of sensuality? These five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Sounds cognizable via the ear... Aromas cognizable via the nose... Flavors cognizable via the tongue... Tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Now whatever pleasure or joy arises in dependence on these five strands of sensuality, that is the allure of sensuality.


What interaction did the Buddha have with his family after leaving? I know he did some teaching with his mother in the heaven realms but what other incidents are mentioned in the cannon?

Apart from Dhammadhatu's answer regarding the Buddha's son Rahula becoming a monk, there are also other interactions with his family, like the founding of the order of nuns due to the insistence of his aunt and foster mother, Maha Pajapati Gotami, who became the first nun.

Also, his wife, Yasodhara later became a nun and his half-sister Sundari Nanda also became a nun.

And, not to forget one of the Buddha's most well known disciples and personal attendant, Ven. Ananda who is also his cousin.

While his father, King Suddhodana did not become a monk, he too had some interaction with the Buddha, when his grandson Rahula became a monk, leading to the new rule being created, that nobody would be ordained without their parents' permission.

  When King Suddhodana heard that his beloved grandson had become a monk
  he was deeply grieved. The king said, "When you left home it made me
  sad. When Nanda left home my heart ached. I concentrated my love on my
  grandson and again the one I love has left me. Please do not ordain
  anyone without their parent's permission." To this the Buddha agreed
  and never ordained anybody after that without their parents'
  permission.