When and why did the color orange (and yellow and 'red') become associated with Buddhism? Buddhist religious figures often wear orange robes.

And I think that orange is, also, associated with Buddhist religious buildings -- and other religious "stuff" (although this may be simply a coincidence that I have given meaning it does not have) -- things like fabric, prayer flags, and religious art in temples, and painting of religious structures and artistic adornments in religious structures.

When did the color orange become associated with Buddhism? Does this have any specific significance or meaning, and if so what is that meaning or significance?

Also, sometimes a yellow or red color is used instead in the a similar context. The yellow color often looks like just a use/weather faded orange, or a trick of photography and lighting, or a different shade of orange, that may not be meaningful. But the red color (as depicted below), however, seems to be an intentional choice.

Do either of these colors (yellow or red) these have different meanings than orange? And, when did these colors gain significance?

Is it simply derived from robes -- What is the meaning behind different robe colors? -- or is there more to it than that?

From here (Pixabay License - Free for commercial use - No attribution required).

From here (Pixabay License - Free for commercial use - No attribution required).

From here (Pixabay License - Free for commercial use - No attribution required).

Footnote Re Color Terminology

While this question, as edited, is not predominantly about robes as that has already been answered, the photographs above are primarily included to illustrate the colors that I am talking about as I am art terminology illiterate. I have used the primary color names orange, yellow and red because I have a thin vocabulary of colors and no art background (I haven't taken an art class since I was 13 years old, and I'm now more than three decades older than that). If that is not the proper name of the relevant colors feel free to correct me.

The oldest Buddhist robe color we know of is yellow/orange. The original monks made their robes from discarded cloth found in rubbish and on cremation grounds. After washing, the robe-cloth was boiled with vegetable matter—leaves, roots and flowers—and often spices, which would turn the cloth some shade of orange. Hence the name, "saffron robe."

The tradition stuck and yellow/orange is now the color of choice for Theravada Buddhists in Southeast Asia, as opposed to a maroon color for Chinese and Tibetan monks. This has various reasons: first, the climate is very different,so the natural dyes of South-East Asia are not found in Tibet. The harsher climate also means that the traditional triple robe would offer little protection from the elements. The second reason is traditional robes expose the arms and shoulders, which was deemed unseeming in Chinese culture. So monks began to wear a long robe with sleeves that fastened in the front, similar to robes worn by Taoist scholars. The robes worn by Tibetan monks are derived from a mixture of the clothing "rules" from the traditional robes and Tibetan & Chinese "dress code".

Japanese and Korean Buddhist monks also wear robes styled after the clothing traditions of their culture. In Japanese culture, red is associated with power and blood, and yellow is associated with nature. Shinto priests predominantly wear black, so this became the most common color for Buddhist robes in Japan.


In a Buddhist perspective how do we recall memories of this life and beyond? What is the Buddhist perspective on how we store and recall memories of this life and beyond? Since there is not solid core (Atman) as in the Hindu perspective which all such memories are stored and all cognitive phenomena pass away and arise again, how does the transmission, persistence and recollection of memory work. How does this compare with modern perspectives of it?

This question inspired by: The complexity of memory hence would like to see some comparison of some of the ideas in these talks being also discussed in the answer with regard to comparison with the modern perspectives.

From my understanding of Buddhism, there are no memories from beyond. Everything including memories are impermanent. There is no permanent memory-self that remains from moment to moment.


Four great elements : what is the other 2 elements? I have heard about "Mahabhutha" as 4 elements but in few occasions as 6 elements with the addition of "Akasha" & "Vijñāna".

Can someone explain why there is a difference and how they connect with the other 4 elements?

Four great elements : what is the other 2 elements?

In the Nikaya Texts, there is a term called 'Cattari Mahabhutani'(four Mahabhuta). These Mahabhutani consitute Rupa. (See Sammaditthi Sutta).

A being (human being is an instance) is defined in terms of six Dhatus. It is Cattari Mahabhutani and Akasa and Vinnana Dhatus (Caddhaturo Ayam Puriso) (See for example Bhahudhatukasuttam.) However, there are no meaningful translations of these Suttas in any language. These Suttas could be understood only by Lord Buddha's direct disciples, who listened to Lord Buddha in person. This non-understanding is the reason for the existence numerous Buddhist traditions and sects.


How death anniversaries take place by Buddhist rituals? My loving grandma passed away on 1st April 18 so we want to have death anniversary.
So I want to ask when should we arrange ceremony, on first April or first March?
We tribute a person with chanting Refuge and  Panchashila.
So is something missing?

Sadhu, Nyom. What ever day, is a good day to show respect toward the ancestors, to give Alms to the Sangha to benefit them, to listen to the Dhamma by your self.
Don't forget, if it had not been done in the past by your ancestors you would not ever had met the Dhamma.

Of what one should not miss when giving: Sila, virtue, what ever dedicating, is just the good given, if it does not harm others.

Invite many to take part on the merits and share them with all.

Mudita


What is meant by "possessed by spirits" in Buddhism? In this answer there is a quote from The Buddhist Monastic Code 1 - The Patimokkha Rules Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, which reads in part

  only when one is possessed by non-human beings

In that book there are several references to being possessed by spirits or non-human beings, such as this from page 44.

  State of mind. The bhikkhu must be in his right mind. Any statement he
  makes while insane, delirious with pain, or possessed by spirits does not count.

My question is, who or what is doing the possessing? Is there a belief in Buddhism that some being (a hungry ghost or something else?) would actually take over the mind of a human? Is that type of cross realm interaction possible?

How literally is possession by spirits to be understood? Thank you.

In my tradition, the Shambhala line of teachings by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, ascending to Jamgon Kongtrul and ultimately Milarepa, the "spiritual" and the "material" phenomena are understood to be two narrative explanations of the same underlying reality. So when we talk about supernatural stuff like spirits etc. we always refer to phenomena that actually happen in everyday life but lack adequate representation in the mainstream narrative.

In modern language, spirits are semi-stable configurations of information-causation that inhabit the noosphere and sustain themselves through behavioral patterns mediated by sentient beings.

To give an example you can relate to, you send your child to a summer camp and they come back intoxicated by the camp spirit. They act funny, and when you point it out, they say we don't get it and insist their gestures and attitude are their own, while you clearly see they've picked it up. After several days home the camp spirit rubs off.

...In the adult world there may be a spirit of organization that influences all employees in certain ways etc...

Another example is campaign spirit - your teen daughter goes to a Greenpeace lecture and comes back possessed by the Greenpeace spirit. She donates her money to the ecological causes, spends her summer washing the birds caught in the oil spill etc.

If you look at it this way, you will see the world full of spirits, large and small. Your husband purchases a new camera, and feels obliged to spend his weekend taking pictures - he is possessed by the camera spirit.

These all seem harmless, until you remember all harm and violence incurred by religious and political fanatics - possessed by their respective spirits.

I don't know why late Theravada's Pratimoksha discounts misdeeds done while possessed by the spirits. From my perspective, guarding the doors of the senses is responsibility of the practitioner, and it is due to incorrectly applied attention that possession by spirit occurs. In the highly competitive world, where we are constantly bombarded by ads, campaigns and other forms of spirits, we must be very selective when it comes to which ones we give our attention to. As said in that Native American folktale, whichever wolf we feed is getting stronger. So is with spirits.

We can let ourselves be driven by spirits that correlate with greed, hatred, and confused values -- or we can feed useful spirits, conducive to health, peace, harmony, and informed, educated, strategic attitudes.

Buddhism itself can be seen as a spirit, and as any spirit can only take us this far until we become its pawns. So in the advanced stages of Vajrayana practice, our game becomes to liberate ourselves from the spirit of Buddhism, just like we've worked to come out of influence of worldly spirits. Once we are past that phase, having awakened (bodhi) from the spirit dream, we can use spirits as tools to pay our student dues forward and save the rest of sentient beings from the matrix into the real world.


What does the first para of Lonaphala Sutta mean? The first paragraph of the Lonaphala Sutta, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, states:

  "Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma,
  that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life,
  there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone
  who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way,
  that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the
  holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.

I feel that this is not the best possible translation for this paragraph of the sutta.

Please explain what it really means.

This is how I understand it.  You don't get back exactly what you put in, but you get back the results of it.
Example,  if you kill someone, it is not necessary that you will get killed back in return but you will get results from your killing which depends on many factors.  This sutta,  Buddha taught us that is possible to work on those many factors that could produce a better results.
Like , if I killed someone, then later worked to become a stream enter, a result that could have sent me to hell next life changed to make me a sickly person.  Etc. A Finger bandit arahat is another example.
It is clear to me that karma is not fate or fixed destinations or replacement of a will from a god.


Can anyone give me a suggestion of a good monk to learn Buddhism? Can someone give a name of a monk to learn Buddhism?

Thanks

For the doctrinal/technical side of the Teaching, you can't go wrong with Bhikkhu Bodhi. He actually live streams his courses from Chuang Yen monastery every Saturday morning US Eastern time at 10 AM. Simply go to youtube.com and type: "chuang yen". Also check out his excellent book In the Buddha's Words


Pitisukha or delightful/beautiful breath not arising? I am doing meditation as narrated in following steps by Ajahn Brahma to attain to Jhanas.

Present moment awareness

Silent Present moment awareness

Silent Present moment awareness on the breath

Fully sustained awareness on the breath

Fully sustained attention on beautiful breath

Experiencing the beautiful Nimmita

Jhana

I have reached the stste of Fully sustained awareness on the breath for last couple of days now. But the pitisukha or delightful or beautiful breath is not occuring.
Am I lacking ekkagata or concentration?
Its getting boring to remain in this state for half an hour.
Also, at what stage does the sense of body disappear?
Any suggestions?

If you are getting bored after a half an hour, ya ain’t even close to fully sustained attention on the breath.  When our attention is fully sustained, there is no room for boredom.  It’s akin to how engaged your mind is in an engrossing movie or during sex.  And just like either activity, you get pulled into fully sustained attention.  You don’t provide full sustained attention.
You aren’t going to reach jhana sitting like that.  First of all, it requires many years of practice.  Secondly, true jhana is only ever reached in a retreat setting and after multiple days of 10+ hours of sitting.  Finally, even outside of a retreat setting, your practice times really need to exceed an hour or more (90-120 minutes is ideal) of unbroken sitting in order to effectively train samatha meditation.  You can’t expect to run a marathon by practicing sprints.
This may sound like a lot, and it is.  But nothing good comes without effort.  People learn to play a pretty mean piano without ever needing to lock themselves away in a monastery.  You can likewise develop a deep meditation practice in lay life.  But expect it to challenging.  There is only the hard way.


Loneliness: Rhinoceros-Horn Sutta from a Lay person's perspective How can a lay person benefit from this beautiful sutta? It is about being reclusive as a key for good insight and enlightenment.

Does this sutta apply for short period of loneliness like Retreats? Or should it be taken literally and is only for monks?

  "Laying aside all violence, respecting all beings,
   never harming even one of them,
   one should not wish for a son,
   nor neither for any companion.
   One should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn.
  ...
   The considerations which exists for sons and wives is like
   a spreading bamboo entangled, a solid web of bars,
   Like a single young bamboo shoot up free, not caught up with others
   One should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn."

Khaggavisana Sutta

According to Chogyam Trungpa, loneliness is the heart of Sila, Buddhist discipline. As such, the spirit of loneliness must permeate one's practice, whether one is ordained or not. Critically important at "hinayana-level", loneliness temporarily steps aside for the Mahayana phase, only to return with Vajrayana, this time to stay.

Loneliness begins with making commitment to the spiritual quest:

  The refuge ceremony cuts the line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of an odyssey of loneliness. We are
  suspended in no-man's land in which the only thing to do is to
  relate with the teachings and with ourselves.

In terms of actual practice, loneliness translates to following guidelines:

Not looking for entertainment in any shape or form.
Giving up one's need for companionship, for relationships.
Relying on one's own resources, not waiting for help.
Taking a stance, however suboptimal, without confirming it with an external authority all the time.
Working towards one's goal (Enlightenment), instead of giving the entropy a free hand.
Learning to trust one's fundamental goodness.

  A lonely person could still relate with other people. You could be lonely, alone, and living in the midst of society at the same time. Aloneness does not mean you have to be a mountain hermit.

This loneliness -- the feeling that no one is going to descent in a golden chariot to take you to Nirvana, help you, or even acknowledge your existence, and that therefore your Enlightenment is on you and you alone, is solely between you and the universe -- is what eventually develops into wakefulness, or Bodhi.


How did Arya Nagarjuna reached the direct perception of Emptiness? our Sangha is trying to find through a lot of ancient books about the story of Arya Nagarjuna reaching a level of direct perception of Emptiness, and we couldn't find anything in the scriptures yet.
If someone has information on a following topics with quotes, please let us know.

Thank you.

EDIT: What I meant is that he reached an Arya level, and we are looking for details about his direct perception of Emptiness.

Arya Nagarjuna as a scholar, only dispelled the arguments of the reificationists or the annihilationalists. In doing so, he conceptualized sunyata- sunyata is itself sunya (sunyatasunyata). It is merely an analytical tool (certainly of the gretest importance and very profound) to go beyond the obstructs of conceptual thinking- go beyond thinking to the direct experience of reality of mind-body phenomenon in its entirety.

Arya Nagarjuna reached the "perception of emptiness" by the same way as all Budhhas, Boddhisattvas, Arihants have reached and we can reach- by the technique of Vipassana- by the direct experiential insight into the phenomenon of mind-body, which is empty of all conceptual constructs.

But I am sorry to say that I myself do not know of any scrpitures which discuss the meditative experiences of Arya Nagarjuna.

EDITED- It may help you to look at Tsong Kha pa's "The Great Treatise on the States of the Path to Enlightenment". In fact, if you already have not, you may try searching through the Lamrims. Although, I doubt whether it particularly deals with an account of Arya Nagarjuna's meditative expriences. But they may help you make correct inferences and deductions (much Like I have done in this answer).
EDITED (2nd)- It will be very useful for you to look at Arya Candrakirti's The Entry into the Middle Way. In some translations, Stage one "The Joyous" is associated with the direct perception of sunyata.


Thinking during Vipassana meditation Please correct me if I'm wrong.

From what I read, the purpose of Vipassana meditation is to get insight, and wisdom about one self, in order to achieve a better life and eventually nibanna.

The way I have been taught to practice Vipassana, is to focus on the present moment, feeling the sensations or emotions as they appear and disappear, observe the changes in the mind, and so on.

However, in order to get insight, am I not supposed to analyse what is going on, looking for answers ? In order to think in that way, isnt'it necessary to break the focus on the present moment and therefore break the meditation ?
Maybe it is part of the meditation ?

As an example, suppose that I am meditating. Suddently a feeling of anxiety arises. I turn my focus to this feeling, gathering informations, feeling it for what it is, seeing the impermanence in it, etc. Then the anxiety disappears or some other thing arises, so I need to switch my focus in order to stay in the present moment.

Instead, I would like to investigate this feeling, trying to guess why it happened, seeing if there is a way I can prevent myself from feeling it again, or if there is a way to prevent myself from the suffering I create by repeling this feeling.

Experience as shown that I can get to great insight by interrupting the focus on the present moment to investigate the feeling. However on some other occasions it distracted me. In addition I imagine that the insights I get may be sometimes incomplete or false views ?

How I am supposed to go about this ?

All in all, the boundaries between thinking and not thinking are more conventional than real. The brain is a machine that is always at work doing its thing, whether we create narratives like "I'm thinking", "I'm meditating" or not. It's a machine that can see patterns and connections between the things it sees -- so as you keep looking, seeing happens (semi-)automatically. As long as you look with clear attention, that is. Learning some dharma theory does help with seeing things in the right perspective, but it sounds like you already have that. So in some sense it doesn't really matter what you do - as long as you keep looking with right attention your mind will almost "enlighten itself".

Anything you do is fine, there are no hard rules. You can interleave analytical meditation and introspection if you want. You can read a paragraph of a book, put it down, think about it. Or you can watch your mind in parallel with reading a book. As you become more advanced all boundaries between different types of meditation begin to melt and look obviously contrived. As my Zen master used to say, regular thinking is not different from meditation. Regular mind is not different from the Diamond Samadhi.

However, there is virtue in formal meditation that is pure introspection. In this approach we don't discursively reason about things we see. We engage attention in looking inside and let the pattern-seeing machine of our brain do it's work connecting the dots on autopilot. Makes sense? So you just look and stare at that emotion, trying to go deeper into it, and then boom, you see it's root in some sort of childhood event, that created a preconception that now manifests as attachment. You don't "calculate" this insight analytically, it happens by itself through deep looking.

Similarly, there are other, deeper, types of insights that are only accessible through this sort of intuitive staring, informed by dharma theory. For example, you can stare at your mindstream and then suddenly realize you now know what they meant by suffering and attachment. Or what they meant when they said everything is empty. The bottom line is that meditation is not entirely non-analytical, but it's not your regular thinking either.


Are Buddhists hypnotists? Are Buddhists hypnotists?

I'm being a little facetious, but not entirely. Hypnotism is a strange mental phenomena, and I wondered how much interaction, in any tradition, is based in similar mental phenomena, to hypnotism. I have no theory, about how that might involve rebirth, or the annulment of annihilationism (which I cling to a little).

The simplest answer to this question, while not being informative would be to say 'Yes'. Buddhism covers many traditions, many cultures, over thousands of years, and some of those traditions have methods of meditation which are strongly related to a self-induced hypnosis.

However modern hypnosis has gone it's own way and it's not fair to say that the one is 'the same' as the other - but merely that there are overlapping areas of interest.

Of course, on the other hand, the answer is a definite 'No'.  The purposes of Buddhism and Hypnotism are completely distinct, and therefore regardless of the similarity of some methods of induction, they are heterogenous.

Within some of the Himalayan traditions, there are powerful methods of inducing particularly rarified states of consciousness which the hypnosis community is not yet found a way to tap into - probably because the training is too severe.  Hypnosis is primarily a profession - so the motive is generally money (or fame, or renown) - which, because they are derived from a worldview that is faulty, cannot act as serviceable motives for deeper training.


Nirvana and the six heavens in the 31 realms In Buddhism there are six levels of heavens in the 31 different realms . These are ranged from the lowest heaven up to the highest heaven . Then , what is Nirvana ? ,  Is Nirvana the seventh heaven ? The ultimate heaven ? Is Nirvana the 32 th realm ? . If there are so many pleasures and happiness in the 6 heavens (in the 31 realms) , then what kind of pleasures and happiness we will find in Nirvana ?

For any realm one can abide and say, "I am here."
Not so Nibbana/Nirvana, which is the cessation of identity view.

  MN1:124-146.23: nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhijānāti; ...

  MN1:124-146.23: They directly know extinguishment as extinguishment. But they don’t identify with extinguishment, they don’t identify regarding extinguishment, they don’t identify as extinguishment, they don’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, they don’t take pleasure in extinguishment


Why is nirvana not mara? The term "non-duality" oft appears in Buddhist English language literature, both contemporary and in translation. e.g. it is sometimes claimed to be the cornerstone of Yogacara philosophy, and its assertion of "mind only", that no part of us exists independently of consciousness, but nevertheless it does tend to have some existence.

Obviously the term nirvana means buddhist liberation, that point at which the sage or saint (both words appear in the English language literature) has put out the suffering of samsaric existence, be that its elimination or a realisation that it is, in someway, already so extinct.

Mara is the personification of skillessness, a character that deceives e.g. the aspirant away from the holy life, and as such represents (in a sentient being) let's suppose something like the opposite of skillful means.

I thought that nonduality often (if not always) means that opposing terms (good and evil, or illusion and reality) depend upon each other, by convention at least.

So, whether or not the last paragraph is correct, does the above not suggest that nirvana is mara?

There are four terminological divisions of nirvana, and none of them is mara.

Non-duality does not mean “that opposing terms depend upon each other”. Rather, we posit three types of dualistic appearances :

appearance of conventionalities
appearance of true existence
appearance of the apprehended object and the apprehending consciousness as two different substances

A consciousness that is free from the three is said to be “free from dualistic appearances”. By extension, the person who is the object-possessor knowing “in a non-dualistic manner” is also said to be free from dualistic appearances.

Here is an example: Conventional truths do not appear in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing emptiness. True existence does not appear to the superior's exalted wisdom directly realizing emptiness. There is no appearance of the object and the consciousness as being to different substantial entities to that consciousness. Because the wisdom directly realizing emptiness is free from the three types of dualistic appearances, we say that he who directly realizes emptiness does so “in a non-dualistic manner”. He is free from dualistic appearances (as long as he abides in meditative equipoise on emptiness).

You are right to oppose mara to skillful means. Maitreya/Asanga's Ornament of Clear Realization, says: “The first application in skillful means is called application in skilful means which is victorious over the four mara-demons”.

However, there are four maras:

The mara of the contaminated appropriated aggregates,
The mara of the afflictions,
The mara of the lord of death, and
The mara of the sons of gods. Only this last one is actually referring to a being—obstructing external forces creating obstacles to gaining the freedom of the first three maras. They are gods of the desire realm only—not of the form realm and formless realm. The god Garab Wangchub is posited as an example in the commentary.

Non-abiding nirvana is freedom from the four (and is the final true cessation), therefore it is not mara.


What's the purpose of AN 2.61? What could be the purpose of the Buddha teaching AN 2.61 below? Why is this relevant? How is this useful?

AN 2.61 states:

  “Mendicants, females die without getting enough of two things.
  “Dvinnaṃ dhammānaṃ, bhikkhave, atitto appaṭivāno mātugāmo kālaṃ
  karoti.

  What two?
  Katamesaṃ dvinnaṃ?

  Sexual intercourse and giving birth.
  Methunasamāpattiyā ca vijāyanassa ca.

  Females die without getting enough of these two things.”
  Imesaṃ kho, bhikkhave, dvinnaṃ dhammānaṃ atitto appaṭivāno mātugāmo kālaṃ
  karotī”ti.

I suppose "to die without getting enough" is a colloquial expression for being insatiable, indefatigable.

This is an emphatic way of saying that women have a strong instinctual desire to bear children. If you polled a big enough sample of women I suspect majority would say they like to have children, enjoy having children, and many would say they'd want to have more then one child if allowed by the living circumstances.

The point of this in context of Buddha's teaching is that samsara has built-in mechanisms for self-continuation. Natural phenomena have innate tendency to proliferate, to continue, to support their kin, to procreate.

Left unchecked, the stream of samsara rolls forward endlessly regenerating ignorance, confusion, desire, suffering, and desire to escape suffering. It is the ignorant pursuit of this desire is what supports the stream's momentum to roll on and on.


What is the Buddhist perspective on passively altering your subconcious? Firstly I'd like to provide some context:

When I first began getting into the Buddhist teachings, specifically that of the Theravada tradition, I'd often do things such as passively play the Dhammapada in my earphones while riding my bike, or keep it on low volume in the background while I did something else. My goal was to be able to gain a basic grasp of the dhamma through forced repeated listening, and to an extent it worked in the sense that I memorized a lot of verses and ideas found in the Dhammapada, and upon hearing a verse quoted, I have an "aha" moment in the sense that It feels familiar. Furthermore, my mind and speaking style had a subtle change as well, with my head being fixated on "illusions" found in everyday physical existence.

Overall, there was definitely a change in my physical being.

In Buddhism, mindfulness is praised and shown as the key to making spiritual progress. While I did employ mindful practices such as watching my mind in everyday life and meditating every once in a while, the practice I used for the longest time was definitely not that of a mindful one.

Yet, it seemed to have occurred to me that reaching a certain point in Buddhist practice, even through mindful meditation, requires a certain degree of destroying the old and replacing with the new, in the sense that old beliefs such as those cultivated through childhood can prevent one from going forward in their spiritual practice, or in that sense any practice, be it learning a skill or whatever (i.e saying to yourself constantly that "I'm this, I'm this kind of person/ I was made to do X").

Whether through the words of Buddha or through the teachings of other Buddhist practices such as those of a tantric origin, what is the Buddhist perspective on knowingly "brainwashing" or "rewiring" yourself via methods of repeated listening, binaural beats, and other various forms of hypnosis and subconcious alterations to make changes to your life and perspective on things?

Sorav,

Interesed, serious and the Tripple Gems respecting readers,

listening to the teachings, if done right, straightens ones Right view. Doing it wrong increases wrong view and primaly respect. Althought even foolish and respectless monks merely even force to make Dhamma simply food for consuming and throw it on the worlds market for short and poor livelihood, one should not follow their way and use the medicine right.

Listen unattentive Dhamma while doing even unwholesome deeds manifest on and on latent disrespect an closes up the door to Dhamma.

Some good advices in this regard are found in "Abidhamma in daily live" (dhammadesana), by Ven. Ashin Janakabhivamsa.

It's not mindful and not conductive to just consume Dhamma, since it requires giving at fist place.

To answer short on "What is the Buddhist perspective on passively altering your subconcious?"

The "Buddhists" perspective here is trade for gain and the world, while this of the Buddha and his following discipeles is letting go and Nibbana. One way is that in the world, another to Nibbana. Knowing this clearly one is not a little after any gain.

(Since detail discussion is not so welcome here, and the enviroment not so proper for Dhamma Desana, feel free to raise question, even audio here.)

[Note: This is agift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]


So many Buddhist schools! Why does Buddhism have so many variations, like Zen, Nembutsu, True world, Nichiren Buddhism, etc.? Why is Buddhist philosophy not uniform?

Buddhism changes as it goes into different cultures and adapts and is influenced by local and preexisting culture. It changed when it went from Indian into China and again into Japan and again into Tibet. I believe it is changing still as it goes into the West. For instance my group the Triratna Community is an explicit attempt to bring Buddhism to the West in an ecumenical way.

To follow on from that, the Trirantna's founder Sangharakshita identified the act of going for refuge (to the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha) as the central act of all Buddhist schools and the principle that can (and does for us) underpin any Buddhist movement. So our interpretation is that all schools have the same principle so are not as divergent as one might think at first glance. Of course I'm not banging the drum for that specifically here and people are obviously more than welcome to agree or disagree on that interpretation.

Buddhism also does change within a culture by reacting to the Buddhist school before it. The most notable example I guess is the growth of Mahayana as a reaction against the perceived ossification of the Hinayana (though this term is derogatory) schools. Parallels can easily be seen in other religions such as the Protestant Reformation, the Cathars, Lollards etc...

Also I might quibble with the premise of the question itself. I'm not convinced that Buddhism does have a particular high amount of branches as compared to other religion. It's just that we are not used to the religion. Also if we don't identify culturally with any particular branch we see them all. I think that Christianity has a lot of sub divisions - Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Methodist, Church of England etc.. Also having listened to Peter Adamson's excellent podcast of the history of philosophy, I find the branches of Islam bewildering.

This is probably a bit TR;DR. Sorry


Why shouldn't I identify with Nibanna? Nibanna is not suffering but it is said to be Anatta:

  Sabbe Dhamma Anatta

My question is why shouldn't I identify with Nibanna ? Why shouldn't I say I am Nibanna ? Or why shouldn't I say my true self is Nibanna ? Or why shouldn't I say I am in a state of Nibanna ?

“This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’

  -- SN 12.15

My understanding is that identification and possession are adherences, they are clinging. Nirvana, when conceptualized into a "thing" becomes something to possess or to identify with -- which is no different than clinging to any other conceived idea:

  “He perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

  -- MN 1

Such a tendency to hold something as a self is said to be at the root of misunderstandings and a cause of suffering. But Nirvana, rather then a 'thing', is said to be simply a name, a designation for the end of dukkha.

  "Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?"
  —"No, venerable sir."
  —"Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it."

  -- MN 22


Buddha verifying his enlightenment If I remember correctly, Buddha wanted to verify his insight after his sit under the Bodhi tree. He took a leaf and reversed the cause-and-effect leading to him holding that leaf in order to check something. Can anyone point to the story?

In the case of Gauthama the Buddha, there is no description about a leaf. The Buddha did review dependent origination, direct, reverses and direct & reverse order, as in the other answers.

But there are cases of Pacceka Buddha's who have been enlightened by seeing a withered leaf.

  Two other Jātaka tales report the attainment of Paccekabodhi on seeing a
  withered leaf fall. In these cases, too, it is clearly an external condition
  that is responsible for the break-through to awakening.

Paccekabuddhas in the Isigili-sutta and its Ekottarika-āgama Parallel Bhikkhu Anālayo

  At that instant Darīmukha seeing the garden now empty came and sat on the royal seat in the garden. A withered leaf fell before him. In it he came to see the principles of decay and death, grasped the three marks of things, and making the earth re-echo with joy he entered on paccekabodhi.

No. 378. DARĪMUKHA-JĀTAKA. The Jataka Volume III tr. by H.T. Francis and R.A. Neil ed. E. B. Cowell [1897]

  But when the king was gone, Sonaka returned and sat on the stone seat, and so it was that a withered leaf of a sāl tree fell from its stalk in front of him, and on seeing it he cried, "Even as this leaf, so will my body fall into decay," and acquiring supernatural insight by reflecting on the impermanence of all things he attained to the state of a paccekabuddha, and at this very instant his characteristic as a layman vanished, and the marks of an ascetic became visible, and saying, "There is no more re-birth for me," in the utterance of this aspiration he set out for the cave of Nandamūla.

No. 529. SONAKA-JĀTAKA. The Jataka Volume V tr. by H.T. Francis and R.A. Neil ed. E. B. Cowell [1905]


How to do a long meditation of "death contemplation"? because just thinking about it for a short time didnt have any effect on me   - how should i do a long death contemplation meditation ? like half hour or an hour  ?

should i repeat a mantra over and over again ?

And what to do when there are disturbances - should i focus on the words more strongly ?  where my attention should be ?

(doing death contemplation to gain a sense of urgency - chanda)

In the Tibetan Geluk tradition, contemplation of death would usually involve the two:

Analytical meditation on death
Placement meditation on a specific mind induced by analytical meditation

A beginner would start with 24 minutes meditation sessions. The point is to do it every day.

For instance, by engaging in analytical meditation on "death is certain, but its time is most uncertain, and at death only karma will follow", a mind of non-attachment to your goods will arise, or a mind of non-anger towards your so called-enemies will arise, or a mind of loving kindness for friends you are presently angry with will arise, or a mind wishing to practice dharma and a sense of urgency will arise.

When this or that mind arises, we are advised to take it to mind, concentrate on it, stay with it without analyzing anymore. This is to dwell in these "places" and familiarizing with it. Every time you dwell on non-attachment, you make it easier to dwell on it again. Moreover, every time you manage to make a mind of non-attachment arise, finding your way there (so to speak) becomes easier.

When you loose your object of concentration (be it a mind of love, non-attachment, urgency, etc) you engage in analysis again for it to arise again. The purpose is to find your way to these "places" and dwell on them again. We are very skilled in doing so with anger, feeding it, finding reasons to be unhappy and angry, and staying with it.

In the Geluk tradition, this type of meditation (alternating analytical and placement) are laid out in the Lam Rim (i.e. Stages of the Path). Venerable Karin Valham compiled an outline of it: Lam.Rim Outlines – Beginners' Meditation Guide. Whether you want to meditate on impermanence and death, or precious human rebirth, or suffering, etc. this is just food for thought.


Lack of objective thinking in Buddhist practitionners My meditation practice is hindered by doubt.

First of all I see that the framework of the noble eightfold path (to which I adhere) does not seem to matter much, to so many gurus with repulsive behavior, and to the buddhist websites like Tricycle and Lion's Roar which continuously publish the writings of someone like Chogyam Trungpa. And I certainly can't see in the Dalai-Lama a personification of the Buddhist teachings, let alone his  former friend Sogyal Rinpoche.
Secondly I am very disturbed by the situation in Myanmar (Burma): a 90 percent Buddhist country, with criminal monks and a public opinion dramatically gone astray!
Third, the very lucrative "mindfulness¨ industry selling Buddhism, like just any commodity, not without some  harmful and dangerous consequences.

The question is: do Buddhist teachings downplay the role of reasonable, objective thinking?

Buddha is supposed to have said, "Place no head above your own". In some way it is akin to the motto of Western enlightenment by Kant (who certainly cannot be accused of having a "monkey mind"): "have the courage to use your own reason".

But some Buddhists speak and act as if all thinking was "mind wandering". Or don't you think that to abandon the capacity to think, and minimizing the role of the factors which foster that capacity, like education, can have dramatic consequences? And that a fake buddhism isn't one of those consequences? If naive Western women could "think", would they be abused by pathologically narcissistic gurus? If the 90 percent Buddhist Burmese were less poor and more educated, and more apt to think objectively, would they behave as they do?

Please do help me to practice, by answering to these somewhat disturbing questions.

... so many gurus with repulsive behavior, and to the buddhist websites like Tricycle and Lion's Roar which continuously publish the writings of someone like Chogyam Trungpa. And I certainly can't see in the Dalai-Lama a personification of the Buddhist teachings, let alone his former friend Sogyal Rinpoche.

This is your projection and your interpretation, isn't it? Based on your (limited?) knowledge of Buddhism and the people you mention. And based on your own understanding of ethics. Assuming you are not Enlightened, I would not be surprised if your perception and interpretation were biased.

If you knew what is "Spiritual Snobbism" and "Spiritual Ego" and why they are extremely dangerous, you would appreciate why some teachers go a loooong way towards shedding off any traces of that, even at the expense of hurting their public image (Trungpa) and making fools of themselves (Dalai Lama). Scandalous behavior is part of a longstanding and very respected tradition called "Crazy Wisdom" that aims to "transcend the dualistic view of repulsive and nonrepulsive" in student's mind and melt the spiritual ego.

  I am very disturbed by the situation in Myanmar (Burma)

The situation in Burma is extremely complicated. However, there are little reasons to be "very disturbed" by it. As any situation, it arose from objective causes and conditions - and when you understand and appreciate these objective causes, in other words when you think about it rationally, you should see exactly what's going on, why it keeps on going, and why it is rather difficult to rectify. Sentient beings have a tendency to reify & overgeneralize => identify with => attach => take sides => create conflict. This ignorant tendency can take any form, up to and including turning Dharma into adharma. Watching this play out in Burma should only increase your faith in True Dharma, not feed your frustration with humans ;)

  Third, the very lucrative "mindfulness" industry selling Buddhism, like just any commodity, not without some harmful and dangerous consequences.

I don't think there is nearly as much money made on "mindfulness" as on alcohol, videogames, porn, and weapons. So I would not characterize "mindfulness" industry as "the very lucrative". Yes, there are some people who make living on helping others, and some of these people are charlatans - but it is far from being as "harmful and dangerous" as for example the glamour industry, or Hollywood etc. In fact, if mindfulness improves some lives, and/or serves as gateway into more real study and practice, it will pay off its debt to Buddhism to which it owes its existence.

Finally, you should always remember that Buddhism is about YOUR state of mind, not the minds of others. It is your negativity, your frustration with the world, your spiritual ego, and your attachment to high ideals and its inverse projection onto the reality your mind creates, that you should worry about and work with. Once you got some of that through, you can start helping others who deal with the same problem, since you will now know it first-hand. That would be the most rational thing to do.


If there be no soul or transmigrating entity that takes rebirth, who or what bears or enjoys the consequences or fruits of karma? How can a religion or school of thought justify or rationalise the proposal that potential suffering could be inflicted on a subsequent rebirth - to all intents and purposes, a new individual, according to the anatta theory - because of the actions of a previous individual?
Why the threat of subjecting another to suffering, if that being cannot be held responsible for actions in a previous life?
If no soul or persistence exists, how can one suggest that performing positive karmic actions will improve the quality of life of a subsequent rebirth, if there is no element retained of a previous iteration to reap the reward and receive the incentive to continue to perform good karmic actions and/or continue in Buddhist schooling?

The question is irrelevant because there are two levels of teaching in Buddhism (refer to two sorts of right view in MN 117). The Buddha generally did not teach about "kamma-vipaka" and "not-self" (anatta) together.

"Kamma-vipaka" is mainly for puthujjana (common village people who need to be taught morals so to avoid self-harm) and "anatta" is for Noble People. Only later heretics (such as the Brahman philosopher Buddhaghosa) taught "empty not-self phenomena are reborn in a Twelvefold Voidness".

When a Noble Person realises the reality of not-self (anatta), they no longer perform immoral actions because there is no longer selfishness or self-interest within their mind. Also, there is no self-referent to any past kamma. Refer to AN 6.63, which says:

  Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma.

But for the common village people who have not realised not-self (anatta), the Buddha taught they themselves are the owners & heirs of their personal actions, as follows:

  Bhikkhus, beings are the owners of their kamma, the heirs of their kamma; they have kamma as their origin, kamma as their relative, kamma
  as their resort; whatever kamma they do, good or bad, they are its
  heirs.

  AN 10.216

The later is true because when kamma-vipaka occurs, the idea of "self" arises in the mind of the recipient of kamma, such as the regret: "Why did I do that bad deed? What did I do to myself? I have ruined my life".

In summary, whenever "rebirth" occurs, it is a "rebirth" of "self". Inwardly, it is never "not-self".


Is going for refuge central to all Buddhist traditions? In the Triratna community, who I practice with, we see going for refuge to the three jewels as our central practice - the three jewels being the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. In fact the name Triratna means the three jewels. However the founder of the movement (Sangharakshita) makes the stronger claim that this is the central act of all Buddhist traditions. The Triratna movement is an explicit attempt to return to that core teaching.

However I'd really be interested in the perspectives of the different Buddhist traditions on that. Does that ring true to people in their own practices. Is going for refuge the central act of Buddhist practice?

In every single branch of Buddhism I have looked into, going for refuge is seen as the defining feature of what makes you a Buddhist. The Theravada school holds to this position, every form of East Asian Mahayana Buddhism I've read about holds this position, and Tibetan Buddhism also puts great stress on going for refuge to the point where reciting the refuge formula with Bodhichitta 100,000 times (usually combined with prostration and visualizing the refuge tree) is a central part of Tibetan Ngöndro, or foundational practice.

I think that Sangharakshita really was correct in identifying the central role of refuge in all Buddhist traditions.


if rebirth/reincarnation is true then what is your first birth/incarnation? I think the question is clear so no further explanation is needed.

Do you think someone might have asked that question before?
According to Access to Insight, many of the suttas include the following quote,

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said:

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on.

In other words the "first" is not evident (or, I'd read that as, it's not evident that there is a first).


Can a puthujjana have unshakable faith in the Buddha-Dhamma? I read the following on the internet:

According to my present understanding of Dhamma, nobody will be able
to shake my faith.

Can a puthujjana (unenlightened commoner still immersed in self instinct) have unshakable faith in the Buddha-Dhamma?
What happens if a puthujjana does a meditation retreat and freaks out when in solitude or experiencing ego-death?
What are the conditions or criteria for unshakable faith (acalā saddha)?

Right view arises with two conditions:

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

Unshakeable faith happens thus:

MN106:13.3: But sir, what is noble liberation?”  “Ananda, it’s when a mendicant reflects like this: ‘Sensual pleasures in this life and in lives to come, sensual perceptions in this life and in lives to come, visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of the imperturbable, perceptions of the dimension of nothingness, perceptions of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; that is identity as far as identity extends. This is the deathless, namely the liberation of the mind through not grasping.

Importantly, "perceptions of the imperturbable" are also identity and to be relinquished without grasping. So declaring "I am imperturbable" misses the mark. Better to just walk while walking and just stand while standing.
Decades ago I went to a retreat, perceived non-self and freaked out. That was definitely unpleasant, but it was an important clue about the Noble Truths. It's taken a lifetime to muster proper attention and find the words of another. With proper attention and the words of another, one can have faith that the Noble Eightfold Path will give rise to unshakeable faith upon release from all the fetters.


Meditation is a struggle When I wake up in the morning I don't feel like meditating straight away. I usually feel heavy and drowsy. So I have some breakfast and coffee and then I will sit. This morning I tried to sit for an hour as soon as I woke up but it was really difficult. My mind was not clear at all. Not sure I was thinking about anything in particular but I felt cloudy and uncomfortable with strong cravings to go back to sleep. I was so uncomfortable that I decided to open my eyes at 45 minutes.

My meditation feels like a struggle a lot lately. I feel like I've kind of lost touch with why I'm doing it. It feels like a bit of a chore. Sitting there day in and day out watching the breath for years and years but failing to become any more concentrated unless on retreat has become kind of pointless. Does anyone else feel like this?

I was hoping that after all this time that maybe something would change in my life and I might see more clearly about how I cause myself suffering, that I would have "insights" but it seems to just be this endless watching the breath, thinking, watching the breath, thinking.  I'm not sure if maybe I'm expecting too much but it doesn't feel like I'm gaining any benefit for the amount of time I put in to it so then I start thinking that I'm doing it wrong etc. I can't believe that after 6 years I'm still thinking/feeling this way. Feeling intense Dukkha today.

I usually feel heavy and drowsy.

This is Slot and Toper. You should overcome this and other Hindrances. Many of the techniques are found in:

The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera
Nīvaraṇa by Piya Tan
Thīna,middha by Piya Tan [these might also be interesting: Vyāpāda, Uddhacca,kukkucca, Vicikicchā, Kāma-c,chanda by the same author]

  ...  Feeling intense Dukkha today.

When you do not achieve spiritual goals unsatisfactoriness may arise. [Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta] Best is try to keep you mind and practice steady. Also see if you are putting too much effect leading to restless worry. Also do not measure progress too often. Just do what needs to be done, i.e., just practice!


Replacing the hindrances with it's opposite? Similarly, wise consideration of the mental liberation of loving kindness (mettā-
  cetovimutti) counteracts ill will; wise consideration of the elements of effort
  (ārambhadhātu), exertion (nikkamadhātu), and striving (parakkamadhātu) counteracts
  sloth and torpor; wise consideration of tranquility (cetaso vūpasama) counteracts
  restlessness and worry; and wise consideration of wholesome and unwholesome states
  (kusalākusaladhammā) counteracts doubt.6

So lets say i am having ill will thoughts. Do i just replace those thoughts with loving kindness instead?

Or if I am experiencing sloth and torpor, do i just replace and abandon those thoughts with exertion and striving?

Is that how you apply this passage in the real world, by abandoning those thoughts and having one pointed focus on their antidotes?

So lets say i am having ill will thoughts do i just replace those thoughts with loving kindness instead? Or if im experiencing sloth and torpor, do i just replace and abandon those thoughts with exertion and striving?

Yes, that would be one way of dealing with the hindrances. This is the first method. If that does not work, one moves on to the second method and so forth. Methods are described below.

One can deal with each of the 5 hindrances in 5 ways, i.e. the following 5 methods works for all of the hindrances.

Methods are found in The Noble Eightfold Path, p. 63-66, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Replacing the hindrance with its opposite, e.g. replacing hatred/ill-will with thoughts of loving-kindness.
Contemplating the arisen hindrance as vile and ignoble, since it has entered the mind without permission or any control.
Shifting attention away from the hindrance.
Shifting attention onto the hindrance and thoroughly contemplating it by investigating its causes and conditions for arising together with its characteristics.
Removing the hindrance with force, just as a strong man would pin a weaker man to the ground.

No. 5 should only be used if method 1-4 does not work.

If you have any questions to what I wrote feel free to ask.


How can one avoid the suffering after getting cheated? Today I suffered severe disappointment because I thought I was cheated some amount of money. I couldn't complain to anyone because I had no proof. And I suspect those who cheated me will also cheat other people.
I want to avoid such disappointments in future and also I want to do the right thing.

What should be my response on getting cheated ? Should I forgive the thugs who stole my money ? Should I wish bad for them and report it to the police or the managers?

First, do not hold ill intentions. It may or may not be a case of cheating, there could be misconceptions.

Secondly, if you really got your money cheated, just report to the police or managers. Do it out of due diligent intentions, nothing more nothing less.


Is it ok for a Buddhist to participate in a demonstration? I'm talking about a peaceful demonstration against a corrupt government. The point is: It can be seen as divisive speech because there will be people against it.

The Buddha himself protested silently on at least two occasions in the Dhp commentary; both relate to his family, though. He never seems to have protested against the cruelty of kings, etc. and his actions seem always to have been in the form of teaching.

A protest is always a showing that you are against something. If you are truly against it, this is paṭigha, or aversion, and it is always unwholesome. In Buddhism we look at the bigger picture, and try to see that samsara as a whole is meaningless. As such, we try to teach all people to give up their unwholesomeness - this means teaching all rather than taking sides. The Buddha was exemplary in this regard, teaching even the basest of human beings and never challenging evil directly.

If the protest is instructional - i.e. a means of reminding certain parties of the error of their ways, then it seems to be reasonable, provided one is an involved party (e.g. a relative or intimate to one party in a conflict).

Finally, one might argue a civic responsibility for lay people - e.g. voting, or even demonstrating simply as a duty (e.g. H. D. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience). As long as one simply sees it as a duty, this seems reasonable.


How does human will fit with Pratītyasamutpāda? On Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta the Buddha said that in the last ninety-one aeons, no fatalist who denies the power of volitional acts, has ever gone to heaven, except one, who happened to follow the doctrine of kamma and of morally effective deeds. How does this power of volitional act or volitional act happen with in the frame work of Pratītyasamutpāda?

My intension is not to discuss about non-self rather about the volitional act done by the self-doer as explained in Attakārī Sutta. Also not so much about the change or motion, the being stepping forward or backward, but the volition or intention that brought about the change.

Pratītyasamutpāda states that everything except Nirvana are conditioned, and from ignorance (Avijjā) comes mental formations (Saṅkhāra) which includes volition.

So if every mental formation is conditioned by ignorance including human volition (choice), how come a being by choice, which is volition, which has ignorance at its base root out ignorance?

On the other hand, if volition (choice) is not conditioned by ignorance, then the beings choice is out side Pratītyasamutpāda which has ignorance at its starting point?

Similarly, if the answer is yes and no, this still implies that volition (choice) can be out side Pratītyasamutpāda?

Many thanks.

You have asked a very good question, I remembered if correctly it's in the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment Maitreya Bodhisattva asked similar question: 以幻修幻 - how can if phenomenal world is illusory construct and the "I" is also illusory that a practitioner realize the Ultimate Truth? I remember the Buddha answered 以幻修真 - using the illusory to rid the illusion, as if using a wedge to get out another wedge stuck in the hole. Therefore, I think to give some help of your inquiry is to think of: your volition is to get over ignorance by choosing actions of not ignorant... You find that the action that is not ignorant is still an ignorant action... so on and so forth. Until you finally know the action that is not ignorant, that you are enlightened. It could be a long practice, or it could be a sudden realization. A bit like someone doing a difficult math equation, volition discerns the answers are not correct, over and over, that the working out incorrect answers are the footings to finally have the correct answer. Volition the ability to discern doesn't get hindered by ignorance, although ignorance prevented it from knowing the correct answer immediately. The Sutra has very good analogy full of wisdom far better than I presented here, I just recalled to make an answer in convenience. I hope I didn't misunderstand your question, and I'm not quite familiar with the terms and the Suttas mentioned in the OP.


Difficulty in realizing and actualizing precepts Since my journey began, i have looked to understanding myself and the world that surrounds me. I endeavor to look at my interactions with as many views as possible as well as make attempts to make peace with myself and those of my interactions.

I am frustrated and this sometimes leads to nihilistic views. I cannot express my inability to realize and actualize the concepts offered by the path. I understand it. I comprehend it. I am confounded with what i deem as imbalance. I am grateful and appreciative of my good fortune however i want to realize and actualize so that i can look at all aspects.

There seems to be a disconnect between what i see, feel, hear, smell and taste. It is akin to cognitive dissonance. I understand awareness, mindfulness and realization however it seems to be at polar opposites with    the 6 senses or 12 ayatanas.

It's not easy to actualize the high Buddhist ideals in the turbulent waters of everyday living. Three things can help:

It helps to have a very clear understanding what the Buddhist concepts like "right-intention" etc. really refer to. Often the canonical definitions don't provide enough details to latch on in immediate experience. This is where a live teacher can help, or ask specific questions here on Q&A: "how does the right-intention manifest in real-life practice? what are the typical challenges and are there any techniques for overcoming them?". It is said that the most difficult problem in Buddhism is to get the sense of immediacy, and once you got that -- Enlightenment is within reach.
As Shrawaka correctly pointed out, you can't expect to skip from your current karmic situation to a perfect karmic situation - with no intermediate steps. As my first teacher explained, karma exhibits inertia, it is very inertial. So you need to start seeding better karmic seeds now, and patiently hold on until the situation will change. If you seed better seeds more or less consistently over a long time - the external situation will change, I promise -- as I was promised to, back in the day.
As my last teacher said, many of our precept breaches / behavior problems (losing temper or giving in to obsession or panicking etc.) come from not staying inside our bodies (losing what's traditionally called kayagata-sati - "mindfulness of the body"). In simple words, when something non-trivial happens we very often "fly over" from our body to a place "over there" -- that being either the other person's perspective or some imaginary point in abstract space. This somatic disconnect is the first step in the chain of events leading to a loss of control to kleshas (blinding affects). Instead, we should train to retain the sense of our bodies, phenomenologicaly always being "inside" our body (leaving aside the philosophical implications) - esp. continuously staying in touch with our lower abdomen, but also feet and face.


How far is attachment allowed? My dog has run away and I am sad. To be honest I was probably not taking care of him the best as one possibly could. We both excelled or declined based on my success, but I tried to allow him his own freedom and now he is gone.

Do I grieve? I mean I know that I am but should I?

Is this precisely the type of attachment I should and must choose to sever? This dog has been my friend and cohort for almost 10 years. He helped me recover from heart attacks and multiple surgeries. How could one not grow attached?

So should I feel relieved or guilty and sad?

I made sure to ask this while he was missing. Now he has since been found and returned.

Having any confusion about what is proper and what is not, we can approach the question by investigation.

Even if we don't find the answer for a long time, our skills of investigation would probably grow; so this would help not only in solving that question, but also for all the future questions.

Feelings are the primary data for our mind. Therefore, in order to reach clean perception, it might be natural to accept feelings exactly as they come, not trying to change them in forceful ways.

Therefore, whatever feelings come, we can practice by

accepting them as they are,
observing whatever phenomena accompany them,
and investigating causes and results.

How can we investigate causes and results? For example, we observe how feelings are being created, and what phenomena they lead to.

This way we learn how various mental factors interact and develop. In that sense, we understand their meanings. This understanding of meanings constitutes the knowledge of what is proper and why exactly.

This practice will not only solve the problem, but also will give some insight in mechanisms working in our mind. Knowing those mechanisms, we could improve our practice, as well as help others better.

Let it be helpful!


What are the requirements for Once-returner? I know about the ten fetters model. I read that a Once-returner has very reduced desire and aversion to the point that they only appear when tired or unmindful.

Are there other relevant requirements?

Are there stuff that hint that the person is or is not a Once-returner? For example, if the person doesn't reach jhana, does that HINT that maybe he is not a Once-returner?

The once returner just destroys the 3 fetters and reduce lusts

  Again, Sāriputta, consider the person who is accomplished in the precepts, but not in concentration, nor in wisdom — by destroying the
  three fetters and reducing lust, hatred and delusion, he becomes a
  Once-returner, who returns to this world again once only and makes an
  end of ill.

  This, Sāvatthi, is the sixth person, who, dying with some attached
  remainder, is altogether freed from hell, rebirth in the womb of an
  animal, the realm of ghosts, from the untoward way, the ill way, the
  abyss, hell.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/09_nines/an09.012.hare.pts.htm#p1

Apparently the first people who are ''moderately'' good at concentration are the ''Clan-to-clan-goer''


Is action a form of discontent? I know Buddhism stresses the importance of being a content person, but I can't help thinking that any action such as walking or even shifting my foot is a form of dissatisfaction for current moment. Why would I change anything if I am content?

I would suggest that Buddhism does not promote the importance of being a contented person, especially by suppressing any feelings, perceptions or other parts of experience. Instead, by learning to know dissatisfaction (suffering, dukkha) very well, we notice that the discontentment is separate from the experience (i.e. pain is pain, sickness is sickness, it's our minds that adds dissatisfaction on top of that).

By practicing to recognize dissatisfaction, we can then learn to put that dissatisfaction aside, and simply experience each moment as it is (painful, pleasurable or neutral). Once we are able to put dissatisfaction aside, contentment naturally arises.

I would like to stress that Buddhism does not promote becoming a contented person - this holding on to "me as a person being contented" is also a cause for discontentment, since it is certain to change. Once the situation changes ("me" no longer being content), there's dissatisfaction - my view of myself being contented does not fit with the experience I am having.

Walking or shifting your foot is not inherently dissatisfactory. It is what it is, what you experience are the sensations of lifting the foot, changes in pressure on the footsole, and so on. The experience can be pleasurable, neutral or unpleasant, but that does not have to equal dissatisfaction in that moment. Our minds add that on to it. Once we're able to let go of the added layer of judging the experience as satisfactory or unsatisfactory (it shouldn't be this way or this is great), contentment is with us, here and now.


Why is it that Buddhist monks are strongly associated with beggars? It seems to be a strong affinity in media for monks to be beggars. There doesn't seem to be anything in Buddhism that effectively correlates to being poor, or even using begging for livelihood.  The Noble Eightfold Path even has occupations in one of the folds, and doesn't recommend too much of a constrain to the point of driving people poor.

Specifically, I would put the book Buddha Boy by Kathe Koja on display, where a Buddhist boy moving into a rather bad neighborhood is picked on at school for his actions, one of which is begging for food during his lunch period.

In this example, "Buddha Boy" begs for food, however, that doesn't seem like anything I've seen in Buddhist culture. Is this a common misconception, or am I misinformed?

The monks are trained to be humble to lessen the stranglehold of ego and the defilments. When the Buddha addresses the monks in the suttas he calls them "Bhikkus" in Pali that means "Beggars" in English. This Isn't derogatory, it's a teaching.


Is academic research right livelihood? A question to those of you who’ve spent some time in academia: is academic research right livelihood?

Given that it requires one to engage in thinking for the entire duration of one’s working hours, could it actually be a hindrance on the eightfold path?

I haven't spent time working as an academic, but right livelihood is expressed as avoiding work dealing with weapons, human beings, poisons, meat and intoxicants. So as long as your work does not cause harm you should be ok. The fact that you are thinking is not an impediment, there is no job that does not require thinking, and thinking is never a hindrance. Arahants think.


How do taboo acts work in tantra if people don't see the acts as taboo? Tantric rituals harness the power/engergy of taboo acts by including either actual or visualizations of alcohol, meat and sex into the ritual.

In that system, does it still work if people don't actually believe that there is anything wrong with drinking alcohol, eating meat or sex?  Also, maybe I just am not familiar with tantra, but this list is 3 out of five of the five precepts. Do tantric rituals also harness the power of theft and killing?

Tantric symbolism is always multifaceted. Although a lot of the imagery in Tantra is very taboo, there's more to it than just shock value. For example, the five nectars of urine, feces, menses, semen, and bone marrow aren't visualized in a skull-cup as an offering because they are transgressive, but because they represent the five aggregates, and refering to them as nectar represents that for an enlightened being they are innately pure. Even if someone doesn't find any particular part of Tantra to be taboo, they still would make sense in terms of their other symbolic aspects.


Which sutras are most directly relevant to the virtue of courage? If I want to read through the origins of western (really, Greek) thought about the virtue we generally call courage, I know exactly where to go: Laches, Republic, Nicomachean Ethics, etc. Meanwhile, while courage has played a central role in many of the dharma talks I've listened to, if someone asked me where to look for a Buddhist theory of courage I wouldn't know any particular place to start.

Within the most widely accepted Buddhist scriptures (especially but not limited to the Pali Canon) are there are any "go-to" sutras on the subject of courage? (Especially from a philosophical, psychological, or theoretical standpoint - whether or not that theory is grounded in narrative or discourse.)

This question gives several interesting references for modern writings about courage, but said I'm particularly interested in the older premodern stuff.

"Courage" isn't listed as one of the 37 factors.

So, wondering how "courage" is defined, I found this (non-Buddhist) definition on Wikipedia:

  Courage (also called bravery or valour) is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. Physical courage is bravery in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, or personal loss.

I guess two suttas I admire are (according to the above definitions):

"Physical" courage: Punna Sutta (SN 35.88)
"Moral" courage: Akkosa Sutta (SN 7.2)

And the Dhammapada is interesting too, some verses for example:

  Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.

and

  He who is friendly amidst the hostile, peaceful amidst the violent, and unattached amidst the attached — him do I call a holy man.

The essay Freedom From Fear suggests that "fear" is a mixture of other emotions:

  Think of a deer at night suddenly caught in a hunter's headlights. It's confused. Angry. It senses danger, and that it's weak in the face of the danger. It wants to escape. These five elements — confusion, aversion, a sense of danger, a sense of weakness, and a desire to escape — are present, to a greater or lesser extent, in every fear. The confusion and aversion are the unskillful elements. Even if the deer has many openings to escape from the hunter, its confusion and aversion might cause it to miss them.

Later it says ...

  The Canon lists these mental strengths at five: conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment.

... and tries to explains the role of each of these.

I think that "courage" isn't defined as a primary strength -- perhaps courageous acts are understood as being a consequence of other mental "strengths".

Do you feel confident in recommending any particular Jataka tales, re: a Buddhist view of courage? There are quite a few

There's one about the tigress and her cubs: the prince throws his body off a cliff to feed a hungry tigress, who would otherwise have eaten her own cubs. A moral aspect of that tale is that her eating her cubs would have been a grave "sin", a moral transgression -- it was that which he was saving the tigress from, I guess the moral being that ethics and compassion are more important than life.
Another is about the Bodhisattva as the captain of a ship. There's a pirate on board who's about to kill the other passengers, so the captain kills him. The moral aspect is that the other passengers were themselves Bodhisattva, killing them would have been a great sin, so the captain compassionately guarded the pirate from the terrible consequences which the pirate would have suffered as a result of killing Bodhisattvas.

That story is kind of famous because I think it's the only bit of Buddhist (or some might say pseudo-Buddhist) literature which appears to condone killing for some reason -- conversely for example see Getting the Message which includes ...

  When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone.

Anyway I think that the name of the captain in that story is "Captain Compassionate".


Why does the Buddha, in the Pali Canon, periodically engage in harsh speech? Throughout the Pali Canon you can find instances where the Buddha appears to engage in harsh speech that seems to be contrary to the noble eighfold path. There are several important points/possibilities to understand first:

It may just be the appearance of harsh speech, and not actually contrary to the path.

My understanding of harsh speech may be too gentle compared to what the Buddha intended, and rather the way he engages in what seems to be 'harsh speech' is the norm (or limit) of gentle speech.

The Suttas may be fabricated and inauthentic.

The Sutta in question may be authentic and the speech may be harsh, yet the Tathagata may be engaging in harsh speech because he knows the limits of all actions and cannot be reckoned by Karma.

There are (at least) several Sutta instances of the Buddha engaging in what would seem to me to be harsh speech. These examples are not common and they are hard to find without re-reading sections of the Pali Canon. Here is one that I remember off the top of my head:

"Of whom do you know, foolish man, that I have taught to him the teaching in that manner? Did I not, foolish man, speak in many ways of those obstructive things that they are obstructions indeed, and that they necessarily obstruct him who pursues them? Sense desires, so I have said, bring little enjoyment, and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. Sense desires are like bare bones, have I said; they are like a lump of flesh... they are like a snake's head, have I said. They bring much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater. But you, O foolish man, have misrepresented us by what you personally have wrongly grasped. You have undermined your own (future) and have created much demerit. This, foolish man, will bring you much harm and suffering for a long time."
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks thus: "What do you think, O monks: has that monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, produced any spark (of understanding) in this teaching and discipline?"[4] — "How should that be, Lord? Certainly not, O Lord."
After these words the monk Ari.t.tha, formerly of the vulture killers, sat silent, confused, with his shoulders drooping and his head bent, brooding and incapable of making a rejoinder.

The Discourse on the Snake Simile
Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22)
To me the tone of the speech is an example of harsh speech. If I were to use this kind of speech in my day-to-day life I would consider myself not living up to the standard of Right Speech as per the Noble Eightfold Path. I understand, however, that the Buddha controls his speech masterfully. In that case, how did this sort of speech come to be? There is no clause in 'Right Speech' that allows us to engage in harsh speech for the greater good - for example rebuking a monk harshly. That being said, do not mistake this for casting doubt on the Buddha. I consider him a good example of what everyone should act like and his control of virtue, faculties, and activities is something everyone should strive for.
Also, there are several more examples. I have read through chunks of the Pali Canon and there are other Suttas where the Buddha engages in speech I would again consider a violation of Right Speech (not that I have a perfect record of Right Speech). My question is why? Why not rebuke without harshness and adhere perfectly to gentleness?

The answer to this comes in the Kesi Sutta:

  As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him: "You, Kesi, are
  a trained man, a trainer of tamable horses. And how do you train a
  tamable horse?"

  "Lord, I train a tamable horse [sometimes] with gentleness,
  [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
  harshness."

  "And if a tamable horse doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, Kesi, what do you do?"

  "If a tamable horse doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a
  harsh training or to a mild and harsh training, lord, then I kill it.
  Why is that? [I think:] 'Don't let this be a disgrace to my lineage of
  teachers.' But the Blessed One, lord, is the unexcelled trainer of
  tamable people. How do you train a tamable person?"

  "Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness,
  [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
  harshness.

  "In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is
  the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such
  is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct.
  Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such
  are human beings.'

  "In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is
  the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is
  the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is
  the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal
  womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'

  "In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily
  conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily
  misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good
  verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is
  verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is
  good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such
  is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such
  are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal
  womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'"

  "And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or
  to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?"

  "If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a
  harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi."

  "But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the
  Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"

  "It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life.
  But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata
  doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally
  destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't
  regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing."


Is impermance provable? Check out my reasoning and tell me where it's flawed.

1) To know that nothing stays the same you have to have a reliable, permanent memory.

2) If memory is impermanent, then it cannot be used to measure change.

3) If you cannot measure change then you can't know if anything is impermanent.

4) Impermanence is impossible to prove.

Is impermance provable?

Of course. Through the practice of Insight meditation the  mark of impermanence becomes visible. It can be seen in all conditioned phenomena, e.g. the breath. Try to observe the in/out-breath and you will see impermanence on a gross level..


What is the relation between Nirvana and Parinirvana? The Buddha attained Nirvana at the age of 35. He lived 45 years more after which his Parinirvana occurred. Is it not somewhat contradictory? If Nirvana means the end of rebirth and rebirth means the evolution of consciousness, did the Buddha possess no consciousness during the last 45 years of his life?

What the Buddha experienced at 35 was called sa-upādisesa-nibbāna - nirvana with remainder. What he experienced at 80 was called anupādisesa-nibbāna - nirvana without remainder:

“dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo. katame dve? saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu, anupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu.
There are these two, monks, elements of nibbāna. What two? The element of nibbāna with remainder and the element of nibbāna without remainder.
-- Iti. 44

The difference is that after the former, there is still sequences of physical and mental formations that continue as a consequence of the birth of the being and have to work themselves out, which they do at the latter, signifying an end to all such physical and mental formations.
The actual experience of nirvana during the former (which can last from a few moments up to seven days) and the latter (which, due to there being no remaining sequence of formations and no craving to create new ones, is permanent) is the same.


Possibility of nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)? Is nothing but all-encompassing, absolute Nibbana without Samsara possible? If so, is sustainability possible (and how)?

I think that nibbana is defined as the end of suffering -- which occurs with the end of craving (as defined by the noble truths).

The end of craving happens (permanently) when the various causes of craving up uprooted -- the causes of craving include e.g. anusaya and asava and so on.

This uprooting can be permanent in the same way that when a palm tree is cut then it won't grow again.

Conversely, Samsara is a cycle of existence -- the pratītyasamutpāda doctrine (i.e. the doctrine of the 12 nidanas) says that cycle (including further birth) is conditioned by craving -- and so does this description:

  “Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.


Meaning of Dhamma for lay What is Dhamma for lay person? How to know Dhamma in the way it was meant to be ?

Is Dhamma same for all sentient , remain same over the period of time or does Dhamma undergoes change ?

Are there different versions of Dhamma?

Conventional: Upasaka (male layperson), Upasika (female layperson) lit. "attendant", "those who serve" denotes the follower or disciples of the Buddha, who are not monastics. As an assembling or in mixed groups called parisa (gathering)

Ideal: The not monastic part of persons of the Noble Sangha, the fourfold assembling: Monks, Nuns, lay men, lay woman, who have already attained one of the stages of "saintliness" (eight persons, divided in path and fruit attaining)

More maybe here Upāsaka and Upāsikā on Wiki, although Atma knows well that wiki is a very not so trustworthy place or out of conflicts rather blank in regard of issues which are often wrong introduced from mainstream Buddhisms. Topics that supports or touch the ego.

A list of famous Laypeople found in the Canon:

AN 1.248 Chaṭṭhavaggo - male
AN 1.258 Sattamavaggo - female

For whom are certain teachings?

There is no such as "Dhamma for this and that kind of person" outwardly things, but of cause there have been teachings given to Laypeople and teachings given to Monastics and teachings given to other ascetics ...
So its always good to keep in mind the persons and the circumstance of certain talks. In matters of ideal, every teachings is of use and Dhamma for everyone nut not always of use if a person is bound to certain things. Useful source in regard of how to read the suttas: Befriending the Suttas, by Upasaka J. Bullitt:

  As you read a sutta, keep in mind that you are eavesdropping on the
  Buddha as he teaches someone else. Unlike many of the Buddha's
  contemporaries from other spiritual traditions, who would often adhere
  to a fixed doctrine when answering every question [AN 10.93], the
  Buddha tailored his teachings to meet the particular needs of his
  audience. It is therefore important to develop a sensitivity to the
  context of a sutta, to see in what ways the circumstances of the
  Buddha's audience may be similar to your own, so you can gauge how
  best to apply the Buddha's words to your own life situation.

  As you read, it can be helpful to keep certain questions circulating
  gently in the back of your mind, both to help you understand the
  context of the sutta and to help you tune in to the different levels
  of teaching that are often going on at once. These questions aren't
  meant to make you into a Buddhist literary scholar; they're simply
  meant to help each sutta come alive for you.

  To whom are the teachings directed?
  Are they addressed to a monk [SN 35.85], nun [AN 4.159], or lay follower [AN 7.49]? Are they addressed to one group of people, while someone else within earshot actually takes the teaching to heart [SN 35.197]? Is the audience a large assembly [MN 118] or an individual [AN 4.184]? Or are the listeners followers of another religion altogether [MN 57]? What is the depth of their understanding? If the audience consists of stream-enterers striving for arahantship, the teachings presented may be considerably more advanced than if the audience has only a limited grasp of the Buddha's teachings [AN 3.65]. These questions can help you assess how appropriate a particular teaching is for you...(and many more good advises)

And the Dhamma is timeless akāliko

  Sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko |
  to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come & see

As for the label(s) "Lay Dhamma", Lay-Buddhismus, Secular Buddhimus... such is a modern appearance which mostly rejects the necessary of the Sangha (monastic disciples) and believes on the maintaining of the Buddha Dhamma without the need and use of the Holy Life. Its a kind of Buddhism 2.0 and the main introduced way in modern and western countries where actually no real Sangha exists or have been established.

Becoming a lay person

With the refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma and the Sangha (of the Monks), people became and become lay followers. Although its usual suggested and more that good to take on the 5 precepts, it's not necessary to be called a Lay follower (Buddhist Layperson). Traditionally such a requesting/taking of refuge and precepts requesting/taking is made by asking Monks or Nuns who would recite and also explain the certain texts. If not available, one could also consulate a knowledgeable and virtuous lay person or do it for one self (how ever, it goes deeper and drives one more if made in the traditional way)

See also the stages of being a Lay-Buddhist: Mahanama Sutta: Being a Lay Buddhist

The practice of lay people:

The practice of laypeople is usually:
 - Giving or Generosity (Dāna): material giving, and meritorious deeds Transference of merit, and Rejoicing in other’s merit.
 - Moral conduct or Virtue (Sīla): Virtue, incl. the meritorious deeds Reverence, and Service.
 - Meditation or mental Development (Bhāvana): incl. the meritorious deeds Expounding (discussing) the Dhamma and Listening to the Dhamma.

All this deeds are supportive or include the main task: Correcting one’s view.

If one changes the way of live to somebody who lives from the alms of the country, then Dana - the material giving - is no more necessary (even not possible, since one has given up all unnecessary and does no more amass material possession) if practicing seriously and straight forward.

Vinaya for Laypeople

There is a Sutta where the Buddha taught a young man about the use of his ritual traditions he uses to perform. In this Sutta the Buddha described the good behavior, moral and duty of a lay person: Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala

What can be attained on this path?

Actually all path and fruits can be attained on this path, even to the highest attaining, Arahatship (AN 6.119-139). How ever, if one reaches the highest level, one is no more able to live and maintain an more or less normal live and would seek for the way of the Holy Live, homelessness. If such can not be attained, the Canon reports that people will leave there last body with a week.

Overview
Anagarika Isi Dhamma (before Monk) gives a nice and easy understandable explaining in general in his The laity practice

  Who is a lay person?

  Finally, among the people who adhere to the dhamma, all those who are
  not bhikkhus, or sāmaṇeras, or nuns are laity. We can divide lay
  people into three categories:

  There are some laity who, although approving Buddha's word, only dedicate their life a little, or not at all, to the practice of the
  dhamma. They like to claim that they are Buddhists, but do little else
  than run after pleasures and engage in business activities; if they
  observe one or two precepts, it is only because it is easy for them;
  they don't want to dedicate any effort to the rest. Even though they
  claim to be inclined to meditation, they convince themselves that they
  never have any time to practice it.
  There are also lay people who try to dedicate more time and effort to follow a way suitable to the development of knowledge (of reality).
  They more or less observe the five precepts (sometimes the eight),
  they like everything that concerns the dhamma aesthetically
  (monuments, statues, ceremonies), they readily spend time reciting
  texts dealing with Buddha's teaching, watching the quality of their
  actions, regularly making donations, attending meditation sessions,
  and sometimes, taking ordination for a short period.
  Finally, there are laity who, within their possibilities, try their best to progress quickly and effectively on the path to the cessation
  of suffering. These ones very regularly train in being generous, in
  being vigilant and in applying full mindfulness. Their observance of
  the five precepts, if not eight, is scrupulous. Some of them even
  intend to lead a monastic life permanently.

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


Is change permanent? I find this an interesting question. When we say things are impermanent, we often say that it is because they constantly undergo change. But in that, do we make the assumption that change will always be around and therefore that it's permanent? Could there be a place where change never occurs? Has this kind of question been pondered in Buddhist texts at all? The possibility of change never occurring?

Change is permanent.

The Laws of Nature (Dhamma) are permanent.

The unchanging Nibbana (Nirvana) is also permanent.

Buddhism explains only conditioned things (sankhara) are impermanent; thus conditioned impermanent things are permanently impermanent.

The Dhamma (Natural Truth) is permanent (but not-self).

This is standard Buddhism, as follows:

  "All conditioned (sankhara) things are impermanent".
  "All conditioned things (sankhara) are unsatisfactory".
  "All things (dhamma) are not-self".

  Dhammapada


Finding a Vipassana Teacher in a pandemic I have been having questions from time to time about my practise. I do the cushion practise once a day in the morning for half an hour and try to follow the five precepts through the day.
A lot of times through the day I have questions that make me feel like I need to discuss this with someone who is more experienced than I am.
How does one "find a teacher" that can help me customise path & methods for a better practise?
I live in a city called Bombay, in India.
Any help and/or insight appreciated.
PS: I have had the privilege of learning through a 10-day SN Goenka Vipassana Retreat once. :)
-With Love & Chai.

Ven. Yuttadhammo, who was formerly a moderator of Buddhism.SE, heads the Sirimangalo International Meditation Centre in Ontario, Canada. He was a student of Ven. Ajaan Tong Sirimangalo.
He teaches vipassana meditation, which is very beneficial.
You can find his meditation e-books online:

How to Meditate
How to Meditate II

The "How to Meditate" e-book is based on meditation lessons taught by Ven. Yuttadhammo, which can be found in this YouTube video playlist.
Sirimangalo International Meditation Centre has an online at-home meditation course:

At-Home Meditation Course
For those seeking to undertake a Meditation course at home, please
visit this link https://meditation.sirimangalo.org/course (you may
need to sign up and log in).
You will need access to headphones and a microphone. Further
instructions on how to book an appointment and connect for your
session/appointment are given on the page with the link above. Our
at-home meditation students meet weekly with a teacher. Completion
time for the course varies.
We recommend to read the booklet by Venerable Yuttadhammo on which our
meditation practice is based. It can be found here
http://htm.sirimangalo.org.

And it also has the online Meditation+ program - through which you can ask questions directly to Ven. Yuttadhammo himself:

Meditation+
We call our online meditation group Meditation+ and it is located at
http://meditation.sirimangalo.org.
Here you can join together with other meditators in our tradition to
log in your meditation time and help yourself to establish a regular
practice . You can also communicate with fellow meditators through a
live chat function. Meditation+ can be used on any computer or device
as it is a mobile friendly site.
The site feature the following:

a list of all meditation sessions in progress
a live chat with emoticons
a log of total minutes of the site’s meditation by hour of day for the past month
a list of commitments that can be undertaken by members and tracked for fulfillment
a page to submit questions which Venerable Yuttadhammo answers on the Wednesday night Q & A session on YouTube

For especially dedicated meditators, there is even the opportunity to
meet weekly with Venerable Yuttadhammo via Google Hangouts for private
meditation instruction. (See Schedule tab at Meditation+.) Please
note, booking a weekly appointment must be done from a computer or
other large screen device to display properly.
We invite you to join us.