Substrate consciousness and Rigpa I think both substrate and rigpa are not a state - they pervade into states.

Substrate consciousness pervades on waking state and dreaming state - so in the substrate consciousness we can have lucid dream, where we are aware that we are dreaming (or substrate consciousness is aware that we are dreaming).

Rigpa pervades sleep state (without dream) as well as waking state and dreaming state - so rigpa can be aware of rigpa when we are in deep sleep. In other words, something is awake when we are in deep sleep because rigpa is aware of rigpa.

Is my understanding correct?

I need to elaborate my questions.

Rigpa is different from what is achieved from Zen or other non-dual traditions such as Vedanta or Shavism, and Rigpa can be achieved when we go one step further from being aware of being aware.

In Vedanta, Turiya can be recognized when being aware of being aware, and something(not a state) pervaded into wake, dream and deep sleep state, so in Turiya we can dream with recognizing the dream(lucid dream), when we are fully settled in Turiya. But "when we go one step further," only thing I can presume is that something can be recognized when being in deep sleep. So it could be called Rigpa, as Rigpa is aware of Rigpa when in deep sleep.

What I am trying to say is not criticizing his teaching; I respect his teachings. Also the explanation on Vedanta is just reference to describe the question, mostly coming from Ken Wilber's book - Vedanta is not the topic here. I just want to clarify my understanding on the teaching and what Rigpa is.

Please help me to understand.

It is about establishing three-dimensional model of the mind. Such models differ between schools. For example, Theravada or Yogacara have many more dimensions to it described.

First dimension is the ordinary mind (psyche), it is equivalent of chitta. It is the dualistic mind responsible for Self-personality grasping. This part is also your base of imagination, rational thinking, intellectualisation. This dimension is switched off when we sleep or are in the coma, or dying.

Second dimension is substrate consciousness that is equivalent of alayavijnana which is storehouse consciousness in Yogacara school, or in Theravada, this corresponds to bhavanga. Storehouse consciousness is essentially your subconsciousness - it always processes information no matter what. It also stores everything, biologically (from your father), and experientially (past actions). Relation with chitta is that chitta allows you to transform and store good or bad seeds back into the storehouse that will one day blossom and re-manifest in psyche again. It is the relative vacuum of consciousness.

Lastly, bare awareness, primordial awareness that is Rigpa. It is equivalent to experiences of Buddha nature or wisdom of Dharmadhatu, or Dharmakaya, also Tathata or even Jhana. Rigpa is based on intuition (jnana as opposed to prajna) coming from touch with suchness. This is seeing things as they are. There are many terms that describe it. For Dzogchen practitioners, the whole singular experience of it is best seen as last remnant after two other layers dissolve at the time of death - the clear light. It is the absolute vacuum of consciousness.

Each one of these layers goes deeper and such is the relation between them, each one emerges from the lower layer. Concepts arise from being in touch with suchness and so on.

Alan Wallace's commentary on Vajra Essence:

  For clarification let’s refer to the three-tiered model of the mind
  presented earlier. The first and most superficial level is the psyche,
  in which thoughts, fantasies, images, and so forth appear. If you sit
  quietly and watch your mind, the phenomena you observe manifest in
  your psyche. We access the second level, the substrate consciousness,
  in deep sleep, the blackout period of death, and in the practice of
  shamatha. During shamatha meditation the phenomena observed do not
  necessarily emanate solely from the psyche, which is encapsulated
  within this lifetime. Having accessed the substrate consciousness,
  there is the potential for tapping into memories from past lifetimes, phenomena entangled within a vast network of experiences. These may appear in the form of dreams, visions, desires, or fears whose origin is not to be found in this lifetime. In the case of fear, for example, the anxiety may be very real, yet its origin may be a past-life experience. Such fear is an expression of imprints stored in the substrate consciousness.

  Then, having broken through to the third tier of the mind—primordial
  consciousness—what emerges, the phenomena that appear, are not
  manifestations of mind and mental processes. From this deeper vantage
  point, such manifestations and mental processes, which comprise the
  psyche, are surface phenomena. For the same reason it would also be
  misleading to depict these primordial experiences as manifestations of
  the substrate consciousness. Appearances originating in primordial
  consciousness are the spontaneous, natural effulgence of pristine
  awareness. Being neither the mind nor mental processes, “these
  appearances are by nature the play of the manifest space of
  awareness”—dharmadhatu.

  (...)

  For example, if you truly fathom the
  nature of anger as it arises—even something as slight as a mild
  irritation—it is seen to be nothing other than an expression of
  pristine awareness. Of course we don’t normally do that. We grasp on
  to anger, reify it, and then act out within the sphere of the psyche
  and of ordinary appearances, in which case anger is an afflictive
  emotion. Therefore, if you fathom the nature of the mental
  processes—the eight kinds of consciousness—it is seen that they have
  never been anything other than expressions of primordial
  consciousness. However, not fathoming their nature, they are then seen
  either as expressions of the substrate consciousness or expressions of
  the psyche, indicating that you are locked within samsara.

You can clearly see there is nothing special that cannot be experienced outside Dzogchen and that same experience is also spoken of in Mahayana in great detail.


Did the Buddha form a monastery? According to Wikipedia's Buddhist monasticism article, the Buddha formed the first monastery. There is no source, 'though. To quote:

Buddhist Monasticism is one of the earliest surviving forms of organized monasticism in the history of religion.
The order of Buddhist monks and nuns was founded by Gautama Buddha during his lifetime over 2500 years ago.

Ok, so it doesn't specifically say 'monastery' here but still, an order of monks and nuns, some sort of precursor to a monastery at least.
According to History World's History of Monasticism:

Leading his followers into holiness a generation after Mahavira, Buddha also organizes them into communities.

Is this just "according to tradition" or is there historical evidence of him forming a monastery/order/community: such as archaeological findings or non-religious texts? If yes, is there's anything left of the original or has it all branched out?

The Buddha often taught in forest groves, the most famous being Isipatana (Deer park) where he delivered his first lecture (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta),

and Jetavana (Jeta Grove) (famously recorded in Buddhist epics as purchased by Anadapindika by paving the ground with gold) where there's still believed to be architectural remains of the Buddha's hut (Gandhakuti) from his stay there. Buddhist texts record that there were several imposing architectural structures constructed there, including an imposing arch, though almost none of it remains today.

  Some of the chief buildings attached to the Jetavana are mentioned in the books by special names, viz., Mahāgandhakuti, Kaverimandalamāla, Kosambakuti and Candanamāla. SNA.ii.403. Other buildings are also mentioned - e.g., the Ambalakotthaka-āsanasālā (J.ii.246). According to Tibetan sources the vihāra was built according to a plan sent by the devas of Tusita and contained sixty large halls and sixty small. The Dulva also gives details of the decorative scheme of the vihāra (Rockhill: op. cit.48 and n.2).

source: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/j/jetavana.htm

There's also Vulture's peak, frequently referred in the suttas as one of the Buddha's favoured places to retreat to.

Many of the other locations that are referenced in the suttas, or where ruins of buildings still exist feature prominently on buddhist pilgrimage routes.

In later periods very prominent Buddhist Viharas, or universities functioned for over a 1000 years at the same spots, namely at Taxila (present day Pakistan) and Nalanda (present day India). They housed at their peak thousands of monks and novices, living and training for years together.
Eminent personages such as Shantideva, the 8th-century Indian Buddhist monk and scholar emerged from these universities.


Does practicing Brahmavihara to get insights leads to Nibbana? I read the books of Bhante Vimalaramsi that is using the practice of Brahmavihara to reach a state that is called Tranquil Aware Jhana and then to generate insights from the fourth rupa Jhana.

Has anyone of you practiced using this method and reached the Jhanas?
Has anyone gotten any insight?

In his site, Bhante Vimalaramsi says that this method is much better and faster than one pointed concentration to reach Jhanas. The Jhanas are less powerful and better manageable and getting attached to the joy of them is much more difficult.

Thank you, metta

It seems to be possible. Following elaborates on this.

  The “divine abodes” (brahma,vihāra) are so called because
  these are the qualities of the higher divine beings or brahmas. They are called “immeasurables”
  (appamāṇā, appamaññā) is another term for the divine abodes because the practice is only complete
  when we break down the barrier or duality of self and other.

  These qualities are lovingkindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity. When they are
  practised to dhyanic levels, they are known as “liberation of mind” (ceto,vimutti), or more fully, the
  liberation of mind by the immeasurable (or the immeasurable liberation of mind) (appamāṇā
  ceto,vimutti)

  ...

  The first three divine abodes—that is, the liberation of mind by lovingkindness, by compassion and
  by appreciative joy—can attain only up to the level of the third dhyana. Only the liberation of mind by
  equanimity can reach the fourth dhyana.

  From the Metta,sahagata Sutta (S 46.54), a few interesting details are worth nothing. The liberation
  of mind by lovingkindness (mettā ceto,vimutti) has “beauty” (subha) as it highest limit. “Beauty”
  here refers to any of the form dhyana (rūpa jhāna), while the term “beauty element, or beautiful element”
  (subha,dhātu), refers to both the dhyana and its object, namely, a dhyana arisen on the basis of lovingkindness
  (Pm 2:39).

  The Attha,sālinī, the Commentary on the Dhamma,saṅgaṇī, however, takes “the beautiful” here as
  referring to dhyana attainment through a colour device (kasiṇa) that is fully purified (DhsA 191). As
  Analayo notes, this gloss goes against the teachings of the Paṭisambhidā,magga (2009: 146 f).

  The liberation of mind by compassion (karuṇā ceto,vimutti) has the base of boundless space (ākāsâ-
  nañc’āyatana) is its highest limit. That is to say, dhyana attained by the liberation of mind through the cultivation of compassion can be used to attain to the first formless base or formless attainment (arūpa
  samāpatti).

  The liberation of mind by appreciative joy (muditā ceto,vimutti) has the base of boundless
  consciousness (viññāṇ’añc’āyatana) as its highest point, that is, it can be the springboard to attain the
  second formless attainment

  The liberation of mind by equanimity (upekkhā ceto,vimutti) has the base of nothingness (akiñcaññâ-
  yatana) as it highest base, that is, it can be a basis for focus leading up to the third formless attainment

  With such an attainment at its best, the practitioner will be able to attain non-return, but not arhathood,
  because he has yet to abandon all his remaining defilements. An important aspect of this practice
  is to remind ourselves that all such states are mind-made, and as such are impermanent and liable to ceasing.

Source: Introduction to Mettā Bhāvanā Sutta by Piya Tan

  The practice of Loving-Kindness Meditation can lead you directly to the experience of Nibbāna if you follow all of the Brahma Viharas: that is the practice of Loving- Kindness, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy and Equanimity. This is mentioned many times in the suttas (the original discourses of the Buddha). Many times other teachers will say that this practice alone doesn't directly lead the meditator to the experience of Nibbāna. And this is true. But, when Loving-Kindness Meditation is practiced as part of the Brahma Viharas then it will take the meditator to the fourth Jhāna or meditation level. This is where the Lord Buddha tried to have all of the students who practiced meditation get to. The fourth meditation level is where the meditator experiences deep states of equanimity.

  According to the suttas, there are three different paths that can be taken once the meditator reaches this level. They can take one directly to the experience of Nibbāna. We will not go into more detail at this time, because it may cause some confusion. But if you are interested, in having more information please start reading suttas like sutta 62 The Maharchulovada Sutta in the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Or you can read sutta 27 The Culahatthipadopama Sutta in the same book. I sincerely hope that these meditation instructions are helpful to you and that by practicing in this way you will benefit greatly and lead a truly happy and healthy life.

Source: "A Practical Bare-Bones guide to Metta Meditation" by Bhante Vimalaramsi


Mala in Zen Practice What is the common use (if any) for mala beads in Zen practice. Also, is there any special etiquette involved, or other considerations?

They are essentially counting aid for concentration, you basically count them as you chant say "Amitabha", the Heart Sutra or any mantra, for example 108 times. For the technologically minded, it can be even substitute with an electronic counter.


Modernity and black magic can coexist? 1. In Buddhism, does black magic, magic spell exist? If it is, what's our belief system should be when we are taught to treat all with loving kindness?
Often Black magic is not only concerned with negative, evil, demons, or bad things. Black magic spells and amulets can also be used for good, protection and as many other uses as there are human needs and desires.
Thailand being the predominately a Buddhist country, but this tends to be mixed with older animistic beliefs and some of them also have a strong belief in powerful supernatural entities.
Thailand is indeed one of the top tourist spot but some people also avoid going due to the fear of all these.
I for one, love Thailand a lot and been there many times but often curious about all this and at times confused.
I have read somewhere, some of the the top Monks in Thailand are that spiritually powerful to perform all these.
2. Supposingly all these exist, what's the odd of being the target apart from jealousy?Supposingly if you are very much enlightened and practice meditation vigorously, does this make you any less of being the target?
As some of the victims can be severely disturbed emotionally and in some cases it might even lead to death.

In Buddhism, does black magic, magic spell exist?
I believe so... the Buddha seems to recognize some pretty powerful black magic, e.g.:

“What do you think, householder? Suppose some recluse or brahmin came here possessed of supernormal power and attained to mastery of mind, and he spoke thus: ‘I will reduce this town of Nāḷandā to ashes with one mental act of hate.’ What do you think, householder, would such a recluse or brahmin be able to do that?”
“Venerable sir, such a recluse or brahmin possessed of supernormal power and attained to mastery of mind would be able to reduce ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or even fifty Nāḷandās to ashes with one mental act of hate, so what does a single trivial Nāḷandā count for?”
-- MN 56 (Bodhi, trans)

If it is, what's our belief system should be when we are taught to treat all with loving kindness?
I don't believe this changes our imperative to treat all with loving kindness...

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.
-- MN 21 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

2. Supposingly all these exist, what's the odd of being the target apart from jealousy?
I don't think this question is relevant to our site.

Supposingly if you are very much enlightened and practice meditation vigorously, does this make you any less of being the target?
Maybe... to some extent enlightenment protects one from harm, but mostly it protects one from reacting to harm and therefore causing further retribution. The stories of Angulimala and Mogallana both exemplify this idea.


Which specific process determines where consciousness will alight? As the title indicates, I don't know how the mind "picks" which sensation to focus on. Considering the huge amount of sense-data being received by the mind each moment, which condition directs consciousness to alight in a specific range of the whole set of sense-data?

I've read that kamma influences where will the "seed" of consciousness grow. But what does this mean, exactly?

In some sources, I've read that "past" namarupa gives to consciousness the content to be known in the present, which allows contact to arise. If that's the case, can we say that where we've placed our attention (as a factor of nama in namarupa) in the past determines where will consciousness will alight in each moment?

EDIT: Some may argue that the intensity of an stimulus might be the main factor in determining where will condition alight. But what will happen when multiple sense-objects have a similar "strength", or when such "strength" is not objectively defined? For instance, what happens when someone is listening to some music? A singer attention might "fall" on the qualities of the singer's voice in the song; a bassist may auomatically pay attention to the bass and the technique behind the player; and a "casual" listener might just hear and pay attention to the overall song.

In sum, I'm asking about the processes that might "filter" the whole range of sense-data input to be processed in the mind, and that determine which portion of that amount of information might be felt as a vedana.

Thanks in advance for your time.

Kind regards!

Here seems to be the answer, according to the following sutta:
SN 12,38 - Cetanā Sutta

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
“If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
“But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no production of future renewed existence. When there is no production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

Also, in AN 3,77 - Dutiyabhava Sutta

"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The intention & aspiration of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future."

Thanks to everyone for your answers so far. I'd appreciate any other answer!
Kind regards!


How does Karma work for an inventor who changed lives of millions? Consider an inventor who has nothing to do with spirituality but her innovation helped change lives of millions. Her innovation helps people even after her death. Further, innovations can be used for evil as well.

The Buddhist version of karma may not be the same as the version of karma in other Indian religions.

It's not a system of cosmic justice. If you invented something to help millions of people, you would not get more rewards compared to someone who helped just 10 people.

In Buddhism, karma is about cause and effect, due to intention and volition (see this page). It's about one's state of mind and its expressions in actions and words. It's not about the impact made on the world or on others.

This means that one who has unintentionally helped others, but out of originally evil intentions in mind, he would experience negative karmic results.

On the other hand, if one had good intentions, but his actions inadvertently harmed others, he would still experience positive karmic results.

It's all about intentions.

From the Dhammapada:

  Verse 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they
  have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts
  with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the
  hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

  Verse 124: If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle
  poison; poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no
  evil for one who has no evil intention.

From the Nibbedhika Sutta:

  "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect.


Should detachment, and letting go, be an appropriate response when you are owed money? I'm trying to adhere to buddhist principles in my life wherever I can. I understand that it's really the best approach in just about every situation you can find yourself in.

However, right now I'm owed a not insubstantial amount of money from one of my clients who is refusing to take my phone calls, or answer emails to discuss the matter.

Honestly, it burns me up inside and when I think about having to deal with it I feel angry and resentful which I know is not a good way to live.

From my understanding I should really just let go of the matter completely, and calmly wait for the universe to resolve this for me, one way or another. If I receive the money, then all is well, and if I don't receive the money, all is still well.

From a Buddhist perspective, at what point should I give up and move on?

Imagine a monkey came to your house and grabbed something of value and climbed a tree. You tell the monkey "please give it back to me! Be a good monkey!". But it doesn't respond. What would your plan of action be? Start cursing and hating the monkey? No! You would try to lure the monkey with a banana or something. If that's not successful, you might call a wild life officer. You have to use your wisdom instead of getting all emotional. And if you still can't get it back, you don't wish for the universe to resolve it. ex: Wishing for the monkey to be struck by lightning. :) You just let it go and credit it towards experience or a lesson learnt and see what you can do to prevent the same from happening in the future.


What does it mean to find a teacher? I have seen people beeing adviced to find a teacher countless time.
I am interessed in the practicalities of finding a teacher, since I live in France and I have never met any buddhist in my entire life.
I assume in other countries where buddhism is more widespread things are a lot different. Please excuse the naivety of my question.
What is a teacher ?
Is it the kind of person who owns of diploma or certification and teaches for a living, like one whould teach maths, history or biology in high school ?
So finding a teacher would be like attenting a class ?
Or is it more like finding a mentor, somebody who is more exerienced and who whould guide you along the path, like a friend.
Perhaps it is a mixture of both, a person who provides advices for a living by having face to face chats with it's pupils.
I can imagine the concept beeing more abstract. A teacher can be a book, or a community on the internet.
Knowing that, where do I need to go in order to find teachers ?
Are there places buddhist like to meet, like churchs for christians ? People often mention retreats or retreat centers, what are they ?
Do I need to travel to India or Tibet ? Judging from what I've heard, it seems like a must.
Please note that I am not intersted about the question of finding the right teacher, for now I just want to find teachers.

When I say, "find a teacher" I just mean, don't rely on your understanding of books alone. Go to an actual resident Buddhist master of any denomination, like a teaching Theravada bhikkhu or a Zen Master or a Tibetan Buddhism Master (Rinpoche). They usually reside at a temple (or a private residence turned into a temple) and have little sanghas formed around them. Talk to them, hang around them, and validate your insights against theirs. More often than not they got enough realization to at least check where you are obviously mistaken and point out the blind spots.

Sometimes they do lecture, like actual teachers, or do Q&A - and at other times they build personal connections with students and become mentors. Expectedly, the depth varies.

As for diploma, a good rule of thumb is to prefer someone within a tradition, who can point out their lineage, to someone who is merely self-proclaimed (with rare exceptions). They usually have some paraphernalia and entourage, e.g. my Zen master had a scroll on the wall listing his entire lineage of teachers all the way back to the Buddha, not to mention that he had converted a barn into an actual traditional meditation hall in Korean Seon tradition.

Of course being a part of tradition does not always mean the teacher is good and has complete realization. You can never know for sure, until you are a teacher yourself - but a good rule of thumb is to see if they can cut through masks and bullshit and gently touch the student's heart.

If you search www.buddhanet.info you should be able to find someone in your locality; I see a Vajrayana temple in Ardennes.

Finally, if you don't have anyone nearby, or anyone you like and can connect with, at least find a more senior fellow practitioner that can provide some guidance and support.


What is the concept of "Ego" or "self "? What is the concept of "Ego" or "self "?
In buddhism there's concept called no self.Does is mean there's no "me" at all or does it mean that "me" cannot understood with out " you ".

The Buddhist concept is not no self but non self or not self. What this means is there nothing that can be taken as self. There is no permanent unchanging core or soul, there is nothing which you command and control absolutely, there is nothing that an external agency (e.g. God) commands and controls.

Identity view is considering your 5 Aggregates as self, i.e., you consider your body and / or mind as self. In which case if you consider after cutting your hair that this hair is me or a part of me on the floor. The toilet pit is full of me because it was in me at some point. Likewise you should not consider past memories, experiences, thoughts or even your own body as me or mine, because there is no me or mine in the constituting parts, there is no control in any of the parts, each constituent is governed by its own universal law and process which you cannot control.


How does one get closer to Buddha? Buddha being one of the three jewels, how am I supposed to take refuge in him?
Is it through meditation? The only meditation I know is 'mindfulness', and I think that it isn't enough. That being so so, how do I reach out for him?

In the Vakkali Sutta – SN 22.87 Supreme Buddha said:

  He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

The Buddha is rightly described as a teacher par excellence. He attempts only two things: (a) make you think and (b) gradually train you in an orderly way to lead onwards to realize immediately this truth [sandittiko, opanaiyko]. The truth and meaning of Dhamma becomes a private experience by the wise only when there is INSIGHT or vipassana. But insight (vipassana) depends on samadhi or CONCENTRATION. And concentration (samadhi) depends on Sammaditthi or RIGHT VIEW.

To make Dhamma easy is a travesty. Always learn to ask: Why is the Buddha saying this and not that?
Some statements that you do not understand right now, you must put aside, till you have understood thoroughly the fundaments. Later, when you detect the structural principle of the arising and cessation of dukkha, and the principles of paticcasamuppada, in the entirety of the teaching, then you would find the answers all your questions.  Let us first know the Noble Qualities of the Dhamma, as one who  truly seeing Dhamma, one sees Buddha.

The Teaching of the Buddha also has six supreme qualities:

Svâkkhato  ~ Perfectly explained and taught with great compassion
Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed"). The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom),

Sanditthiko  ~  The benefit of the Dhamma can be seen in this lifetime, Here and Now
Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dhamma can be tested by practice and therefore he who follows it will see the result by himself through his own experience in this very lifetime.

Akâliko   ~ The timeless truth that is immediately effective
Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "immediate") The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.

Ehi-passiko ~  Inviting any wise person to come and see
Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" -- from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test by applying it to their own lives and seeing its effects.

Opanâyiko ~  Each person must practice the teachings and realize their value within one's own experience
Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.

Paccattam veditabbo viññuhiti. ~  To be realized by the wise, each for himself.
Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be personally known by the wise"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Ariyas) who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.

To get closer to Buddha, you will have to know His nine supreme qualities. You will find a detailed description of these nine supreme qualities HERE.

In going for refuge, when we say, "Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.; Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi." (i.e. "I go for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) it is important that we know of the Supreme Qualities of the Three Jewels: so we have to have a good knowledge of the Ariya Sangha too. You will find a detailed description of the supreme qualities of the Sangha HERE.


Was Gautama Buddha a believer of the religious beliefs prevalent in his time and in his cultural context? Before Siddhartha Gautama became The Omniscient Buddha, did he believe in, support and uphold the religious beliefs that the commoners and/or learned persons practiced at the time that he lived?

Or alternatively, did he question the established religious beliefs of his time, and in his culture?

In other words, did Siddhartha Gautama arrive at his Enlightenment by BELIEVING in prevailing religious mythology and principles, or did he arrive at his Enlightenment by QUESTIONING, EXAMINING and REJECTING them?

There's no belief for a Buddha. A Buddha is omniscient. He knows what is right and what is wrong by direct knowledge.

Yes, the Buddha did uphold certain religious practices of the time which are congenial to the path.

ex: The five precepts, 13 Dutangas, attainment of the Janas

He also rejected many false views which the contemporary religions were based on. They are grouped into 62 in Brahmajāla sutta.


Source: direct literary origin of "three things a Buddha can not do"? Householder "?? English research institute" quoted:

  The three things a buddha can't do (如來 三不能 Buddha's three incapacities)
  1.不能免 定業衆生 He cannot destroy bad karma for anyone.
  2.不能度 無緣衆生 He cannot save the people unrelated to him.
  3.不能盡 衆生界 He cannot save the whole world of all living things

rightly answering here.

For the increase of faith and as possibility to make merits in such (as well as asked by ChrisW in a comment):

Where can this statement be found literary in the basked of the heritage of the Buddhas teachings?

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

So far as I can tell these "three" are attributed to a Chan monk named Yuangui 元珪 (date 644 through 716).

An example story to illustrate  the first ("can't destroy karma") is his being unable to stop a king destroying the Sakyamuni clan.

I think the second means "can't save people who refuse to relate with him". The example story is of an old woman who disliked him when she saw him. He used his supernatural ability to miraculously show her everything, and she disliked that too. But she liked or had an affinity for Ananda when she saw Ananda, and so learned from Ananda instead.

The third is explained as something like, the people are (at least in part) saved or not saved through their own effort (their own understanding etc.).


Moderation of sensual pleasures? In SN 56.11 we find a famous passage:

  “Bhikkhus, these two extremes should not be followed by one who has gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.

Laity frequently interprets the above as moderation of sensual pleasures, even though the above passage seems to refer to monks (those "gone forth into homelessness").

Are there suttas where the Buddha or his disciples teach specifically laity on the subject of sensual pleasures (e.g. to be in anyway cautious about them)?

Also, a minor curiosity: how the above passage is interpreted by the Theravada tradition, since the suttas clearly teach the abandonment of sensual pleasures for those who become monks/nuns.

If there were such a sutta then maybe AN 8.54 would have been a good place to put it. It begins,

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One,

"We are lay people enjoying sensuality; living crowded with spouses & children; using Kasi fabrics & sandalwood; wearing garlands, scents, & creams; handling gold & silver. May the Blessed One teach the Dhamma for those like us, for our happiness & well-being in this life, for our happiness & well-being in lives to come."

But that sutta only warns against debauchery in sex, drink, gambling, and evil companionship; and against improper or immoderate use of wealth; and not against sensual pleasures per se. Also the warning is that these are "drains on one's store of wealth".
Conversely it also doesn't recommend sensual pursuits as being "qualities that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life" (instead it recommends good work, good friendship, etc.).

The more famous DN 31 is a little more wide-ranging -- it warns against frequenting "theatrical shows":

"There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in frequenting theatrical shows. He is ever thinking:
(i) where is there dancing?
(ii) where is there singing?
(iii) where is there music?
(iv) where is there recitation?
(v) where is there playing with cymbals?
(vi) where is there pot-blowing?


Suitability of Meditation Types I return to this site after a long absence due to various causes.

My current question is whether some meditations are more suited to certain contexts than others, for example:

Would mindfulness of breathing be as easy as other meditations on public transport?
Would mindfulness of sight be more appropriate in such a context?
Is mindfulness of breathing suitable to walking, or is it preferable to practice mindfulness of stepping and so on?

I am mainly asking this because my formal meditation is almost impossible, as I live at home and noises are continuously occurring. I'm specifically talking about television noises, or discussions, which in addition to being loud also distract from my practice. Thus, I search for other situations to meditate in, like transport and walking.

Would mindfulness of breathing be as easy as other meditations on public transport?

Mindfulness with breathing is most suitable for public transport.

  Would mindfulness of sight be more appropriate in such a context?

Both should be practised. When there is nothing necessary to look at, practise anapanasati. When there is something necessary to look at, have mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact.

  Is mindfulness of breathing suitable to walking, or is it preferable to practice mindfulness of stepping and so on?

Mindfulness with breathing is suitable to formal walking, i.e., when walking back & forth on a defined path or when walking on a clear path/road (with no obstacles to trip on). However, it requires skill to practise it.

  I am mainly asking this because my formal meditation is almost impossible, as I live at home and noises are continuously occurring.
  I'm specifically talking about television noises, or discussions,
  which in addition to being loud also distract from my practice.

You should still try to practise anapanasati at home (although it is difficult to do with eyes closed in the presence of others but can be done with eyes open).


Why difference in karmic effect to same evil deed? According to the Lonaphala Sutta, a minor evil deed done by a spiritual novice would take him to hell, while the same minor evil deed done by the spiritually advanced would be barely experienced.

In the sutta, the Buddha gives more analogies like the salt crystal in a cup of water vs the river, the poor thief vs. the rich thief etc. which definitely work as analogies.

But then could anyone explain why is it really like that? How to make sense of it?

  "There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain
  individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same
  sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the
  here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.

  "Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell.

  "Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment.

The answer lies in the mind, i.e. to what degree has the mind been cultivated and purified.

The more cultivated and purified a mind is, the lesser the chance is that one will continue to make unwholesome deeds or increase suffering for oneself. Ones mind is simply more inclined towards Nibbana.

If we look at the untrained mind or the novice mind, then that mind is not cultivated or developed, meaning that the defilements are much more present here. Wisdom is absent or present in a much lesser degree, than in the trained mind.

An untrained mind is more likely to dwell in e.g. anger, sadness, happiness and other emotions, thereby enforcing them, like in the snowball-effect. The untrained mind will also in a larger degree identify with and take ownership of phenomena, thinking that there is a self or an experiencing entity, thereby creating further suffering for oneself.

The trained and cultivated mind has attained a lot more wisdom, making it capable of seeing reality as it is, without superimposing qualities onto it. The trained mind will not run after pleasant objects and away from unpleasant objects. It has seen the true nature of conditioned existence, i.e. the 3 marks of existence.

So if an individual with a cultivated and purified mind commits an unwholesome deed, then that individual will realize it much faster and be able to "damage-control" by reciting the precepts, use the unwholesome phenomena that has arisen e.g. mental formations or feelings to cultivate insight, go and commit wholesome deeds, increase the work on the paramitas and other options. In other words, the individual with a trained mind is much more capable of dealing with mistakes and turn them into insights. Also this person has a greater storage of wholesome kamma that will neutralize or lessen the effects of the unwholesome kamma that has been created.

This is different for the individual with the untrained or novice mind, since that person does not yet have the right tools to deal with the effects of unwholesome deeds. His faculties are not yet matured and he might be more liable to dwell, identify, take ownership, react and run away from these effects, thereby increasing the suffering (going to hell) for himself.

Lastly, I want to point out that only a fully enlightened Buddha can understand the workings of kamma. So there might be many more reasons for this difference between an experienced and an inexperienced individual, that non-Buddhas cannot yet understand.

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


After Enlightenment - 7 Weeks (Sath Sathiya) As we all have heard the Buddha spent 7 weeks after his enlightenment in different places and engaging in different activities.

But in the Mahavagga Pali (the first half) in Vinaya Pitakaya states that the Buddha only spent 4 weeks after enlightenment. And after that week only the Sahampati Brhama invited him to teach Dhamma to the world. (In the 7 weeks tradition this happened in the 7th week)

1st Week  - Under the Bodhi tree

2nd Week  - Under the Ajhapal Nuga(Goatherds’Banyan tree) tree

3rd Week  - Under the Midhella tree (The Mucalinda story)

4th Week  - Under the Kiripalu tree (The Tapssu Balluka story)

Also in the Sutra Pitakaya I found the following sutras as well.

These sutras talks about the first week.
Ud1.1
Ud1.2
Ud1.3

This sutra talks about the second week.
Ud1.4

This sutra talks about the third week
Ud2.1

4th week is anyways stated in the Mahavagga Pali.

But in the Pujawaliya written by Ven. Mayurapada Parivenadhipathi Buddhaputhra suggests that the Buddha spent 7 weeks after the enlightnment in different places and engaging in different activities. Sath Sathiya - 7 Weeks

If Vinaya Pitakaya is the one that is to be accepted (Vinaya and Dhamma are the Teachers after me - Buddha) then did the Pujawaliya writer exaggerate the 4 weeks into 7 weeks? Even in that book i didn't find any references to the Tripitakaya (Pali Canon) as well.

There was a possibility that Buddha stayed in Uruvela forest more than four(4) weeks. It was mentioned in Mahavagga Pali, section 6, end of paragraph 10 but it did not specify exactly 3 weeks more or places of additional weeks. The last line of that paragraph here

did mention Buddha stayed more than four(4) weeks probably made the best timing for five foremost monks for first discourse.

If found about this more details in any sutta, I'll update here.


Characteristics of Sotàpanna person (Stream Enterer) What are the characteristics of Sotàpanna person (Stream Enterer). Can Sotàpanna person live at a home with a family (married life) without going to a monastery and stay without being a monk...

The Pali Canon definition of a stream entrant is one who have abandoned the first three fetters namely

Self View
Skeptical Doubt
Clinging to rites and rituals

(There are 10 fetters, all of which must be broken before enlightenment)

So quoting from the Alagaddupama Sutta

  Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain,
  open, explicit and free of patchwork, those monks who have abandoned
  three fetters, are all stream-enterers, no more liable to downfall,
  assured, and headed for full Enlightenment.

Perhaps more helpfully it's been described to me as the point at which a someone cannot fall back on the path. Forward is the only direction they will go. It is like reaching escape velocity. Until you get out of the gravity well of samsara there is always the possibly of falling back to Earth. The stream entrant no longer feels that gravitational pull so will not fall back (apologies to Newton for the analogy).

More poetically reaching stream entry has been been described as the turning about in the deepest seat of consciousness.

Regarding family life and being a stream entrant - there is no obligation to join a monastery or be a bhikku or monk. There are apparently 3000 lay stream entrants named in the Pali Canon. Sangharakshita, the founder of the Buddhist group that I belong to says that stream entry is a realistic aim for anyone seriously engaged in the spiritual life irrespective of lifestyle. Not to say that it wouldn't take a great deal of commitment of course.


Where does the Dalai Lama say '... be a better whatever you already are'? One of my favourite Buddhist quotes is from the 14th Dalai Lama

  Don’t try to use what you learn from buddhism to be a buddhist; use it
  to be a better whatever-you-already-are.

Amazing. But does anyone know the wider context of this quote. When did he say it and what was the talk i.e. can someone get a fuller transcript of the teaching?

Many Thanks

I think I found a reference to the source and it sounds more accurate. This is from Amazing Grace by Kathleen Norris -- it is relating an Inter-Faith dialog some years before the writing of her book in 1999 and here is the quote.

A report asked the Dalai Lama what he would say to Americans who want to become Buddhists,
"Don't bother" he said, Learn from Buddhism if that is good for you. But do it as Christians, a Jew or whatever you are. And be a good friend to us.

The quote was cleaned up by someone a long time ago and now though the sense is the same the quote is wrong.  It should not have quotation marks.
And "whatever you are" is in the next paragraph.


Invalid logic pertaining to karma in sutta AN 5.129? WARNING: I don't hold the views put forward in Section B (by "the views put forward in Section B" I mean everything in Section B besides the sutta itself.) of this question anymore and I think that the views should not be held by anyone because of them being dangerous. It's dangerous to believe there are no bad consequences for one for doing some intentional bad(e.g. violent) action/s. It's much safer to believe there are severely bad consequences for one for doing any intentional bad(e.g. violent) action/s. I now believe that every intentional bad(e.g violent) action that one does does have bad consequences for one.

Section B:

This has been perturbing me for a while.

--I have noticed what looks like invalid logic in this sutta  https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.129.than.html

(
note 1: this is the conclusion I come to if I look at kamma and the the-fruit-of-kamma (vipaka) logically, if it isn't true then it seems kamma and the-fruit-of-kamma (vipaka) operates illogically or "randomly" or in an unknown way???

note 2: The paragraph below also only seems applicable if the event is onesided i.e an "innocent victim" is involved
)

Seemingly the aggressors are supposedly in hell for their actions but weren't their actions (the aggressors) only because of their victims kamma from past lives (now their current fruit-of-kamma (vipaka)) and therefore the aggressors actions (the victims fruit-of-kamma (vipaka)) were seemingly unavoidable, so why would the aggressors be in hell?

The way my first teacher explained karma, it works like a matching machine, it just puts the "victim" in the situation when the odds of encountering a certain kind of people are increased. It's like, the victim's bad karma makes them more vulnerable to corresponding problems.

But the actions of the "aggressor" are their own choice plus their own past karma. They are not caused by the "victim's" karma.

It's just like opening the windows in the night can make you a victim of mosquitoes. It's not that your act of opening the windows literally makes mosquitoes come and bite you. It just makes it possible for them to find you, but their actions are their own - they act driven by their hunger, survival instinct and so on.

Just so you understand, because it's easy to get this wrong. Karma is not some magical force unknown to science, it's just a hidden (latent) effect of the previous actions. It seems magical because its complexity (the number of connections in the spanning graphs of effects) exceeds our capacity. But if you look at any specific example, it will always have very objective, very rational forces at play.


From the perspective of Theravada, can a Mahayana follower attain Nibbana? And how about followers of other non-Theravadin Buddhisms? Why? If they cannot, what is the last stage of enlightenment that they are able to achieve?

Please refer to sources in your answers.

There aren't any texts within the Theravada school that talk about what happens to practitioners of other schools. The closest reference I can find in it is in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, which says;

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

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

  "Yes, lord," Subhadda answered, and the Blessed One said, "In any
  doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no
  contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order
  [stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner, or arahant] is found. But
  in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found,
  contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are
  found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine &
  discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first...
  second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of
  knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this
  world will not be empty of arahants."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html

Which I think indicates that as long as the Noble Eightfold Path is present, you can expect to find enlightened beings.

There is an additional issue of what happens with a person who makes a Bodhisattva vow. According to the Theravada school, a Bodhisattva must complete three great eons of practicing the ten Paramis in order to attain Buddhahood, but attaining stream entry, the first stage of enlightenment would cause that person to pass into parinibbana within seven lifetimes. As a result, a Bodhisattva will not attain stream entry or higher until the time when they are almost finished. If a Bodhisattva engages in vipassana meditation before that point, then they will be able to progress to Anulomanyana, the knowledge in which one sees the four noble truths, but the force of their Bodhisattva vow will stop them from going any further and accidentally attaining stream entry. This information is found in the commentary on the Majjhima Nikaya and is referenced in one of the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's footnote on MN81 which says:

  "MA notes that bodhisattas (or bodhisattvas in Sanskrit) go forth
  under the Buddhas to purify their virtue, learn the Buddha's
  teachings, practise the meditative life, and develop insight up to
  conformity knowledge (anulomanana). But they do not make effort to
  attain the paths and fruits (which would terminate their bodhisatta
  career)."


What is laughing wisdom and swift wisdom? From SN 55.24, I found the terms "laughing wisdom" and "swift wisdom". What do they mean?

  They have laughing wisdom and swift wisdom, and are endowed with
  freedom.
  hāsapañño javanapañño vimuttiyā ca samannāgato.

Footnotes 50 and 51 from Piya Tan's analysis of SN 55.24:

  Of joyous wisdom,” hāsa,pañña, alt tr “of laughing wisdom” (from hasa, “laughter, mirth, joy”). “Here one
  with much joy [laughter], mirth, contentment and gladness perfects the virtues: this is joyous wisdom” (Pm 21.17/
  2:199 f). Comys mention hāsa,paā (joyous wisdom), javana,paā (quick wisdom) [see foll n], tikkha,paā
  (sharp wisdom, which cuts off all defilements) and nibbedhika,paā (penetrating wisdom, by which one maintains
  dispassion toward all formations) (DA 3:391-393, 4:84-86; MA 4:84; SA 1:120-123, 2:85 f; AA 2:85; ThaA 3:106 f;
  NmA 1:231 f; cf PmA 3:640 on hasa,paā)
  “Of quick wisdom,” javana,pañña. This refers to one who quickly understands that the 5 aggregates are all impermanent, suffering and non-self (Pm 21.18/2:200). See prev n.

"Pm" is the Patisambhidā Magga.


Do Buddhists talk about insides? Buddhists talk about abstract and concrete things, particulars, parts and wholes, etc., and Theravada Buddhism is often I think thought of in terms of an analysis of parts, breaking things down into smaller components and the Buddhist 'dharma'.

But do they talk about "insides" at all?

I'm asking because surely everything with a beginning has an inside, but death, which must occur and so begin, can't have an inside in at least some senses, at least supposing that there is no after-life.

I think you must be thinking of 'middle'. Things have beginnings, middles, and ends. And yes the suttas are filled with discussions of all three.

"It was not until I had thoroughly understood the six senses, the origin of the six senses, the satisfaction of the six senses, the problem with the six senses, the end of the six senses, and the way to the end of the six senses, that I knew of myself that I had attained the highest attaining."

Buddhism also discusses 'inside' vs. 'outside' or 'internal' vs. 'external' which is more easily understood as 'personal' vs. 'impersonal'; subjective versus objective.


Is it wrong to be a "people pleaser"? What is wrong with pleasing others? To what level should we care about others, and what should we avoid?

This is an important topic.

  AN4.95:1.1: “Mendicants, these four people are found in the world.  What four?

There are those who practice to benefit neither themselves nor others. It creates no benefit. Let's skip that one.

And one can practice to benefit oneself. Or one can practice to benefit others. However...

  AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Notice also that there is an important difference between pleasing others and practicing for their benefit. For example, a drug addict would be pleased to receive free drugs, but it would not be to their benefit. Let us all practice to benefit others as well as ourselves.


Is being entertained always considered a negative thing? I was surprised by the answers to the question Are actions in computer games bad for karma?
Specifically, @BuddHo's answer which takes on the question

Why must entertainment be eschewed?

I thought it was a great answer that clearly explained how being entertained could be a means of escape - to get away from being bored and relying on outside influences to create happiness.
However, I had some questions I had left in the comments, but thought I should perhaps expand them into a new question here.

I am still struggling with your explanation for "Why must entertainment be eschewed?" Is not any action we take, even mentally, technically a source of entertainment - even practicing mindfulness?
I think its the definition that causes me to struggle. "Entertainment is the distractive cure for fear masked as boredom" - I consider boredom and entertainment to be opposites, but that definition suggests otherwise. If one was doing nothing, yet was fine (not bored) - I would consider that as being entertained. If it is not one or the other, what is it when one is not bored, and not being entertained?

Is being entertained always considered a negative thing?

There are wholesome actions that are not caused by boredom.

Any action arising out of compassion (karuna), loving kindness (maithri), sympathetic joy (mudita), equanimity (upeksha) is not born of boredom. (See: Bramhaviharas)

Being resident in the rupa jhanas (absorptions of form), and even deriving joy from them is not considered unwholesome, because it leads to insight.

When one enters a state of abhaya (fearlessness) one notices a total cessation of boredom. The mind is very content to stay idle, and do nothing. It isn't searching for peace in someone or something, it finds peace within itself.

The mind thus stilled doesn't engage in thoughtless action, such as humming a tune, or thinking about the past or future, or making idle gestures with the limbs and so on.

A mind thus stilled has no need for sensory entertainment, and will find it an idle and wasteful use of energy.

Dreams and intellectual or ambitious ideation can occupy one's mind too, but it is unwholesome, and could be viewed as forms of entertainment.

Hence my statement - "Entertainment is the distractive cure for fear masked as boredom"

There are several ways to describe enlightenment [SN 35.204] - one can describe it as a lack of need for external entertainment, but there are other descriptions. I'll offer one more here.

Enlightenment as an energy conservation model of the central nervous system.

All actions are born out of some root emotion, even so called neutral actions.

Let's examine some principal emotions in ascending order of fuel efficiency.

At the least fuel efficient and even dangerous end, there are anger and fear.

Anger - this is perhaps the most energetic of emotions, but also the least fuel efficient - it offers a sudden burst of energy but can deplete one's vital energy reserve (some systems call it qi or prana) rather quickly.

As an example, notice that in boxing matches, and 100m sprints, the athletes typically produce a lot of energy through anger and bravado, and one even notices this in their pre-game interviews. However they cannot sustain this energy for very long, and grow tired quickly, thus these events are short and furious. At the opposite end, marathon runners are generally mild mannered and don't carry the same kind of hatred towards the opponent - an angry and furious marathoner will find it hard to even complete the event.

Fear is similar to anger, and anger is in fact derived from fear, but it doesn't end when energy runs out. One can be too tired to be angry, but one is never too tired to be afraid, and this leads to depression where the sufferer totally lacks any energy. An angry person who grows tired will sustain that anger as fear.

At the most efficient end there are the peaceful emotions of compassion, loving kindness, sympathetic joy and equanimity. One can sustain compassion for a long while (even indefinitely) provided one doesn't let other emotions like despair eat into the energy body.

There is a psychological concept of compassion fatigue, but this isn't pure compassion, it is compassion tinged with fear. The fear depletes energy reserves and even compassion becomes impossible. This is why there are records of field surgeons in WW2 committing suicide after saving hundreds of lives.

Thus enlightenment is about having maximum energy in the CNS through the wise use of highly efficient emotional states.

The unenlightened who are unwise in their use of emotions will need the use of CNS stimulants to sustain their energy levels. Caffeine is the most common, anti-depressants and pharma drugs are in the middle, and at the extreme end there are psychotropics like Cocaine and other drugs.

Entertainment is a CNS stimulant like coffee. Some people wake up to dance music to feel happy, or dull their emotional pain with death metal.

To one who has control over their emotions, and already conserves the vital energy of prana or qi, all entertainment is frivolous, because it messes with what is already perfect.

Enlightenment can thus be also viewed as a lack of need for CNS stimulants, including entertainment.

In Buddhism, anything that doesn't lead to enlightenment must be eschewed.


Details on what may be given as alms Am very new to the Theravada Buddhist practices and would like to know specific items that could be given as alms. My understanding is that a monk cannot cook for himself from items given and further is not able to ask for specific items. This makes it difficult.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

It is important to consider the monk or nun does not eat after noon (12pm) therefore what you offer them must sustain or nourish them for the rest of the day.

Also, it depends on whether you visit them or they visit your home.

I offer a full meal of the food I personally prepare for myself, which is brown rice, lots of vegetables & protein (fish, boiled egg, tofu or combination). Plus some fruit.

If my home is visited (in passing), I spoon the food straight from my storage containers into their bowl (which, for me, is the cooking pots). The important thing is to not make a fuss about the offering because a monk or nun must be easy to look after.

I spoon the rice into the bowl, until I am asked to stop. Then the curry, until asked to stop. Then offer some fruits, which I place on the top of bowel or offer on a tray, so the person can take it (without hand contact).

If the ordained is of the opposite sex, you should avoid hand to hand contact but place things in & on the top of the bowl, on a tray or on a table.

You can also ask if they need any body soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, washing detergent, insect repellent, sunscreen, band-aids or other small personal items for personal hygiene & health.

You can offer tea or juice but generally they have water. Small long-life juice may be good they can keep for the afternoon (although some monks & nuns say fruit juice not allowed after 12pm).


Direct Experience of Meditation This morning I read many posts on this site. I felt like topics on Buddhist doctrine were somewhat clear to me, but those on meditation seemed complex, difficult to me.

I wondered: Does meditation practice increase knowledge about meditation? Is this what is meant by direct experience?

I feel this may seem as a naive question; I'm mainly wondering how something experienced (i.e. meditation) might affect cognition / knowledge about the topic of meditation.

For example, I'm unsure whether a person hammering nails all day would necessarily understand their task conceptually. Does meditation necessarily give one conceptual knowledge of meditation?

One possible answer is that meditation relies both on the theoretical understanding on what's going on, but also the direct experience. They are mutually dependent as far as i can see.

A mere theoretical understanding of meditation will not take us very far in the progress, just like meditation without a theoretical description of the phenomena involved probably won't take us far either.


Why do you have sadness in the first Jhana? Why do you have sadness in the first Jhana?

It appears you still have the sadness in first Jhana.
What sort of sadness it is?
The Vitakka and Vicara in First Jhana are wholesome. That is loving kindness thoughts and renunciation thoughts which cannot be leading to sadness.

======

While a mendicant is meditating—diligent, keen, and resolute—the faculty of sadness arises. They understand: ‘The faculty of sadness has arisen in me. And that has a foundation, a source, a condition, and a reason. It’s not possible for the faculty of sadness to arise without a foundation, a source, a condition, or a reason.’ They understand the faculty of sadness, its origin, its cessation, and where that faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. And where does that faculty of sadness that’s arisen cease without anything left over? It’s when, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and confidence, and unified mind, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. That’s where the faculty of sadness that’s arisen ceases without anything left over. They’re called a mendicant who understands the cessation of the faculty of sadness, and who applies their mind to that end.

https://suttacentral.net/sn48.40/en/sujato

This is an interesting question, because the first jhana explicitly involves seclusion from the five hindrances, one of which relates to domanassa (translated in your quotation as "sadness"). According to the abhidhamma, domanassa can only arise in anger-based minds, which one might think would be totally absent in the first jhana. The commentary to SN 48.40 blames vitakka and vicaara explicitly for the potential arising of domanassa:

  nānāvajjaneyeva ca dutiyajjhānupacāre pahīnassa domanassindriyassa yasmā etaṃ vitakkavicārapaccayepi kāyakilamathe cittupaghāte ca sati uppajjati, vitakkavicārābhāve neva uppajjati.

My Pali is rusty, but this passage basically means that the bodily distress and mental harm which would arise based on vitakka and vicaara do not arise with the non-existence of vitakka and vicaara.

This gives some insight into the nature of vitakka and vicaara as per the texts; they allow for some instability by which the mind still engages in perceptions leading to domanassa, even though the mind is otherwise fixed and focused on a single object (ekaggata).


Noises in Meditation How detrimental are noises in meditation? I don't live alone and the people I live with often watch TV or make noise in other ways. Should I seek somewhere peaceful to meditate or is there a way to deal with the noise otherwise?

Noise is not necessarily a bad thing; some people choose to meditate with their eyes open, it allows them to enter a meditative state without relying on reduced vision. People also do walking meditation where there is a lot more touch involved and this can be a help in bringing meditation into daily living.

Of course there are still a lot of people who seek out quiet places where they can sit still with their eyes closed. You have to find what's right for you.

The trick to dealing with distractions is to not see the distraction as a problem, don't become averse to the distraction because the only real problem is your reaction to the distraction.


Does the aim of enlightenment equal the aspiration of the end of all life? In my understanding suffering -- craving and aversion and all which it results in -- exists in living beings to help sustain procreation, evolution, and life. Can the ideal of all beings attaining liberation, enlightenment, and thereby ending existence, then, be equated with the aspiration of the end of all life?

It certainly seems that the cravings & aversions that result in suffering are also the instinctual or underlying tendencies ('anusaya') that exist in living beings to help sustain procreation, evolution and physical life. This seems to be why the biological life of both animals & people involve the struggle for survival, the merciless devouring of the weak, wars & emotional heartbreaks, such as mothers mourning for their lost sons, children & family members killed in war.

It may seem like a contradiction but the Buddhist way of life has its foundation in harmlessness & thus the preservation of life. Where as the biological evolutionary life that includes cravings & aversions (but which also must include love & social co-operation), as already mentioned, often demonstrates a scant respect for life.

For example, in fables for children that later appeared in cultural Buddhism, there is the story of the Buddha in a past life deliberately & compassionately feeding his body to a starving tigress (female tiger) that had just given birth to offspring. The female tigress devoured the Buddha-To-Be without a thought. This shows how the craving tigress cared less for (another) life than the cravingless Buddha-To-Be.

Therefore, the idea of attaining liberation & enlightenment cannot be equated with the aspiration to end life because the sole goal of Buddhist practise is to improve life by ending both mental suffering & animalistic cruelty. Buddhism is about spiritual/wisdom evolution rather than biological evolution.

What is called 'liberation' in Buddhism means 'liberation from suffering' (rather than liberation from life). To quote:

  This unshakeable deliverance (liberation) of mind is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood and its final end (culmination). Simile of the Heartwood

To quote again:

  I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who
  leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the
  extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not
  proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly
  misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama
  is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction,
  the extermination of an existing being.’

  Monks, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering. MN 22

To quote again:

  How can a fool gain gain the human ('humane') state...when there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous
  conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity...where there
  prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak...when they have not seen the Four Noble Truths...leading to the cessation of suffering. SN 56.47

In fact, enlightenment is equal to a higher or better way of "life", which is why, as shown in the first quote above, it is called "this holy life". Dhammapada verse 21 clarifies this:

  21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already.

This is why a synonym for enlightenment is 'The Deathless'.

  The destruction of lust, hatred and delusion: this is called the final goal of the holy life. SN 45.20

  The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion: this is called the unconditioned. SN 42.1

  The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion: this is called the deathless. SN 45.7

To quote again from MN 140 about the Deathless:

  By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die;
  he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in
  him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not
  ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being
  shaken, why should he yearn?

To conclude,  the ideal of attaining liberation & enlightenment cannot be equated with the aspiration to end life.

As for the ideal of all beings attaining liberation (which would probably end human life but not all life), this is only found in Mahayana Buddhism and did not exist in the original Pali Buddhism, as shown in the Uttiya Sutta. From the very beginning, the Buddha never believed all beings could reach enlightenment.

  Out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes
  and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull,
  those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and
  those hard, some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.
  MN 26


What are the attitudes of the schools to the experience of physical pain during sitting meditation? Both the Theravada and the Zen traditions appear to regard pain, even extreme physical pain, as a necessary part of sitting, whereas Ngakpa Chogyam in Journey into Vastness, speaking for the Dzogchen point of view, seems to imply that pain is an indication that one is not sitting properly and that there are ways of sitting that do not produce pain.

The only references to pain in the context of meditation in the Pali Canon appear to refer to the Buddha's six-year period of self-mortification, which he repudiated (correct me with a specific reference if I am mistaken). Therefore, I am interested in the attitude of different Buddhist schools to pain in the context of sitting and meditation. Is it a sign of poor sitting practice or is it part of the experience, perhaps even something important that should be cultivated (e.g., ancient shamans used pain to induce altered states of consciousness, an example being the famous Sun Dance in which in which practitioners hung themselves by the pectoral muscles from a post for several days).

What do the different Buddhist schools and traditions say about this?

Pain is obviously related to physical posture; obviously related to the mobility of an individual's body & joints. Therefore, some individuals without any samadhi (meditative development) can sit for long periods while other individuals (who might have better samadhi) cannot sit as long without experiencing pain.

For example, in the West, are often found slender naturally flexible women leading hatha yoga classes, who display no evidence of spiritual development (e.g., they are emotionally unbalanced, addicted to cigarettes, etc).

Imo, the above shows there is no relevance or correlation between physical posture/pain and meditative development. If it was otherwise, a naturally physically flexible person would either be advantaged or disadvantaged compared to another person.

When samadhi (concentration) is genuinely developed (absorption into breathing, jhana, etc), awareness of pain disappears from consciousness, even though the legs themselves may become very stiff & very painful. A samadhi practitioner may sit for a few hours without consciously experiencing pain then, after emerging from samadhi, will struggle to stand up & walk.

This is why I am not aware of any instructions in the Pali teachings about meditation & physical pain. In fact, the very essence of the Middle-Way is the development of jhana (with rapture, happiness & equanimity) which is contrary to those Theravada schools (Goenka; Mahasi, etc) that teach meditation on pain.

Since the ultimate purpose of Buddhist meditation is to develop a bliss (samatha) that liberates an individual from reliance on sensuality & then insight (vipassana) that liberates a individual from attachment, self-view & suffering, it is obvious meditation on pain is not directly relevant to the Buddhist path.

When I was young, I practised meditation very intensively and developed some capacity to be non-attached. Then at a later time, my body suffered an injury & a lengthy rehabilitation that was very painful at times. I required no additional training in non-attachment to deal with my injury & rehabilitation. The non-attachment developed in my painless meditation, when I was younger, was more than sufficient.

It may sound like a paradox but non-attachment & dispassion towards rapture (piti) is said by some to be much more effective at dealing with pain that direct meditation on pain itself. This is probably why the Buddha encouraged the development of non-attachment & egolessness (rather than meditation on pain itself).


Does any school seriously believe Maitreya might appear in my lifetime Say, the next 30 years?

The world is going to undergo great turmoil IMO, as technology outstrips not just need but the reality we live in.

Is there much or indeed any chance that Maitreya will appear to help humanity through these changes?

Well, things have to get really really bad and then it'll have to get really really good in order for Metteyya Buddha to appear:

"And the sons of these sons will come to live eighty years; their sons to 160 years; their sons to 320 years; their sons to 640 years; their sons to 2,000 years; their sons to 4,000 years; their sons to 8,000 years; their sons to 20,000 years; their sons to 40,000 years; and the sons of those that lived 40,000 years will come to live 80,000 years.
Among humans living 80,000 years, brethren, maidens are marriageable at 500 years of age.
Among such humans there will be only three kinds of disease—appetite, non-assimilation and old age."
At that period, brethren, there will arise in the world an Exalted One named Metteyya, Arahant, Fully Awakened, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher for gods and men, an, Exalted One, a Buddha, even as I am now. ~ DN 26 ~


How to actually do death contemplation? How to do death contemplation ?    it seems i really dont care about dying that much

how long can i do it ?  is there a formal technique to do it ? cause just thinking about it dosnt seem to have no effect at all

i do seem to care about others who die though but not on myself  - and even on others i care much more about them being ill and suffer than them dying

so any tips you have to add to make this more effective would be great

and just to make it clear  : i want to do this to get a sense of urgency so i will meditate more so i will get chanda

i do seem to care about others who die though but not on myself

But that's the whole point. So if you already don't mind dying (that's how i understand your statement), then maybe you're an arahant?
I of course am not familiar with your background, but whether you mind or not can be found out in the life and death situation, when contingency of dying is very real.  Good health and safe environment are not the conditions to help to realize one's own mortality. An event which has a potential of causing a profound shift in one's attitude towards death is a death of a close relative, and especially a sudden and unexpected one, because it hits very close to home and with great impact due to suddenness.

Contemplation of death for development of samvega is described in Maranasati suttas 1 & 2
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.019.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.020.than.html

And here's how actual practice of perception of death is described in a Gandhari Samyukta Agama Sanna sutra (Andrew Glass, Mark Allon, 'Four Gāndhārī Saṃyuktāgama Sūtras: Senior Kharoṣṭhī Fragment 5')

  What is the concentration connected with the perception of death? In
  regard to this, a monk who is at the root of a tree, or in an empty
  house, or in an open space… thinks “I will die, I will not live long,
  I will perish, I will die, I will disappear. It is the undistracted
  one-pointedness of mind of a person so positioned, which is called
  “the concentration connected with the perception of death.


Buddhism and theory of relativity “The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.” – Albert Einstein.

As per above quotes it give us some clues that Albert Einstein the greatest scientist of the century immensely influenced by Buddhism. When we study the theory of relativity seems to get root from Buddhism with the descriptions of time flow in six realms. Do anyone have descriptions "Theory of relativity" and are there any relationship with Buddhist teaching?

Do anyone have descriptions "Theory of relativity" and are there any relationship with Buddhist teaching?

Asking "what is the theory of relativity?" isn't on-topic on this site (which is about Buddhism and not, say, Physics). Someone could try to draw analogies between Relativity and Buddhism; and they may have some characteristics in common (e.g. they're both dharmas, both anatta); but IMO there's little or no relationship (except that someone can try to learn both and then try to relate them).

One possible relationship is the idea that a frame of reference isn't privileged -- i.e. things exist in relationship to other things (which reminds me of "Indra's net", and of "this/that conditionality").

When we study the theory of relativity seems to get root from Buddhism with the descriptions of time flow in six realms.

There is a phenomenon called relativistic time dilation: if I were one of those twins, it would seem to me that I age at whatever the normal rate is but my twin ages at a different rate.

I'm not sure that (i.e. I doubt that) is the same kind of "different time flows" that you might read about in Buddhism.

There's an idiom in English "time flies when you're having fun" (see e.g. this article). Possibly the "time flow" described in Buddhism is more like that, i.e. it's a description of subjective time flow.


Are there any descriptions of the deathless/unborn in any tradition of Buddhism? Most things that we read about in Buddhism describe aspects of the conditioned world: Three Marks of Existence, The Skandhas, The Hindrances, Defilements, and the practice to overcome these and gain insight into the true nature of reality and enter the unborn to gain final freedom from the cycle of birth and death.

I would like to read about the unborn: what it is, how/why conditioned existence comes into being (perhaps from the unborn?), etc.

I think this is one of the things which the Buddha left unanswered, but did he describe it indirectly perhaps? Are there descriptions in the sutras (from any school of Buddhism) about the unborn/deathless state?

I think that in the Pali suttas:

"The deathless" is a synonym for nibanna (see this answer).
Samsara is conditioned and has no construable beginning (which, I think, means 'perpetual' but 'without an original creator')
Nibanna is (in contrast) unconditioned

I don't think there is (I don't know of any) doctrine which explains how/why conditioned existence comes into being from the unborn.

There is a theory of dependent origination which explains how one thing leads to another, i.e. how samsara is perpetuated.

And I think that Buddhism is seen as a way to escape from (to be liberated from) samsara.

Speaking of Siva, I've noticed that akalika (timeless) is given as one of the attributes of Dharma. Kali is a (Hindu) goddess of Time, consort of Siva, and associated with (among other things) Destruction.

So, conversely, perhaps it makes sense that that which is akalika is associated with what's Deathless (and Unborn).

My understanding of it in conventional terms is that "Born" means that 'it' comes into existence as a result of conditions, and Death means that it stops existing in the same way (see e.g. this essay, Anicca Vata Sankhara by Bhikkhu Bodhi) -- and thus, 'it' is impermanent.

Conversely the Unborn and the Deathless is not impermanent.

In its description of the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra, The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism claims,

  Th nirvana of the arhat is said to be merely the absence of the afflictions (KLESA) but with no awareness of the buddhadhatu. The nirvana of the Buddha is instead eternal, pure, blissful, and endowed with self, a primordially existent reality that is only temporarily obscure by the klesa; when that nirvana and buddhadhattu are finally "recognised," buddhahood is then achieved. The Buddha reveals the existence of this nirvana to boddhisatvas.

Incidentally it also says,

  To assert there is no self is to misunderstand the true dhamma. The doctrine of emptiness (SUNYATA) this comes to mean the absence of that which is compounded, suffering, impermanent.

So if you're looking for doctrine about the "unborn" as something other than an absence of defilement, something with a self-existence, then you might want to be looking into later Buddhist doctrines, for example to do with Buddha-nature.

If you read the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra there's a lot of talk about Self, for example,

  Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or
  not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb,
  Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self
  has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements. That is why man
  cannot see it.

You're asking "what it is", which I think assumes that "it is": i.e. that there is an 'it', which is existent. That existent 'it' I suppose might be Buddha-nature (which I think the Pali sutta describe more as a non-it: not-born, not-dying, trackless, unconditioned, not suffering, etc.).

Even so I'm not sure that it's right to talk about the unborn as a creator or source of conditioned existence.

Apart from "Buddha-nature" there's another word from the later doctrine, Tathāgatagarbha,

  The Tathāgatagarbha sūtras are a group of Mahayana sutras that present the concept of the "womb" or "embryo" (garbha) of the tathāgata, the buddha.

Calling it "womb" implies that maybe it's a creator of something, but I think that what it's said to be creating is Buddhahood rather than creating conditioned existence:

  Every sentient being has the possibility to attain Buddhahood because of the tathāgatagarbha.

For example the Tathagata-garbha Sutra says,

  "Or, kulaputras, it is like a kernel of wheat that has not yet had its husk removed. Someone
  who is impoverished might foolishly disdain it, and consider it to be something that should
  be discarded. But when it is cleaned, the kernel can always be used. In like fashion, good
  sons, when I observe beings with my Buddha cakshur, I see that the husk of kleshas covers
  their limitless Tathagata vision. So with appropriate upayas I expound the Dharma, to enable
  them to remove those kleshas, purify their jnana paramita (tenth bodhisattva stage) and to
  attain in all worlds the anuttara-samyak-sambodhi."

... and,

  "Or, kulaputras, it is like the genuine gold that has fallen into a pit of waste and been
  submerged and not seen for years. The pure gold does not decay, yet no one knows that it is
  there. But suppose there came along someone with supernatural vision, who told people,
  'Within the impure waste there is a genuine gold trinket. You should get it out and do with it
  as you please.' Similarly, kulaputras, the impure waste is your innumerable klesha. The
  genuine gold trinket is your tathagatagarbha. For this reason, the Tathagata widely expounds
  the Dharma to enable all beings to destroy their kleshas, attain correct perfect enlightment
  and perform Buddha deeds."

In summary I don't know of a doctrine which says that the conditioned comes into existence because of the unborn.

If anything perhaps it's the reverse, e.g. there's the image of the (pure) lotus which grows out of the (impure) mud.

Even so, attaining the unborn might change the way in which you see conditioned existence.


In what ways have Buddhists responded to the apparent impossibility of saving all sentient beings? In what ways have Buddhists responded to the apparent impossibility of saving all sentient beings?

Do they claim that it isn't impossible, or only need be partially achieved, or that not all Buddha's took this vow, or what?

From the Mahayana viewpoint, the mind of enlightenment is the wish to achieve buddhahood in order to benefit all sentient beings. It is true we also often say "to set them in enlightenment" as well.

The omniscient mind of a buddha gives birth to the teachings of the buddha in that it causes him to teach us the Dharma. We say that the teachings of the buddha emanate from his omniscient mind (the wisdom truth body part of the dharmakaya). In a way, he teaches all of us but some do not have the ears to listen to him. This is merely an analogy. The meaning is that not all sentient beings have the karma to listen to the Buddha dharma but his enlightened deeds (in particular his teachings) pervade all sentient beings, just like the rays of the sun illuminate indiscriminately. However, the deeds of a buddha do not engage with all sentient beings, they are capable of doing so.

In his Commentary to Maitreya/Asanga's Great Vehicle Treatise on the Sublime Continuum (mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga) Gyaltsab Je says:

  These three can be illustrated: meditating on the path of utilizing
  the basic element results in the attainment of the dharmakaya of a
  perfect buddha whose enlightened deeds emanate and pervade to all
  sentient beings. These enlightened deeds of the dharmakaya are capable
  of engaging with sentient beings and exist exclusively for the mind
  streams of sentient beings. Because of this it is said that all
  sentient beings possess tathagata essence. This is similar in meaning
  to the Abhisamayalamkara when it says, "Because enlightened deeds are
  vast, it said that the buddha is all pervasive."

And

  Illustrating the teachings of conventional and ultimate truth with
  similes gives further explanation of the term "emanate" in the line,
  "The perfect buddha body emanates. " This is because "dharmakaya
  emanates" means "dharmakaya pervades," which in turn refers to being
  pervaded by enlightened deeds, and enlightened deeds engage with all
  sentient beings by way of the speech of the tathagatas teaching the
  dharma to various disciples. The capability of the enlightened deeds
  to engage with sentient beings is always present and this is the
  meaning of "pervaded by the dharmakaya.

Additionally, according to Mahayana tenets, the continuum of a buddha is not severed. His enlightened deeds will not stop as long as one being remains in samsara.


Is detachment all about not giving damn to peoples/things? Detachment,
  Everything is lust and mirage

What is the real purpose of life/birth? Aren't we suppose to love, care ?

The real purpose of life is to end suffering. Love is merely one method for preventing & ending certain types of suffering. Non-attachment is another method for preventing & ending other types of suffering.

For example, when a child is born, it is hungry & alone. This suffering of hunger & aloneness is to be ended by parents feeding & comforting the child.

When the child gets older, it suffers from boredom & restlessness, so it plays with toys & games to end the suffering of boredom & restlessness.

When the child becomes a teenager, it has the suffering of sexual urges & engages in sexual activity or gets married to end the suffering of sexual urges.

As an adult, this person has children & suffers when it sees the suffering of its children so the adult practises love & care towards its children to end its suffering & the children's suffering.

Later, the adult experiences the suffering of loss; such as loss of wealth, loss of status, loss of friends, loss of children, loss of spouse, loss of health, loss of life, etc.

To end the suffering of loss, the adult can seek more wealth, more children, more status, another spouse, have plastic surgery or believe in reincarnation or going to heaven with Jesus or God.

Otherwise, to end the suffering of loss or change, like the Buddha, the person can practise non-attachment & not-self, understanding all of the things that change & are lost never actually ever belonged to oneself or were 'oneself' in the 1st place.


Buddha referring to himself Why does in almost all instances in the pali canon where Lord Buddha refers to himself he calls himself "Tathagatha" in 3rd person? Is it because Lord Buddha has eliminated self view? Or is it that when a bodhisattva reaches buddhahood he becomes the same as all previous Buddhas? Or a combination of both?

Please see this question and the selected answer for it which is based on SN 1.25.

The Buddha sometimes referred to himself as "I" and this is not out of conceit or self view, but because he is simply using conventional language.

Why does he refer to himself in the third person as Tathagatha - "firmly established in reality"?

The way I see it, this is just like me talking about humans - "the human eats when he is hungry".  Similarly, the Buddha describes his nature as one who is firmly established in reality, by speaking of the Tathagata in the third person.


Are there things that one shouldn't be mindful of? Just to move on from this answer in the question Is practising mindfulness ever a bad idea?

Are there particular things that it is a bad idea to be mindful of? Are there thoughts, feelings, emotions etc.. that one would be better advised not to apply mindfulness to? What are they? Or can every aspect of human existence be included productively in mindfulness.

Yes there are. Being mindful of "signs" that turn the mind to anger (or lust etc.) is unwholesome. E.g. someone irritates you and you insist on attending (upaṭṭhāna) to that particular experience (a product of your mind!), instead of focusing on something more positive.

Mindfulness in and of itself is a neutral factor of feeding, the question is what you feed.


What is the exact meaning of catuparisa (catu-parisa)? The Buddha mentioned catuparisa (catu-parisa). What did he exactly meant with this word?

It's the fourfold assembly consisting of monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen.


How could one know that Nibbana is the cessation of consciousness if there is no consciousness? How could one know that Nibbana is the cessation of consciousness if there is no consciousness?
I can't see how one could know.

Nibbana is experienced when the mind (including consciousness) is free of defilements. So, there is no permanent cessation of consciousness for the living arahant, unless you mean the cessation of defiled consciousness.
This is also known as Nibbana element with residue left or Unbinding property with fuel remaining, from Iti 44. The residue or fuel remaining refers to the undefiled aggregates including consciousness.
Ven. Thanissaro's commentary on Iti 44:

With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining
(anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is
still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do
not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
here or anywhere else.

Or do you mean Nirodha Samapatti? In this state, the person entering Nirodha Samapatti would have temporary complete cessation of consciousness.

Nirodha Samapatti:
'attainment of extinction' (S. XIV, 11), also called
saññā-vedayita-nirodha, 'extinction of feeling and perception', is the
temporary suspension of all consciousness and mental activity,
following immediately upon the semi-conscious state called 'sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception' (s. jhāna, 8).