Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life I feel like this is a naive question, but I'm wondering what  is the difference between experiencing discomfort and distress in meditation versus in daily life outside of meditation. Do the same states generate different results in each case, depending on the co-arising factors?

EDIT: For example, suffering in daily life might undergo rumination and even being acted upon. In meditation, perhaps the same suffering will be diminished by the arising qualities from meditation, like equanimity or compassion. Is this the case?

Meditation mustn't be limited to the formal meditation which is just done in a limited time. If a person doesn't do anything to be mindful in daily life, even having temporary calm in the formal meditation session would be difficult for him/her. Also such a practise would not effect the person in daily life, so the person would continue to experience negative mind states(and the person would "be" the negative mind states completely) without being able to observe them clearly.

If a person does such a practise, the daiy life suffering would capture the person completely and would completely influence his/her actions. And the suffering that a person experiences in the formal meditation would be "potentially" diminished or temporarily go away(but this is not guaranteed) and replaced by temporary calm, peace, compassion, equanimity etc. But If a person succeeds to do it in the formal meditation it would not have a continous effect in the person's life because only practising mindfulness all day long can change the structure of the mind and can lead a person to Nibbana.

  Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.

https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-do-not-dwell-in-the-past-do-not-dream-of-the-future-concentrate-the-mind-on-the-present-moment-buddha-26637.jpg


What is meant by setting the "wheel" of Dharma in motion? Namo Buddhaya.

At many places in the texts it is said that the Buddha had set the wheel of dhamma in motion and that it can not be rolled back by anyone.
This sutta is devoted to the understanding of wheel of dhamma.

My questions are based on the above sutta(I am looking for the answer to the first question mainly but you can answer the rest if you want.) :

What is meant by setting the "wheel" of Dharma in motion? Why is it called a wheel?
In the sutta mentioned above following is said :

  But when my knowledge and vision of these Four Noble Truths as they
  really are in their three phases and twelve aspects was thoroughly
  purified in this way, then I claimed to have awakened

What are the three phases and twelve aspects of Dhamma?

In the same sutta mentioned above, Buddha says :

  “‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned’:
  thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me
  vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.

Why the noble Truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned ?
(I think craving needs to be abandoned and not the Truth)

You can read about the Dharma Wheel or Dharmachakra in the article "The Dharma Wheel (Dharmachakra) Symbol in Buddhism" by Barbara O'Brien.

In this article, it is stated that the Dharma Wheel is a chariot wheel and it is most commonly depicted as having eight spokes, representing the Noble Eightfold Path.

What happens when a chariot wheel is turned?

The chariot moves of course.

In this case, I suggest that it symbolizes that the chariot of humanity starts moving towards the end of suffering, towards Nibbana.


How is 'Chanda' (Intention) related to 'Tanha' (Desire)? How is 'Chanda' (Intention)  related to 'Tanha' (Desire)?
I often hear that Karma is determined by intention. I want to know how they are all related. What comes first? What gets abandoned in meditation and Nirvana?
I know of a YouTuber who claims to have gotten Nirvana, but he said after some time he had to train himself to purposefully generate an intention to talk and explain things to other people. So did he also have a prior desire to help other people? How this three work for Enlightened people and seekers?

Chanda is a reason for Tanha. Ignorance (Avidya) is the cause for Chanda means it's the cause for Tanha. Then Tanha causes to increases the Chanda's density towards something.
Nirvana is understanding Chanda towards something is a useless thing. As nothing in this world is going to satisfy the intention (Chanda) the living beings have. That's why no one can reach ultimate satisfaction. If someone reaches ultimate satisfaction there's nothing he/she needs to do further as he/she is already satisfied. The person who doesn't want anything (as he is ultimately satisfied) is the person who obtained Nirvana.
Someone who obtained Nirvana has limitless metta (loving / kindness) towards the living beans. Due to that reason, they may try to share the path to Nirvana with others.


How can I smile when existence itself is dukkha? I see many monks smiling ,which is a good thing, but logically speaking how can they smile when they know life is dukkha. Can you smile when you are watching somebody getting tortured ?

My question is : How can I smile when I know existence itself is dukkha ?

I see many monks smiling, which is a good thing, but logically speaking how can they smile when they know life is dukkha. Can you smile when you are watching somebody getting tortured ?

Think about this, when you see a toddler crying for a chocolate, do you smile or laugh or you get gloomy and sad about the fact that the child is not getting what it wants?

Monks are not smiling because there is 'dukkha', there are smiling even when there is 'dukkha'.

Hotei not just used to smile, he used to laugh.

How can I smile when I know existence itself is dukkha ?

Existence is dukkha is not a decree, it's a diagnosis, and you can smile that it's already been diagnosed, and there is a cure and many people have already gotten cured.


What is the proper way to foster generosity and gratitude? I can see how generosity and gratitude are important as means to foster right resolve. But what if someone do good things sometimes due a sense of obligation, but also cause much harm to you? For example, this mother. Given that our resources and gains are limited, it is not much better to support the virtuous one rather than the unvirtuous?

And in the case of supporting the unvirtuous and unwise, how this would not contradict others teachings like "do not associate with fools" and "give a gift in a proper time"? (a unwise person would surely use a material gift unwisely causing harm for himself/herself and others).

"Monks, these two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful for a kindness done and feels obligated to repay it. These two people are hard to find in the world." ...and more on lessons of gratitude

Danilo, your observations are totally right in regard one has already a broader view and the question is a good and useful one to understand things better. But & Because: Yet most people are not even able to fullfil their duties (break silas and do not take what is not give, or pay the price, hold to promises) and stay to contracts (virtue) in relation of sensuallity (material things and reverence). The next higher stage then is toward more selfless giving of material things. So even if most made in this way, it's useless to build a tower on a muddy baseless place and one needs to start where the mud is places, do the hard and "dirty", painful job, first.
Above the first gods (those giving birth, parents), if those are recognised, one can walk on to the higher goods, , those introducing, nurishing this the four needs (food, shelter, cloth, medicine), those teaching, leading to heaven and then even to liberation.
If the base is not done, e.g. not even obligation as reward of sensuality is recognices and duties payed off, if even parents are not put on the right scale, there is no way to ever develope that much freedom to be able to interact and receive on a higher scale. One makes nothing but more and more debts on this way, in all directions, even if feeling released by certain thought constructs.
It's maybe importand to understand that parents can aside of being the first gods be also the higherst. Some are that gifted, some even recognice it.
The issue of giving and the issue of duties (sila) which also may include giving is not that easy understood. Sometimes giving is a deal for expected gain, sometimes a required obligation for a relation (deal), sometime a payment for release seldom really generosity and it is gain and again worthy to note that the treasure of real generosity is only gained by a person of integrity, e.g. comes after perfection of silas.
Most not even managed in regard of giving at large plays all in the section of sila, starting from proper veneration to service and assistance.
What the proper places for generosity are, for all being, regardless of relation, nice or bad, is mentioned in timely giving and is of course always excelled by Noble Ones and those train for it.
It's very difficult to make western or better modern people basics (at least right view) understandable because they are not at all used to generosity, feelings of obligation, gratitude... but raised in a society, if good, where all has a to be payed marked price, and no, really no, neither at home, nor at school, good basic conducts are trained.
For defilements even a pleasure to here that giving to immoral people is not conductive, yet they would not include the own person when making their greedy excuses to deny even obligations.
May person once had a longer discussion with a typical western Buddhist and it might be of use, even the place itself there is not one to advice for a good. The topics discussion and links may explain certain basics and misunderstandings: Dana (Generosity, Charity)  "Abhidhamma in daily life "
To understand guṇā (best transated as "giver" or "benefactor") here are also some explaining. Usually translated as goodness or "people of goodness", it's meaning starts by the sense organs and is then used for goodness making real sense and beyound: guṇā គុណ - Gönner, Verbindubg/Band | benefactor, string/bound (just in German, if one like to translate, feel given)
It's impossible to walk a spiritual way if not having placed all benefactors on the right place in the heart at a matter that even most modern or western monks are not able to get fixed. At least it's underlying right view and becoming a person of integrity, either on faith, Dhamma or by entering the stream to get really ride of macchariya which only Noble ones, but right from the beginning are free from. If that and gratitude is still a problem, don't even think on Jhanas or any attainments: impossible.
Since those basic topics are merelt tabu and not welcome at all, leading even most to anger and aversion, the so called buddhist community in the west and modern world is merely just a wellness and trade branch and not really a source of real attainments at all, does not even have any basic positiv effects in normal live and sociaty which can be easy observed everywhere.
But back to a many helpful "classification" of worthyness in regard of people or relations, of course not really possible to distinguished in a very firm way, but merely an orientation and a source to think and reflect more about it:

A raw ranking based on it, in regard of worthy (general, can differ in cases aside of Noble Ones):

Ordinary beings

Ordinary people

Ordinary beings hungry, lacking existencial needs

Normal friends and wordily fellows

Normal elders

People of goodness:

Wordily teachers

Ones family and relatives

Ones first goods, parents

People keeping 5 precepts

People keeping 8 pr.

People keeping 10 precepts

Homeless 10 precepts

Samanera

Young Bhikkhu

Full Bhikkhu

Thera

Maha Thera

Ecxeled by innwardly qualities, case by case:

wordlings

Layperson following the training (still enjoys sensuality)

Recluse/monastic following the training (still enjoying sensual pleasure)

Layperson living the wholly life in full, following the Arahats

Recluse/monastic living the wholly live full, following the Arahats

Noble One 1. Path winner

Fruit Winner..2, 3, 4 Patg winner

Arahat

Buddha

In regard of Noble Ones, Recluse excels Lay person.

At least, not as a demand or just to belittle but as a matter of generosity and compassion, Danilo, so that you may have more ease and more doors to good places open in future, to train youself in good conduct, is actually not respectfull, not praisworthy and possible for the most cases a hard hindrance to ask indirect, without reverence and yes of course in certain equal manner. So for normal and strict holding on secure ways, Danilo might not only get any useful answer but also be known, like many, as someone with less virtues not at all worthy of gifts. But again, that is just for you and others grow, being aware that good conduct and proper behaviour is something unknown an utopistic in the modern and internet realms.
One might feel free to go into the topic even deeper or to train here, on a given and more proper place. At least most might be really wasted giving, as mentioned in the question, yet for those possible to get healed still.
How to foster generosity and gratitude?

Again and formost: association with people of integrity and generosity, gratefull people, people rejocing in deeds of giving and devotion, able to share merits and encourage to such and by avoiding places and people not used to, the usuall "cool" ones, like poison.

Rendering service and assistance in monasteries, for monks, for elders, teacher, virtuous. (e.g. practice Silas and pay obligations proper back or even without hope of reward)

Practice generosity where ever there is a possibility.

Learn to great, address, pay respect and good verbal and bodily conduct and use it everywhere, whether usual or not (it also helps to cut of "enemies" for prosperty)

Get used and train youself in all of the ten kinds of merit-making.

Stick to right view, even it goes against all grains and let it be adviser for your daily action rather to let your defilements make use of transcend right view while still living next a punch of fetters and a refrigerator.

He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

Once, again, right view is adopted by faith, certain vision or even clear seen and gained, generosity, after virtue and gratitude proper and right placed is no more a matter at all. At this point, not out of reason, one is incapable to do grave, even deliberated misconduct and behave improper.
May it be for release and ease, who ever might be capable to take, make use and understand.
And be carefull, it's not free and not without strings and one might be already hardly caught, with no chance to fall back any more!

Bahukārasuttaṃ

Has done much

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

Of course very useful and in same value Utopia: Opening the Door to the Dhamma: Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice
The orderline duties » sila » generosity ... from the gross to the fine, can btw. be also traced likewise, as tried to point out at the beginning, in the Mangala Sutta and at each level of fullfilment or able to renounce certain relation and it's benefits, debts are growing void and giving is step by step growing to real generosity and compassion. Once a state around the stanca 6. and 7 is reached, no more falling back will accur for one.
Anumodana!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


Annoyed by nasal congestion and hyper-salivation during meditation? I just attended a 10-day Vipassana retreat and during the whole retreat I was constantly annoyed by nasal congestion and hyper-salivation. For many years I've had a sort of chronic nasal congestion, whether it's summer or winter, it doesn't matter, I always have at least one stuffy nostril. I know I need to go to the doctor but I've been lazy all this time, but now I'll do it, I promise.

Anyways, it seems that in tandem with the nasal congestion I've also developed the automatic habit of "fighting" the nasal congestion by sucking/breathing the mucus in, producing saliva and then swallowing the saliva which kind of carries some of the mucus with it, thus producing a temporary feeling of relief from the nasal congestion. However, as I said the relief is partial and only temporary, because a few seconds later the feeling of nasal congestion comes back again, the urge to "fight" arises and the whole process repeats again. This almost subconscious process became blatantly obvious during the 10-day retreat where we were meditating 12 hours a day. It was super annoying. I was developing aversion towards it which totally defeats the purpose of Vipassana. So I tried to remain equanimous to my nasal congestion and hyper-salivation, but then I realized that even if I remain equanimous to the feeling of the air hitting the clogged nostril, the saliva production would not stop. The saliva would start accumulating quickly in my mouth, and eventually I would have no choice but to swallow it all. This was super annoying and many times I just gave up and started swallowing quickly and compulsively, hopelessly trying to get rid of the saliva, but then my mouth would keep producing saliva anyway. So one way or another I ended up fighting my nasal congestion and swallowing a lot of saliva, and felt like a weirdo making all these mouth noises during the group meditations, which probably annoyed my unfortunate fellow meditators in the room.

So it seems as if my brain has somehow learned to automatically produce saliva whenever I experience nasal congestion, which is pretty much all the time. It's as if I've developed a sort of OCD of fighiting my nasal congestion and producing and swallowing saliva, and I don't know how to get rid of it. After the 10-day retreat I still keep experiencing this, in fact I had experienced this problem even before the retreat too, it's just that the retreat allowed me to become extremely aware of it.

What can I do? Has anyone experienced something like this and managed to solve it?

Thank you very much in advance.

I was developing aversion towards it which totally defeats the purpose of Vipassana.

The purpose of Vipassana is to gain insight. Is there any way you can gain insight into the workings of your experience through your newfound aversion? You can observe any experience to gain insight into the truth, but looking into suffering is particularly helpful. Moments of suffering house so much delusion, they are information treasures!

Wishing your physical condition to go away is a manifestation of fundimental aversion. Next time you are meditating, I encourage you to ask yourself these questions.

What makes up your desire to have your condition go away?
How often is the desire/suffering being felt by you?
What physical and mental sensations occur that show you your desire is absolute/a need?
What part of you is your condition harming?

The beautiful thing about being dissatisfied is that although it is painful, it is an insight jumping in front of your face, ready to occur!

Best of luck to you and I hope you find what you are looking for!


Are those who haven't attained enlightenment 'psycho'? There's a difference between 'please' and 'kindly'. Kindly don't take it otherwise, this is a question again very much important to me to be answered. Thank you so much for the support till now.

My question is related to myself and my kind of personalities (practically I've observed) are available. This planet and life is full of endless possibilities. I observed that if I am following Buddhism and then I see others sleeping through that very time, then I call them (others) 'psycho', and if I don't then they (others) call me a psycho.

I precisely want to know (from the point of view of Buddhism):

Is it right to consider the term 'Psycho' or not?
Is it always required to make others understand about 'what you are up to'?

The commentary of Majjhima Nikaya ‘Papancasudani’ says that – “All worldly beings are deranged”, “Sabbe puthujjana ummataka”

So even if you get a green light by the contemporary mental health standards, you can still be called a psycho according to Buddhism as long as you are not enlightened. The level of insanity varies from person to person.


A thought-experiment about the importance of Buddhist traditions Suppose a leading Buddhist figure -- say a well-known Tibetan monk -- were to suddenly start displaying cultural behavior appropriate to other religious faiths. For instance, suppose this monk were to start performing namaz like a Muslim five times a day, and frequently make the sign-of-the-cross gesture during conversations.

Would this result in loss of rank, social standing and credibility in his own circles? Or would this cause others around him to start looking up to him? What's your opinion?

Are Buddhist cultural habits and traditional ways of dress, behavior, speech etc. important for making spiritual progress?

Would this result in loss of rank, social standing and credibility in his own circles? Or would this cause others around him to start looking up to him? What's your opinion?

It would undoubtedly result in loss of all of these. Particularly in the case of adopting the rites and rituals of a theistic religion. I'm trying to think of an example where this actually happened, but cannot. Nor can I find any examples on the internet. Lots of converts to Buddhism, very few high profile converts from Buddhism.

We might take the example of the conversion of the British academic Paul Williams from Tibetan Buddhism (back) to Catholicism. Williams is the notable author of a standard text on Mahāyāna Buddhism, which is now in a second edition and still used in many universities around the world. He had practised Buddhism in the Tibetan Gelug tradition.

This caused quite a stir when it happened, fanned by his writing a book and at least one article about the reasons for his conversion. Of course it did not affect his standing in academia which is based on his published works on Buddhism. Buddhist responses mostly seemed to be couched in polite terms, but to be quite dismissive of William's understanding of Buddhism. One comment which stood out from NewBuddhist.com was

  This exact topic was raised on another Buddhist forum and provoked more anger and rejection than almost any other, with the possible exception of vegetarianism, a topic which reduces some of those who value ahimsa to homicidal rage... In short Williams was seen as a turncoat, a traitor...a threat.

And remember that Williams was not a religious leader, simply a moderately prominent academic. If we were talking about a Buddhist leader apparently converting I think this would cause a great deal of upset.

The second part of your question is easier to answer

  Are Buddhist cultural habits and traditional ways of dress, behavior, speech etc. important for making spiritual progress?

The simple answer is "no". And the early Buddhists seem to have been aware of this. A number of Pāli texts admonish that a robe and a bald head do not make a bhikkhu. A bhikkhu is someone who exemplifies Buddhist virtues. See for example Dhammapada vs 264-266; e.g.

  na muṇḍakena samaṇo, abbato alikaṃ bhaṇaṃ.
  icchālobhasamāpanno, samaṇo kiṃ bhavissati. | Dhp 264|

  He is not a practitioner because he is bald.
  He is not a preacher who is immoral and lies.
  How will he become a practitioner,
  Who is given over to desire and acquisition?  [My translation]


Tonglen - Exchanging Self and Other - Intersubjectivity Dear friends, looking for parallels between the practice of Tonglen, and the Husserlian notion of Intersubjectivity, I have come upon this research paper by Natalie Depraz, Phd. Quoting from the abstract :

  It is well-known that Husserl’s analysis of intersubjectivity is
  primarily based on empathy. Now, such an experience of empathy is
  described in Husserl as involving the peculiar spatiality of our lived
  body, a temporal pairing of both lived bodies and a specific
  imaginative transfer of one’s psychic states into those of the other.
  I would like to confront such a multilayered experience of the other
  with the way some Buddhist teachings (which first appeared in India
  and were then transmitted to Tibet) present the experience of
  compassion within what is called the Mahayana tradition. Indeed, the
  “tonglen” praxis (as Tibetans call it), which is described very
  concretely in such a framework, echoes in many ways the Husserlian
  empathetic experience as far as the bodily rooting, the synchronizing
  timing are concerned and above all as far as the way imagination is
  taken into account. By comparing both praxis and analysis with regard
  to lived space, time and imagination, we will be able to evaluate
  their affinities, their differences and finally how they may enlight
  and even generate each other.

I would welcome with the utmost gratitude your enlightening comments, and reference to relevant material.

Thank you for having taken the time and effort to read this.

Refer to SN 55.7, which discusses each moral precept against killing, stealing, adultery & wrong speech.

Here, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another – of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering–that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?’ Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.
SN 55.7

Also, refer to Dhammapada X:

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.


The alayavijnana and emptiness I asked a question about rebirth without new awareness, only karmic conditioning. According to the doctrine of the Nidanas, I answered my question saying that:

  Kamma-bhava [bhava being the 10th nidana] is what recreates the next rebirth. Sankhara [2nd nidana] is
  kamma-bhava considered without the "associated mental states".

Could it be said then that, given the fact of emptiness, kamma-bhava is empty but sankhara can only be said to be selfless OR empty?

Then it seems to me that we would have "rebirth without new awareness, only karmic conditioning", because what generates the next birth is selfless AND empty - and so is less substantial than volition...

Is that right? Is it possible according to the Buddha?

Putting my philosophy hat on, it seems weird to say that karma is real but not our experiences. But perhaps the intuition reads that: phenomena cannot be pinned down into belonging to this or that - only that "I" experience them.

Does this make any sense, I'm not sure it does?

Being empty is to be lacking inherent existence, which is to be lacking in fixed self, which is to be lacking in self. So a thing cannot be empty, and have a self, because being empty is to ultimately have no self, and all objects and phenomena are empty. It is not an either/or scenario, it can never be an either or scenario.

It is like asking if a canvass can be either paintless or blank. It is really a meaningless question, because it is just two ways of pointing at the same truth. It is meaningless to assert that paintless is either less or more substantial than blank. Is the son of a barren woman less substantial than the horns of a rabbit?

The karma is only as real and impactual as the blind attachment, and therefore assumptive delusion of self and true existence or true existential status. These volitional formations can be transcended in practice by developing equanimity, awareness, and insight


In short, what is the path to enlightenment? Where to begin? If I were to begin meditating, what practical list of advises would you give me?

The shortest explanation of the path to enlightenment is to not crave or cling egoistically (possessively) to anything, which includes meditation & enlightenment. For example, in meditation, if everything becomes peaceful, calm & blissful, the mind does not think: "I am blissful" or "I love this bliss". Instead, the mind just experiences the bliss, without thinking about or judging it.

Similarly, when reading or hearing about 'breathing meditation', the mind should not try to do breathing meditation because this is craving. Instead, the mind should just quietly & gently free itself from craving (while sitting in meditation) and allow the breathing meditation to occur by itself.

While 'non-clinging' is not exactly the same as 'non-judging', for a beginner, it is similar. Therefore, a short path to enlightenment is described as follows:

  You should train yourself thus: 'When seeing, merely see what is seen; when hearing, merely hear what is heard; when
  sensing, merely sense what is sensed; when cognizing (a mental
  object), merely cognise what is cognized.' In this way you should
  train yourself, Bahiya.

  Bahiya Sutta

Meditation for enlightenment requires the foundation of non-harming; with the aspiration to not harm anything or anyone. This makes & keeps the mind pure, without obstacle or hindrance. It also generates compassion, which is an important energy for meditation. Here, a clear v ision/view in respect to sexual morals is especially important because the primary obstacle to meditation for enlightenment is often sexual desire. When there is non-harmful view about sex, the instinctual sexual drive can be transformed into compassion.

Also, beginning by doing a short meditation retreat (7 to 10 days) in a meditation centre or monastery can be particularly useful; not so much for the teachings; but for the atmosphere.


Intentional or unintentional sexual thoughts I've been restless for these past few days. Once I have an unappropiate thought about a holy figure, and I think it was unintentional (not sure though). But then I kept thinking about it over and over again (I tried to analyse whether it is intentional or not). My questions are:

Is sexual thought about holy figures unforgivable sin?
Am I creating bad karma by thinking about it over and over again?
What advice do you have for me? I keep on feeling really guilty and keep on thinking about it.

Random thoughts (like random sexual thoughts) don't collect much bad karma. Intentional and deliberate thoughts generate karma. Habitual intentional thoughts accumulate karma.
Now, you are feeling remorse because you had those thoughts.
What you should do is acknowledge that those are random thoughts. Acknowledge that you don't have evil intentions.
And now you should disassociate from those thoughts using mindfulness. Just watch those thoughts as they appear but understand that they are not related to you or anything. Just watch and acknowledge it, then let it go.
Watch this video talk on YouTube on the scientific research done in this area.
From a canonical perspective, the Lonaphala Sutta explains that a trifling evil act has significant consequences for an undeveloped person but hardly any effect for a developed person.
Your remorse is part of that unintended significant consequence. But if you learn to let go, then you would have developed your mind to detach from such trifling negative thoughts.


What is/are the cause/s of becoming "perceiveless", an unconsciouse-being? Althought as most not desired existence sometimes quoted, there seems to be less information about the cause why one gains the existence of an "not-perceiving-being", Unconscious beings (asaññasatta). [explained as "only body 'no' mind" often]

What is the cause, what is the required tendency to gain a asaññasatta-existence, state? Which kind of training should one go after to gain this long lasting state (which causes one to become a "fortuitous-arising-ists" (DN1), or a materialist, when falling from there)

Maybe some experts or googlyanika (those living dependency of teacher google) here are willing to elaborate about the being and coming into being of such beings.

(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining, but as a tiny emergency-question for a timely exit from this wheel nourishing on delusion)

SN 23.2 defines "a being" ("satta") as strong clinging to one or more of the five aggregates. One the meanings of the word "satta" is "clinging". To cling requires a mind. Therefore, it appears there can be no such thing as an unconscious "being".

In my search, I only found the term asaññasattā in AN 9.24 plus the DN and, in the sequence of the teaching, appears related to the 4th jhana. The 4th jhana is obviously not "unconscious". It follows it appears the term "asaññasattā" needs to be examined carefully, for what it really means. The impression is "asaññasattā" means not having any salient perception because the mind only has equanimity as its object. It appears "asaññasattā" does not mean "unconscious".

Regardless, these types of teachings found in the Anguttara Nikaya & Digha Nikaya are often suspicious and, imo, best ignored.


How to refute the claim that the Buddha was an "avatar" of Vishnu? We as Buddhists know that Gautama Buddha didn't believe in a Supreme Being or an universal soul. We also know that the Buddha criticised the Vedic/Astik shastras, rejected the Vedic religion and the Astik school of thought, and challenged the hegemony of the Brahmans. But what about the people who claim that the Buddha was actually preaching the "Sanatan Dharma" as he was an "avatar" of Vishnu?

The late S. Radhakrishnan, former President of India who was also a Brahman, claimed that the Buddha was actually preaching Hinduism:
"Famous Indian Hindu scholars like the ex-President of India the late S. Radhakrishnan stated: 'The Buddha did not feel that he was announcing a new religion. He was born, grew up, and died a Hindu. He was restating with a new emphasis the ancient ideals of the Indo-Aryan civilization'" (2500 Years of Buddhism, 1971, Government of India)

While Babasaheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, the Father of the Indian Constitution and one of the greatest Buddhist personalities of India, called this belief "sheer madness and false propaganda".

Hence how do I refute this claim that Gautama Buddha was an incarnation of the hindoo deity Vishnu?

The easy way:

Ask for scriptural evidence for the claim. There is no reference in any Hindoo scripture as an evidence to this.

The difficult way:

Show that it is not possible using Buddhist ideas of Annata.

Easiest way:

Stay away from these arguments. I know where this is coming from. This is not disprovable or provable no matter how much you argue.


Resources to learn about yogacara buddhism What are the best resources to learn about yogacara buddhism? Online resources, books, anything would be fine.

One of the best introductory books I've found is called Living Yogacara.  It's fairly straightforward and reasonably accessible.  Another book that I found helpful is entitled Context and Dialogue.  While this is a comparative study of mutliple notions of the unconscious, I found the author's explanation of Yogacara (specifically the alaya vijnana) pretty thorough and very easy to follow.  Past that, you'll need to get into the writings of Asanga and Vasubandhu.  These are not easy.

Of course, the best way to explore yogacara is to practice it.  Rinzai Zen is probably the last existent school that makes yogacara notions of the mind its centerpiece.


According to Buddhism , who achieves Nirvana? All phenomenon are nonself then who achieves the Nirvana?

Your question is invalid. If all phenomena are non-self you cannot ask "what self achieves the phenomenon called Nibbana".

Prince Siddharta attained  Nibbana and became the Buddha. But that is a statement in conventional reality. When you say "all phenomena are non-self", it is a statement in ultimate reality. Do not  try to mix up the 2 paradigms. Either you speak in ultimate reality or conventional reality. Pick one at a time.


Can you explain "Wishlessness" (one of the Three Doors of Liberation)? I am particularly interested in the relation between Wishlessness and Love. As far as I understand Wishlessness means that there is no suffering or ignorance as such. I'm mainly guiding myself by this quote https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/

I feel like I get it, like there are no individuals existing as such, there is no suffering as such, but there is still (metta/compassion) the inclination to reducing suffering. But I feel like my words are not very precise. Even contradictory.

The three doors of liberation -- by Vietnamese / French zen master Thich Nhat Hanh

I'm sure he says it a lot better than we could.

If we look at the three as identical and mutually supportive, we may see that with no self, and no form, the aspirants wishlessness is not for others.

What zen master has nothing to teach their students?

Put another way, your nirvana is not my liberation -- so keep on practicing!


Mindfulness of Action versus Perception I noticed that when I'm mindful of what I'm doing, it seems different and even more helpful than merely paying attention to the senses, i.e. vision or sound.
Are there any noted difference between these two practices?

In the beginning the practitioner is generally learning the mindfulness practise. And this happens to everybody who starts this path. All of the mindfulness objects are valid and when the practitioner becomes trained in the practise, all of the mindfulness objects would be ok. for him/her.

Also in the beginning all kinds of thoughts can come to the practitioner's mind. "I'm not practising right" or "I must do something different" etc. Learning to live in the now is challenging because human mind is opposite of the "now", it is always running to the future or to the past. So it is better to be patient and insist on the practise. Seeing, hearing, washing the hands, walking, wearing the socks, washing the dishes, cleaning the house, driving the car, sitting on the bus, observing the feelings, emotions, thoughts, doing the job, listening to a dhamma talk, doing formal sitting or walking meditation etc. Every moment of life is a big opportunity to be in the now. The practise must be done all the time and If the practitioner forgets the practise, s/he must return to the practise any time in daily life. This is the only way to learn mindfulness and eventually realize Nibbana. Ofcourse becoming free from the physical and mental addictions, staying away from the crazy parts of the life and "being a good person" are parts of this process. The Buddhist precepts and principles are very helpful for a person to have these qualities so the mindfulness practise can be really fruitful.

It is better to not differentiate the mindfulness objects but keeping on the same mindfulness object/doing simples things(like just being mindful of "walking" instead of looking all around) makes the practise easier. But a practitioner must be ok. of all of the mindfulness objects.

So it is gradual process and learning to be mindful in daily life takes time. With practise and insistence mindfulness practise would become a learned habit for a practitioner.


Renouncing property and wealth My question is about supreme peace that is received from renunciation.
When people renounce a major portion of their possession and title, they are believed to get supreme peace.
Where I can get a detailed discussion about renunciation and a little logical discussion too that makes a person renounce?
 The ASIAN continent is filled with Buddhist, and Muslim countries. Many users of Buddhist countries can sufficiently address my concern. my concern is the risk associated with renunciation.

Renunciation in Buddhism is related to going forth from the lay or householder life to life as a monk or nun.
It doesn't apply to lay people renouncing property or inheritance.
In fact, lay people are advised to manage their finances well.
There is good discussion in this article, this article and this article. You can read those for much advice.
For canonical advice:
The Sigalovada Sutta states:

The wise endowed with virtue Shine forth like a burning fire,
Gathering wealth as bees do honey And heaping it up like an ant hill.
Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow. By
dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One part
should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth set
aside Against future misfortunes."

The Dighajanu Sutta states:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
income.'
"These are the four drains on one's store of wealth: debauchery in
sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship,
evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great
reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close
the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down
proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be
expected, not its increase.

The Adiya Sutta discusses the 5 benefits obtained from one's wealth. The fifth is charity.
And don't forget that income should come from Right Livelihood, as stated in the Vanijja Sutta:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.


First life in samsara In Buddhism, we believe in rebirth and karma. But was there a time when it was our first time in any of the 31 Planes of Existence?

If that is the case, how would we be reborn anywhere since we did not have any karma to pay off?

If that is not the case, how were we just infinitely here?

If i may kindly correct the beginning sentence of your question, i.e. "In Buddhism, we believe in rebirth and karma."
We actually try to verify these things for ourselves by studying reality through insight meditation, thereby gaining insights into how reality functions. We practice to gain experiental knowledge instead of believing things to be in a certain way.
Through insight meditation one will come to see that phenomena arise dependent on causes and conditions. One sees that phenomena can spawn new phenomena.
Looking for a first cause is problematic. Why is that?
A first cause breaks causality. One can then ask "What caused the first cause? Or What caused the cause that caused the first cause? And so on ad infinitum".
This question of origin also belongs to The Four Imponderables, namely the 4th one "Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about".
The Buddha explained that is it not conducive to ones practice to think about these things. That is because one cannot understand it unless one is a Buddha. If one is not a Buddha thinking about them will only leave the mind agitated and distressed which will not be beneficial for ones practice.

"Therefore, o monks, do not brood over [any of these views] Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna."
-- SN 56: Saccasamyutta.


What the characters of a human being? What should or are the characters of a human being? In today's age, r people real humans ? As i feel , humans are those who have compassion towards others, love towards others wheather it be animals nature or other humans.. But i don't see this any characters in todays humans(>99%). Should i call them humans just because they have intillegence ? I think even the crow is intillegent. Is only self awareness enough to be a human being?

Beings with consciousness encompass all sentient beings, in addition to being self aware human being have a capacity to be compassionate, temperate, and just; generally humans have a capacity to be virtuous.

Quoted below is a stoic sage lamenting like you do (not Buddhist source i know, but i think its interesting to read. :)

  Is he passionate, is he full of resentment, is he fault-finding? If
  the whim seizes him, does he break the heads of those who come in his
  way? (If so), why then did you say that he is a man? Is every thing
  judged (determined) by the bare form? If that is so, say that the form
  in wax is an apple and has the smell and the taste of an apple. But
  the external figure is not enough: neither then is the nose enough and
  the eyes to make the man, but he must have the opinions of a man. Here
  is a man who does not listen to reason, who does not know when he is
  refuted: he is an ass: in another man the sense of shame is become
  dead: he is good for nothing, he is any thing rather than a man. This
  man seeks whom he may meet and kick or bite, so that he is not even a
  sheep or an ass, but a kind of wild beast.


Theravada and Mahayana - The Crucial Differences I struggle with the idea that Buddhism has two warring schools and wonder why they cannot make peace.

What are the issues on which Theravada and Mahayana cannot agree?

Just bullet points would be fine. I'm not inviting an argument about who is right, just asking for the facts. A summary of key doctrinal differences is what I'm after, if this is possible.

Issues such as which scriptures are authentic may be omitted since this is not a doctrinal difference, but differences in the interpretation of those scriptures would have to be included.

Thanks.

EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. They make fascinating reading. The question has been answered well enough for my purposes.

Just like with any other religion, when the author of the teachings is no longer alive to clarify what is authentic and what is not, the followers of the teachings will naturally come up with different interpretations and also mix things up with teachings of other religions or belief systems. Even in the time of the Buddha, Devadatta was able to have his own faction of monks. So Buddhism having different schools today is nothing to be surprised about.
The Mahayana school branches out to truck loads of many other schools like Vajrayana, Zen, Pureland etc. It seems to be a natural consequence of not being shy to change the original teachings of the Buddha.  So these days when you say 'Mahayana', it's hard to get an idea of what you really mean.
But if you want to compare the fundamental practices of Mahayana with Theravada Buddhism, here are some differences:

Mahayana puts emphasis on attaining Buddhahood or becoming enlightened while another Buddha is alive. Theravada puts emphasis on working to become enlightened as soon as possible and actually making use of the Dhamma preached by the Buddha to do so, even when he is not alive anymore. Theravada tradition generally discourages those who aspire to become Buddhas out of ego or due to their lack of understanding of the enormity of the task. However, it does give blessings to handful of people who have proven their worthiness through mastery of the Dhamma at the highest level, if they have that aspiration.
Mahayana seems to give precedence to the quality of compassion. Theravada gives precedence to wisdom. Compassion is practiced as a supportive quality of the mind for the cultivation of wisdom.
It appears that Vipassana meditation, the meditation that leads to enlightenment is mainly practiced in the Theravada school. Comparatively, Mahayana school seem to give precedence to chanting, rights and rituals.
Vegetarianism appears to be a requirement in Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism keeps to the word of the Buddha and leaves it up to the individual and does not view one's food preference as an important factor in attaining enlightenment.
Theravada tradition as a principal tries to understand the teachings of the Buddha without changing them to suit the popular worldview of the time. As a result, it is widely regarded as the school which is closest to the original teachings of the Buddha.


In the future how many Buddhas will be born? In our world, (Earth) there were 28 Buddha born with Gautama Buddha. Some people say that Maitreya Buddha is the 29th & last Buddha. My question is, in the future how many Buddhas will born.

There are infinite number into the past and infinite number to the future.

28 are the immediate preceding our Buddha. Maitreya will be the next.


Can Buddhist marry non Buddhist? I have relationship with non Buddhist, and we both thinking seriously about marriage. My family could not accept him because he is not Buddhist. But as I learned so far , Buddhism teach us to love and respect all religion. Can I  marry him?

What a Buddhist should do is:

Lead a moral life which is beneficial to others and to oneself.
Try to develop control over your mind rather than be a slave to it.
Try to develop an understanding of the true nature of phenomena and reality (cause and effect) with relation to the psychological impact which cause misery and use this understanding as a leverage to come out of misery.

So this question boils down to if a physiologist can marry a surgeon or engineer or some one who subscribes to a non-scientific dogma. There is no issue.

But again marriage comes with other responsibilities and issues afterwards. You have to think through how you can handle these before hand. Also evaluate the impact it might have on your personal development and meditation, and see if there are any personal "costs" involved, but again this is up to you.


Why do I feel irritated after sitting for long hours? After sitting for 2-3 hours in a day there is a sense of annoyance that follows the littlest of things that are normally overlooked. Maybe this is because of heightened awareness or lack of tolerance for family and friends. It even happens at retreats during the earlier days. My teacher says sankharas are coming up.

So is it right to assume that the more I sit, the more annoyed I will get and the more annoyed I will get I the more I should sit? If that makes sense.

I do practice 5-10 minutes of metta bhavana at the end of the sit. But I don't feel like it comes naturally. And to my knowledge forced metta is as good as no metta?

These can arise if you do not develop the right type of concentration and awareness

If your meditation is an active struggle to keep your focus on a particular meditation subject stress arise
If you are not equanimous to sensations (and reacting to them with dislike or liking) during meditation your will get stressed

If you abandon the above two meditation will reduce stress.

Kindness meditation also can help. 1st you should create peace and serenity in your mind and then wish you share this with other. If this is not there in your mind and / or you are not sincere, this will be just repeating words. So 1st examine your self to see if you have happiness within you then start kindness meditation.

Being week in morality also causes agitations and leads to manifestation of the hindrances. So you base of morality should be strong.

When past fabrications come up it gives different sensations. In this case most likely unpleasant or not being a sensation you crave for, which is causing the problem. What ever sensation or experience you get be equanimous. Then you will not get stressed.


Which of the following statements about Nibbana/Nirvana are true? A) Nibbana is the destruction of the defilements.
B) Nibbana is merely the destruction of defilements.
C) Nibbana is an existing reality that is subjected to the mind totally free of defilements.
D) Nibbana is an existing reality that destroys the defilements in the mind as a result of being the object of Samma Samadhi(Right Concentration)
E) Nibbana is an existing reality that is subjected the mind free of certain defilements.
F) Nibbana is an existing reality that is subjected to the mind when the defilements are subdued.

Nibbana is said to be uncaused. So it should be already existing, even before the defilements are removed. That makes the statement 'B' invalid in my opinion.

Nibbana is actually best understood as the cessation of suffering. The lakkhanadicatuka for nibbana is as follows (minus proximate cause because it is uncaused):

  It has peace as its characteristic. Its function is not to die; or its function is to comfort.  It is manifested as the signless; or it is manifested as non-
  diversification.

  -- Path Of Purification XVI.66

The relationship between nibbana and the defilements is not direct; it is the noble path that destroys the defilements, not nibbana itself. Even though the suttas say that nibbana is destruction, this is not technically true:

  69.[Q. 5] But is not Nibbāna destruction, because of the passage beginning,“That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … [of hate
  … of delusion … is Nibbāna]?” (S  IV 251).

  [A.] That is not so, because
  it would follow that Arahantship also was meredestruction. For that
  too is described in the [same] way beginning, “That, friend, which is
  the destruction of greed … of hate … of delusion … is Arahantship]” (S
  IV 252).

  -- Path Of Purification XVI.69

The point is that nibbana itself is not destruction, but the attainment of nibbana (and arahantship) brings about the destruction of the defilements.

So A), B), and D) are technically incorrect.

As for C), E), and F), nibbana is an existing reality, but it is not subjected to anything, even the mind. The mind takes nibbana as an object during an experience of cessation, but this too has nothing directly to do with the defilements, which have been abandoned from the first moment of cessation (path consciousness). Therefore, if I am understanding these three statements correctly, they too are not correct.


Understanding Right view From what I understand as far as the Theravadin tradition goes right view is seeing things as they are instead of through our own filters, conditioning, beliefs etc.

So if I have some pain it is just pain and I don't need to see it as pleasant or unpleasant then buy into a narrative etc that might say for example 'I hate this pain, why me' the same can be said for joy 'I love feeling like this, I wish it wouldn't end'. That if we push things away and crave for things to stay then we are not accepting the reality of dukkha, anicca and anatta and we cause ourselves suffering.

So when we sit in meditation and just notice the raw sensations and note hearing hearing, pain pain, numb numb, thinking thinking etc we are training our minds to not react to these things in our lives which can then lead to right thought and right action etc and we become more peaceful.

So this is what I have practiced for over 7 years. I have noticed some changes but not a lot. It's very difficult to not react to things. Its also very difficult to find a balance so that one doesn't end up being a passive doormat. My life feels like an endless barrage of things that rub me the wrong way. I feel immense anxiety most days many times.

If I see something happening in my world and I feel a reaction within such as anger stirring I'm wondering do I just note anger anger and then try not to lash out and react?   If I have dark angry thoughts is it too late? Have I already entered into the territory of wrong view? Or is it good that I'm noticing then not reacting? Because I honestly can't see a future day when I don't feel ill will and anger at stuff and people. I so far have not been able to notice the sensation before the anger or whatever arises. It happens in a split second. Occurrence - Anger - Boom.

Right View is actually not "seeing things as they are". "Seeing things as they are" (yathābhūtaṃ passāmī) is a high level of insight that leads to liberation; as follows:

For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is no
need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
actually are feels disenchantment.
AN 11.2

Right View is much more basic. Right View is having an understanding of the basics and can be intellectual at first. Right View includes the following:

And what are the roots of what is unskillful? Greed is a root of what is unskillful, aversion is a root of what is unskillful, delusion is a root of what is unskillful. These are termed the roots of what is unskillful.
And what are the roots of what is skillful? Lack of greed is a root of what is skillful, lack of aversion is a root of what is skillful, lack of delusion is a root of what is skillful. These are termed the roots of what is skillful.
The Discourse on Right View.

So, yes, if you have dark angry thoughts is it too late. You have already entered into the territory of wrong view.
However, it is certainly good (actually ideal) that you are noticing then not reacting! You don't want to react because that leads to big trouble & danger.
When it happens in a split second, its OK. When its Anger - Boom; its OK. Just don't act upon it.
The suttas say:

One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering
into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort &
right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.
MN 117

Even the Buddha-To-Be had angry thoughts, as follows; but used reasoning to think about his angry thoughts:

And as I remained thus heedful, ardent & resolute, thinking imbued
with ill will arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill
will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the
affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
discernment, promotes vexation & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I
noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction
of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not
lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will
had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of
existence.
MN 19


How to deal with sore hips during sitting? I have been finding my hips to be getting super stiff after sitting practice. I have been stretching before and after, but it doesn't seem to help much. Does anyone have any tips to deal with this problem?

In Zen meditation, posture is important. This is what I was taught. One sits on a zafu placed on a zabuton as below. It's important that the hips be elevated above the knees. The spine is erect (imagine a string coming through the top of your head and pulling you upward) and the pelvis is tilted forward slightly. The knees form the stable base to support the posture; i.e. you are leaning on your knees a bit. Balance and symmetry is important so half lotus wouldn't be ideal; a Burmese style would be more balanced and is also considered to be an easier position for those newer to sitting on the floor. Going from sitting kneeling style to sitting with the knees extended; it will take some time for the hip muscles to relax and become flexible. Best wishes.


Did the Buddha say anything about bullying? Did the Buddha say anything about bullying, turning others against you out of boredom, malice, unconcern for their well being, stuff like that? How does it differ from e.g, "harsh speech": is it still karmically bad, if it's all cloak and daggers?
I mean for me, you really have to treat the well being of others as an end in itself, if you want to be "ethical". I don't think I just mean intrinsically valuable, a moral good, but intrinsically valuable independent of any other goals you have. In which case you can't sacrifice the wellness of someone for something else.

There is this story about a bhikkhu killing a swan in the commentary to dhp393;

Once there was a bhikkhu who was very skilful in throwing stones; he could even hit fast-moving objects without fail. One day, while sitting with another bhikkhu after having their bath in the Aciravati River, he saw two swans flying at some distance. He told his friend that he would get one of the swans by throwing a stone at it. At that instant, the swan, hearing voices, turned its neck and the bhikkhu threw a pebble at the bird. The pebble went through one eye and came out of the other eye of the bird. The bird cried out in pain and agony and dropped dead at the feet of the young bhikkhu.
Other bhikkhus seeing the incident took the young bhikkhu to the Buddha. The Buddha reprimanded him and said, "My son, why have you killed this bird? Why especially you, a member of my Order, who should be practising loving-kindness to all beings and who should be striving ardently for liberation from the round of rebirths? Even during the period outside the Teaching, the wise practised morality and observed the precepts. A bhikkhu must have control over his hands, his feet and his tongue." https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=362

I recall hearing or reading another story about a person from a low caste being abused, iirc people were throwing stones at a guy for no particular reason other than him being from the bad caste and the Tathagatha intervened by placing himself inbetween the abusers and the abused. Unfortunely i can't remember the origin and couldn't find it. Perhaps someone else will post it, i guess it's also from the Dhp commentary.


Similarity between creation in Abrahamic religions and beginning of life in Earth mentioned Agganna Sutta? I was recently listening to a sermon on Agganna Sutta that was on Youtube. I will share my thoughts and questions on the Agganna sutta in a different post. Let me share few passages first and then get to the question.

  At that period, Vasettha, there was just one mass of water, and all was darkness, blinding darkness.... And sooner or later, after a very long period of time, savory earth spread itself over the waters where those beings were. It looked just like the skin that forms itself over hot milk as it cools. It was endowed with color, smell, and taste. It was the color of fine ghee or heated butter and it was very sweet, like pure wild honey (1)

  Some of the creatures of light (the Abbhasaras) who had curiosity and
  a greedy nature began to dive and taste the savory Earth's substance.
  At that moment, the creature found out that it tasted so delicious.
  Thus, greed started to seep in and it ate the substance voraciously,
  greedily, also calling its comrades (who were flying above and on
  earth) to join in the feast. Not long afterwards, the creatures began
  to eat greedily, and due to the huge amount of the mud substance they
  could feed on it for a very long time

And this is about the story of Adam and Eve.

  Adam is told that he can till the ground and eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of which he is prohibited from eating. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be Adam's companion. However, a serpent tricks Eve into eating fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. God curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes 'the man' from the Garden of Eden.

According to what I learned from the Agganna Sutta Buddhism is about taking our selves back to where we came from (Brahmas) but not stopping there and attaining Nirvana. In Abrahamic Religions it is also mentioned that people should strive to go back to the initial innocence of humans (Adam and Eve to be particular).

I find it strange to see that all chaos began from eating something that they were no supposed to in both teachings. Whether it was meant to be metaphorical I do not know. Shed some light to this if you can.

In buddhism eating anything is not forbidden. Is it the the desire to experience also and the creatures evolved to have the respective faculties like the tongue. These experiences increase carving and lust which worsened the conditions of beings.

Also according to Jesus lived in India by Holger Kersten, abrahamic religions were influenced by Buddhism. Hence there can be similarities. Some may be pure coincidence. As Buddha mentioned his teaching is not previously taught it is unlikely to be influenced by any other religion.


How does the Buddha attain nirvana? It is said that only the Buddha, a fully awakened one, knows everything. I'm not sure if there's a name for that wisdom. So the Buddha got that wisdom and used (all-knowing-wisdom) to see the eight noble paths and attained nirvana or is it the other way round?

There are some differences of opinion between the different schools on this kind of thing. First of all, the Theravada school doesn't accept the idea that the Buddha has knowledge of everything (which Mahayana schools tend to teach) but instead teach that the Buddha possesses unobstructed knowledge and vision, meaning that the Buddha had the ability to find an answer to any question given time and effort, and even the precise meaning of this isn't quite clear. Confusingly, the term "unobstructed knowledge and vision" is sometimes translated as omniscience.

This unobstructed knowledge and vision is the result of having cultivated the ten Paramis of generosity, morality, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, honesty, determination, goodwill, and equanimity to perfection as a Bodhisatta, and when he attained Arahatship on the night of the full moon in the month Vesakha, the cultivation of these Paramis came to fruit and he obtained unobstructed knowledge and vision.

He attained Arahatship that night by means of the Noble Eightfold Path, just like everyone else, and according to the Pali Suttas, he did so by means of Anapanasati.


Is karma of arms giving depends on the reciever? Consider the following situation

There are two people. One of them is enlightened. Other one is not. If I gave something to them equally without knowing anything about them, Are there any deference on that action?

Until today, I thought it depends only on giver's mind. But recently I heard it depend on the reciever's mind also. Ex: It is greater karma if the arms recieved immediately after end of a samadhi.

If this is true,

Are there any other variables that Karma depend on ? (Other than giver's mind and reciever's mind)
Why did Lord Buddha preach "Karma is the thought" ?

This is not only appiled to arms giving. Ex: Blaming an enlightened one vs non-enlightened one.

Kind regards.

Yes the people involved in the donation matters. The only thing which does not matter for karma is the thing given,  but the receiver may not use the gift if it is useless.
This is because matter, physical objects are meaningless in buddhism. This has far reaching consequences, such as why you cannot get into rigth samadhi by focusing on objects, contrary to what other religious people claim. For instance hindus say that mantras can get them into samadhi but that's not possible, because sounds are meaningless. Same thing with the bath that some people take to wash ''the bad deeds'' they did. Physical objectscannot modify your Concentration and karma, only improving your behavior can work on karma and concentration.

So for giving the usual sutta is this

  "I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned
  five factors and is endowed with five.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.057.than.html

  "And how is a donation endowed with six factors? There is the case
  where there are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of
  the recipients.

  "And which are the three factors of the donor? There is the case where
  the donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is
  bright & clear; and after giving is gratified. These are the three
  factors of the donor.

  "And which are the three factors of the recipients? There is the case
  where the recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the
  subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing
  of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of
  delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.

  "Such are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of the
  recipients. And this is how a donation is endowed with six factors.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html


What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121? What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121?

What does "emptiness" refer to in this sutta?

Also, what does "oneness dependent on the perception of ..." mean in this sutta?

  “Indeed, Ānanda, you properly heard, learned, attended, and remembered
  that. Now, as before, I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.

  Consider this stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother. It’s empty of
  elephants, cows, horses, and mares; of gold and money; and of
  gatherings of men and women. There is only this that is not emptiness,
  namely, the oneness dependent on the mendicant Saṅgha. In the same
  way, a mendicant—ignoring the perception of the village and the
  perception of people—focuses on the oneness dependent on the
  perception of wilderness. Their mind becomes eager, confident,
  settled, and decided in that perception of wilderness. They
  understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the perception of village
  or the perception of people. There is only this modicum of stress,
  namely the oneness dependent on the perception of wilderness.’ They
  understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of
  the village. It is empty of the perception of people. There is only
  this that is not emptiness, namely the oneness dependent on the
  perception of wilderness.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is
  not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
  That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.

  ......

  Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate,
  supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them
  enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness. So,
  Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the
  pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’ That’s how you should train.”

What is the "meditation on emptiness" in MN 121?

The process of gradually flushing-out of various subjects from gross to subtle as detailed in paragraphs 4 - 12 of MN 121

  What does "emptiness" refer to in this sutta?

Per Ven. Bodhi's note: SunnataVihara, the fruition attainment of voidness/sunnataphala samapatti, fruition attainment of arahantship that is entered by focusing upon the void aspect of Nibbana.

  Also, what does "oneness dependent on the perception of ..." mean in this sutta?

Ven. Thanissaro's more straightforward rendering: "attends to the singleness based on the <objects...>", which Ven. Bodhi cited Comy's explanation:

  MA: He attends to the perception of forest dependent on the single forest itself, thinking: “This is a forest, this a tree, this a mountain, this a grove.” In the next sentence I read with BBS and SBJ adhimuccati, as against PTS vimuccati.


Sila & (Non)Remorse AN 10.1 Suppose a person does certain acts that are not in line with the precepts but he does not feel remorse because it seems to the person as an trifling act, for example taking something from his/her parents without their consent or gossiping and lying (as skillful means for example).

What is the Buddhist answer to that? As I know, regarding lying and gossiping for example, it is quite clear that one shouldn't do it regardless of an alleged benefit.

Bikkhu bodhi issues a video mentioning precisely the topic of discussion

Anguttara Nikaya: Duka Nipāta, The Book of the Two (2018.07.07) Bhikkhu Bodhi

Sutta 77-

I do not recall at what time he talks about that. But his answer is that the kamma of somebody who does not feel shame of doing bad things as exposed by the buddha is worse than the karma of the guy who feels shame for the same acts.

This answer leads to the conclusion that dangerous are the people who claim that the feeling of shame must be avoided once you follow the path, and that other people who follow the path must not judge other followers.


Can a Buddhist be ambitious? Over the last few months I've distanced myself from my sangha and from Buddhism in general. I still meditate but no longer identify as a Buddhist. One of the things I've noticed is the return of some old ambitions or longer term desires if you like. I don't think they are negative in fact they could have quite positive outcomes though I do recognise that they are driven by a restlessless sort of dissatisfaction.

In the light of my recent experience it makes me wonder if Buddhism necessarily dampens down people's ambitions? Is it possible to be ambitious (in any sense) and a Buddhist or are the two things mutually exclusive. For a Buddhist is ambition a negative thing?

Well, Before we continue you must ask why you gave up the identity "Being a Buddhist" and you should also ask why are you still here in this SE. I am not trying to be rude.i'm saying this to make you realize the deceiving side of the mind.It is important you understand this and come up with solutions.

Now Lets talk about the ambitions part, Let me tell you a story
I learned it from a monk. this will give you a direct answer.....

  One day a man (lets call him Paul) visited an old friend of him (Lets call him Tom). This friend was a farmer and he had a large piece of land which he used to farm. Paul looked around and saw that there is not much of farming going on, only a small part of Tom's land was being used for farming.
  So Paul asked Tom

  "Why are you not using the whole piece of land?, You know what you shold farm the whole thing."
  "So then what should i do?"asked Tom.

  Paul said "Oh, then you should start a little shop near the house and start selling some of your harvest."

  "OK, looks like a good idea,so what's next" asked Tom.

  "Then you should work hard and make it successful and you should start few more shops like that and get them to success too." said Paul.

  "Right,then what should i do?" said Tom.

  "My friend then you got good money, that would be a nice time to settle down and have a nice family" said Paul.

  "Yeah,nice. So what should i do next?" asked Tom.

  "Then take care of your Family and kids and once they are young teach them your business and once they are ready let them take care of your farm and business." said Paul.

  "OK Paul. then what i should do?" Said Tom.

  "Then what man, you got all things covered, you have a nice family and a successful business and you will be rich too. So enjoy your life and live in peace. Let your children take care of your things." said Paul.

  Then Tom said something that amazed Paul, "My friend i know you mean well but here's the thing, I know i haven't farmed all my fields and i don't have a lavish life or a wife. But i'm happy with what i have and what i am. Today i have enough to live a happy life and yes i have little but this is what i always needed. There is not a single thing that i have to dream of. A simple life to live in peace is all i ever wanted and what i have right now. Why should i work so many years to pile up many things just to find peace at the end when i have peace in my life right now?"

You should ask a question from your self, and that is

  "Who do i want to be, Tom or Paul?

And after that you could work your way from there. What is missing in your practice is "Not knowing what you really need".

Being a buddhist is all about understanding who you are what you are after. Until you have answers to those two questions you are obviously lost. So ask yourself what you need and choose which type of Buddhist you want to be.

There are two kinds of practices to Lay people...

  The stallion :-
  This path is simple. The only goal is nirvana and there is no stopping until the target is met. you could call this "Hardcore lay person practice". These fortunate ones live simple lives and their only goal "Nirvana" is their goal.

  The turtle :-
  The path is slow but shielded. These fortunate ones live happy normal lives. Their goal is also nirvana but there's a catch. They have decided to reach a higher realm and start their "Stallion stage" and until then they will obey to the "Five precepts" and live a proper Buddhist life. But they will live like any other person with worldly goals in life. The only shield they have is their "Sila (Protecting the precepts) & Shraddha (undying trust on triple gems)". They are taking a big risk here, but they are confident about their Shraddha.

Choose your life my friend....

---

Path does not make you a boring person. You have realized the true nature of the world and you are no longer driven by the lust of lavish things. This is why it does not feel the same.

But you still have attachments to live like there is no tomorrow. Party & get high not to mention the ladies.

But your mind is giving you mixed signals here. There is a reason why...
this happens because of you not deciding a life between these two. So your mind goes back and forth.

My advice is choose your life. either be a "Stallion" or a "Turtle".

--

May the triple gems bless you!


Romantic love and Buddhism What do you think of this article about romantic love? I am skeptical about his understanding of upeksha.
As I understand it, romantic love does not really exist in Buddhism because the targeted love in Buddhism loves everything without discrimination (which directly contradicts romantic love where you love your beloved more than a chair, for example. You don't want to share him/her).

Buddhism has two levels of teaching:

(i) worldly/moral; and

(ii) non-worldly.

Non-worldly love is universal love of metta (refer to Sn 1.8); which does not include sexuality.

Worldly moral love is fidelity or loyalty to one person (refer to AN 4.55). Romantic love can exist within moral love however it is the non-romantic mutual life goals & qualities that are the most important criteria in Buddhism for a lasting relationship (refer to AN 4.55). If people engage in sexual relationship, in Buddhism, this is done without sharing your partner with others.


Was Vipassana discovered by the Buddha (Siddhartha)? I read somewhere that samatha (and jhana) was discovered by the Buddha, but how about vipassana? Is there any evidence either way (i.e. suttas)?

The reason I'm asking is because I am more proficient at practicing vipassana meditation than samatha, but I have some doubt about vipassana itself. Perhaps, if there were some proof that this method was founded by the Buddha himself, my doubt would be gone.

Note: I would prefer answers based on Theravada suttas.

The orthodox view is that samatha meditation was not discovered by the Buddha and vipassana meditation was.

On the origins of samatha meditation:
Besides the fact that other teachers at the time of the Buddha and before were practicing what appears to be samatha and jhana, we have the fact that the Bodhisatta went into the first jhana as a young boy, and the fact that he learned jhana from two teachers before his enlightenment:

“I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’ Then, following on that memory, came the realisation: ‘That is indeed the path to enlightenment.’
-- MN 36 (Bodhi, trans)

and

“I considered: ‘It was not through mere faith alone that Rāma declared: “By realising for myself with direct knowledge, I enter upon and abide in this Dhamma.” Certainly Rāma abided knowing and seeing this Dhamma.’ Then I went to Uddaka Rāmaputta and asked him: ‘Friend, in what way did Rāma declare that by realising for himself with direct knowledge he entered upon and abided in this Dhamma?ʹ In reply Uddaka Rāmaputta declared the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
-- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans)

The confusion seems to stem from some poorly constructed arguments from proponents of the necessity of practicing samatha meditation that what the Bodhisatta's teachers taught was not jhana, but something else. For example:

Some might raise an objection that the teachers Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta preached on Jhana, because the texts state that they taught the Bodhisatta (the Buddha-to-be) the attainment of the state of nothingness and the attainment of the state of neither perception nor non-perception. However, those two attainments could not have been connected to Jhana, because the Bodhisatta recalled, just prior to sitting under the Bodhi Tree, that the only time in his life that he had experienced any Jhana was as a young boy, while sitting under a Rose Apple Tree as his father conducted the first-ploughing ceremony (MN 36). That spontaneous early experience of Jhana had been untaught, unplanned and since forgotten. If that was the only Jhana experienced by the Bodhisatta prior to his experience under the Bodhi Tree, then the two teachers Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta could not have taught Jhana at all.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.htm

The problem with this argument is that it misrepresents the Buddha (the part in bold). I have already quoted above what the Buddha actually said, and he is clearly not suggesting that he only experienced jhana once under the rose apple tree.
The orthodox view is that the Bodhisatta cultivated samatha meditation countless times in his past lives before finally discovering vipassana.

On the origins of vipassana meditation:
There are many references to vipassana in the suttas; the word itself is most often used in conjunction with samatha, as in:

“Bhikkhus, these two things pertain to true knowledge. What two? Serenity and insight. When serenity is developed, what benefit does one experience? The mind is developed. When the mind is developed, what benefit does one experience? Lust is abandoned. When insight is developed, what benefit does one experience? Wisdom is developed. When wisdom is developed, what benefit does one experience? Ignorance is abandoned.
-- AN 2.31 (Bodhi, trans)

(The word for serenity is samatha, and insight is vipassana)
But what is less acknowledged is the frequent use of other forms of the root √pas with the prefix vi, e.g.:

paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ, tattha tattha vipassati.
And what ever dhammas arise in the present, one sees clearly therein.
-- MN 131

or

andhabhūto ayaṃ loko, tanukettha vipassati.
Blind is this world; few here see clearly.
-- Dhp. 174

Further, the root √pas is used together with the noun paññā in a way that leaves no doubt as to the meaning being the same as vipassana:

evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passati
Thus one sees this as it is with right wisdom.
-- MN 35

So, the question of whether vipassana was something the Buddha taught is easy to answer.
The question of whether the Buddha discovered vipassana is a bit more complicated. What do you mean by vipassana? It is a term that means "clear seeing". If, by clear seeing, you include seeing shapes in front of your eyes, or being able to understand logical arguments, or empathizing with others, or any number of things that are called clear seeing by the world, then of course no, the Buddha didn't discover that for himself.
The clear seeing that the Buddha discovered was in regards to the three characteristics and the four noble truths; this is something he discovered that had been hidden to the world, and was the core of his teaching, for example:

“sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.
'All formations are suffering.' When one sees this with wisdom,
Becoming thereupon disenchanted in regards to what is suffering, this is the path to purity.
-- Dhp. 278

Notice the use of a construct similar to vipassati.  As to the Buddha discovering this fact, we have:

uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā. taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti — ‘sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’ti.
“Bhikkhus, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, there persists that law, that stableness of the Dhamma, that fixed course of the Dhamma: ‘All conditioned phenomena are suffering.’ A Tathāgata awakens to this and breaks through to it, and then he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyzes it, and elucidates it thus: ‘All conditioned phenomena are suffering.’
-- AN 3.136 (Bodhi, trans)

And finally, in relation to seeing the four noble truths:

“‘idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.
'This is the noble truth of suffering." arose for me, bhikkhus, in regards to previously unheard dhammas; an eye arose, knowledge arose, wisdom arose, understanding arose, light arose.
-- SN. 56.11

All of this refers to the type of vipassana that the Buddha realized for himself before anyone else in the world.


On Suffering and Happiness Is happiness something we should seek? I feel discontent seeking the state of happiness or creating this state of mind when I know that other beings are suffering. For example, if one knows that animals are being slaughtered inhumanely to satisfy the desire of greed and glutony, then how can one conciously feel happy with this in one's mind? I cannot simply ignore this. There are many examples of these bad acts in many forms.

What is the right mindfullness and how should I perceive these bad acts as a buddhist?

As a Buddhist you should seek your happiness while working towards the happiness of others.  Feeling bad is a self-indulgent activity done to justify inaction.

There is nothing selfish about being happy in the face of suffering, provided you are doing something to help address this suffering. For instance, you mention the suffering of animals.  Very well, what are you doing about it?  Are you a Vegan?  Are you encouraging Veganism?  Do you contribute or volunteer at any related causes?

If you aren't doing something to address the issue, then ask why.  Why do nothing to materially fix the world (which benefits the suffering), yet go to such great lengths to make yourself unhappy (which benefits no one and adds to the suffering of the world -- you).  Could it be that this "feeling bad" is a way of feeling better about not helping?

The mind often throws barriers to the path, and sometimes the best thing you can do is see through these barriers by asking what is REALLY going on.

So the Buddhist path is to seek your happiness while working towards the benefit of others.  The right mindfulness component of this is to scrutinize your thoughts in this regard, in particular the thoughts propping up this "guilt".


Is Buddhism a syncretic religion, and then what would they say on the Abrahamaic religions? Syncretism is a union or attempted fusion of different religions,
  cultures, or philosophies — like Halloween, which has both Christian
  and pagan roots, or the combination of Aristotelian philosophy with
  the belief system of the early punk rock practitioners.

I suppose some of my family are Christian, and though I wasn't really raised that way, I'm wondering, if Buddhism is syncretic, as with the Tao in China, how it has or will combine with the Abrahamaic religions.

Has there been any serious scholarship charting this, or even, though the idea seems off, predicting it?

It might appear that Buddhism is a syncretic religion because it apparently has some similar features to Hinduism and/or Jainism:

Rebirth
Concept of Karma
Samsara
Monks with orange robes and shaven heads
Beings like Brahma, Sakka / Indra, Yama, devas, gandhabba
Tendency to non-violence similar to Jainism
Some Mahayana deities resemble Hindu deities
The use of beads or rosaries in Mahayana Buddhism similar to Hindu
Tendency to non-violence similar to Jainism
Similar ritual elements like cremation and use of incense

In terms of philosophy, the oldest teachings of the Buddha are found in the Pali Canon, especially the Sutta and the Vinaya.

From there, we can see that some of the core and non-core Buddhist teachings, from the Pali Canon, are a stark departure from Hinduism and Jainism, and some are quite original:

The middle way between eternalism and annihilationism (both Hinduism and Jainism subscribe to eternalism of the self) - see this answer
The middle way between asceticism and indulgence (Jainism tends towards asceticism) - see this answer
The self is not eternal, not standalone and not independent - see this answer and contrast with Hindu BG2.24
The self or soul does not pervade the body (unlike the Hindu BG2.17) - see SN35.85
In terms of karma, not everything we experience is a result of past karma (compared to Jainism) - see this answer, SN36.21 and MN101
There is no Supreme Creator God (unlike Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions) - see this answer
The self or soul does not transmigrate (unlike Hindu BG2.22) - see this answer
Lay people eating meat that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket is not sinful - see this answer

However, as also discussed in this answer, later on, Buddhist and Hindu philosophy influenced each other to produce Advaita Vedanta and Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Also, Tibetan Buddhism have adopted some Hindu deities. On the other hand, there has also been debates in later times between Hindu and Buddhist scholars (see this question).

However, Anatta and the lack of a Supreme Creator God, still keeps Buddhism very far apart from the other religions, and due to this, it is very unlikely that Buddhism will form a doctrinally syncretic relationship with Hinduism, Jainism or the Abrahamic religions. The syncretism is likely to remain at the cultural level, if it exists at all.


How did bells become a part of Buddhist ritual? Bells seem to be pervasive throughout Buddhist ritual. I get the impression that many monasteries ring a large bell in the morning, and other monasteries still ring regular bells throughout the day to encourage mindfulness. Most meditation apps on smartphones have a bell-ringing sound.
Where did this come from? What other usage do bells have in Buddhist ritual? Are there references to bells in canonical texts?

Answers from all sects appreciated.

A "bell" is mentioned in the Visuddhimagga.

In this translation it says,

  And, though sometimes not separate, applied thought is the first impact of
  the mind in the sense that it is both gross and inceptive, like the striking of a bell.
  Sustained thought is the act of keeping the mind anchored, in the sense that it is
  subtle with the individual essence of continued pressure, like the ringing of the
  bell. Applied thought intervenes, being the interference of consciousness at the
  time of first arousing [thought], like a bird’s spreading out its wings when
  about to soar into the air, and like a bee’s diving towards a lotus when it is
  minded to follow up the scent of it. The behaviour of sustained thought is quiet,
  being the near non-interference of consciousness, like the bird’s planing with
  outspread wings after soaring into the air, and like the bee’s buzzing above the
  lotus after it has dived towards it

A 'bell' is even mentioned in the Dhammapada,

  134. If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.


Life Duration and Rebirth Did Buddha speak about the duration of lives in any way that related it to where one currently stands on the path?  For example:  "When one is closer to enlightenment, one will have shorter lives after each successive rebirth."

This wouldn't make a lot of sense when following the literal doctrine of Rebirth, but maybe it would make sense as a metaphor.

At any rate - is anything like this idea touched upon in the sutras?

Life expectancy (Ayu-Kalpa) changes, but not related to any individual's progress. This is related to the whole society itself.

  Ayu-Kalpa - a variable time span representing the life expectancy of a typical human being in a particular era or yuga. This can be as high as one Asankya or as small as 10 years. This number is directly proportional to the level of virtue of people in that era. Currently this value hovers around 100 years and is continually decreasing.

Source: http://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kalpa

As society declines or improves life expectancy declines and improves. A rough outline is as follows:

stealing 1st & 2nd thieves given financial aid - 80,000 years
killing: 3rd thief executed; stealing grows - 80,000 years
beauty decline; killing is widespread - 40,000 years
lying: beauty declined further - 40,000 years
slander: some beautiful, some ugly - 20,000 years
sexual misconduct: the ugly coveted the beautiful - 10,000 years
harsh speech & idle chatter - 5000 years
covetousness & ill will - 2500 years (some 2000)
wrong view - 1000 years (some 500)
abnormal lust, excessive desire, deviant conduct - 500 years
disrespect towards all elders and the holy life - 250 years (some 200)
beauty declines further - 100 years
life-span at its shortest; widespread immorality & war - 10 years

Adopted from: Commentary on Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta