What is Mastery of reflectionJhana mastery They say to master jhana you must master five factors. I understand the first four but mastery of reflection is kind of leaving me unsure. I think i get it. Once you come out of the jhana state, you refect on the absorption factors like you do the jhana factors you focus on each until the hindrances is gone. But what are these absotbtion factors. Do i just think about it or stsrt a second meditations on each factor and be aware of them? How do i know what these factors are and distinguish them? They also say there different absorption factor to reflect on. Can you help me understand

These five powers have to be mastered, DeusIIXII, for the purpose to develop right view, for the purpose to gain proper concentraion, for the purpose of release:

(the) first

❋ Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa ❋

  There are these five strengths for one in training. Which five? Strength of conviction, strength of conscience, strength of concern, strength of persistence, & strength of discernment.

  And what is strength of conviction? ...Vitthara Sutta: (Strengths) in Detail

Since certain prerequisites are possible missing, for one living at home: Development of the first six recollections/reflections can be done "no" matter how busy you are, if the busy is according to the Dhamma: AN 11.13

Since lack of stinginess is prerequisiten

  "Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; incapable of realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship. Which five? Stinginess as to one's monastery [lodgings], stinginess as to one's family [of supporters], stinginess as to one's gains, stinginess as to one's status, and ingratitude. Without abandoning these five qualities, one is incapable of entering & remaining in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana; one is incapable realizing the fruit of stream-entry... the fruit of once-returning... the fruit of non-returning... arahantship.

  Macchariya Suttas: Stinginess

Lack of Macchariya is reached by entering the stream. So as long difficulty in devotion, gratitude, precepts, e.g. having not really get known the Dhamma by proper attention, no right view yet, it's good to focus on the base. Then it might be possible, like for this generous and devoted man, to take on: fear & animosity are stilled

Much joyful effort is wished!

Addition, since just coming aware again: There is a "new" book, a gift of Dhamma to give, surely very usefullin this regard:

   The Five Faculties : Putting Wisdom in Charge of the Mind, by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu. (revised October 22, 2017) In May of 2017, members of Le Refuge, a Buddhist group located near Marseilles, invited me to lead an nine-day retreat on the topic of the five faculties (indrīya): conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment. These are a set of qualities that the Buddha numbered among his most important teachings. When put in charge of the mind, they lead all the way to awakening. Taken together, they deal primarily with the practice of meditation, which makes them a good framework for a meditation retreat. However, the first faculty—conviction—focuses on questions of self and world: what kinds of happiness you believe you are capable of attaining, along with what kind of happiness you believe can be found in the world. This means that the five faculties also provide an excellent framework for covering the entire practice of the Buddha’s teachings, both on retreat and in the world at large. (Source)

Note that "reflection", which you used in the question, is actually wisdom/"knowing" (paññā), or discrimination, such as reflection requires sati (mindfullness) and paññā.

Since knowledge at first place, having hear/read the good Dhamma, this might be most usefull to fullfil the answers demand on it's root.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


Dispassion in Buddhism Is something along those lines somewhere to be found in? I am aware of the drawbacks mentioned in MN.19 , but could this way of thinking, that is, the shortness of pleasure not lead to isolation/life rejection?

The Buddha frequently used the word dispassion towards the world, but I HIGHLY DOUBT HE HAD AVERSION to worldly things. This is a common phenomenom that many monks also display ,that is, that they feel aversion to the world. How does one deal with such a (mind) problem to not to drift into negativity to wordly affairs?

I am aware of the drawbacks mentioned in MN.19 , but could this way of thinking, that is, the shortness of pleasure not lead to isolation/life rejection?

Yes. MN 19, similar to AN 3.38, MN 26, etc, describes the experiences of the Buddha-To-Be (Bodhisatta) before enlightenment. For the unenlightened Gotama, his experience of life was happiness was not to be found in ordinary worldly life; thus he went searching. While Gotama did not know what Nibbana was; he already held the conviction that ordinary worldly life would not bring him true happiness.

If we ourselves personally have not had such an experience of disenchantment towards worldly life then teachings such as MN 19 may not be suitable for us or, otherwise, may need to be adapted into a reflection that focuses more on morality rather than on Nibbana.

  The Buddha frequently used the word dispassion towards the world, but I HIGHLY DOUBT HE HAD AVERSION to worldly things. This is a common
  phenomenom that many monks also display ,that is, that they feel
  aversion to the world. How does one deal with such a (mind) problem to
  not to drift into negativity to worldly affairs?

There are subtle differences between aversion/hatred (dosa), disenchantment (revulsion; nibbida) and dispassion (viraga). Therefore, impressions can arise, which can be actually true, that monks can have aversion & hatred towards worldly things.

Aversion is an ordinary, natural yet unenlightened reaction towards evil worldly phenomena. For example, most people believe Hitler was evil, therefore they have a hatred towards Hitler. Thus, generally aversion occurs within some kind of moral outlook related to ideas of 'good' & 'evil'.

Where as dispassion, which arises from disenchantment, is related to impermanence (anicca) and the inability of impermanent things to bring lasting & true happiness (dukkha), as described in the Buddha's 2nd Sermon (SN 22.59). Dispassion is essentially a loss of craving that occurs with the view that worldly things cannot bring true happiness. Thus worldly things become unattractive & not worth craving.


How to let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge How does one let go of something the other person involved won't acknowledge? I don't mean the niceties of the other person's behaviour, the ins and outs and whys. Merely, that the other person - I think - nihilistically won't finish up.
So e.g. your lover leaves you without even leaving a note. Or your friend pretends not to know you, with no explanation. Or your family changes the locks and won't answer the door when you visit.

In the West, we tend to affirm protest, intervention, resentment, and even revenge. In contrast, the Buddha tells us to let it go. That's quite a contrast to deal with.

AN5.162:6.10: In the same way, at that time you should ignore that person’s impure behavior by way of speech and body, and the fact that they don’t get an openness and clarity of heart from time to time, and think of them with nothing but compassion, kindness, and sympathy:  ‘Oh, may this person give up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develop good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind.  Why is that?  So that, when their body breaks up, after death, they’re not reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.’

When the behavior of others disturbs us, we must first acknowledge that the perception of disturbance is within us--we see ugliness to which feel aversion and experience a desire to "make it right". Propelled by this aversion and desire, our resulting actions are corrupted by our own aversion and desire. Because of this, we generate suffering for ourselves with delusions of righteousness.
So our first action is to deal with the mess inside, clean it up and let it go. If our feelings are hurt, we let that go. If we feel resentment, we let that go. If we feel anger, we let that go. We have to let all the clinging go. Because if we don't let go, our actions will have an unskillful root. Such actions always lead to more suffering.
Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter.
The Buddha discusses the danger of fake friends, and urges us to be wise in the relationships we start and maintain:

DN31:15.1: “Householder’s son, you should recognize these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, the spender.

Fake friends aside, we can look to become a good friend worthy of good friends:

DN31:21.1: “Householder’s son, you should recognize these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend in good times and bad, the counselor, and the one who’s compassionate.

Let go of bad relationships. Open your heart to good-hearted relationships. And keep your heart open even to people from bad relationships--there may come a time when such a person comes back to you to make amends. Be open to that.


Taming the mind and Homelessness In the Buddha's teachings we learn how to see things as a product of our own mind, for example, if you "fall in love" everything happens in your own mind, the other person is nothing but an external stimulus, so in theory if we tam our mind we can live in this world without suffering wordly consequences of attachments and desires.

Even with this deep knowledge, in Buddhism we are encouraged to abandon desires, wealth and go to homeless life (for monks!). So the question is: Is it impossible to tame the mind completely? Is that an utopia? Because if one could tame his mind completely, there would be no need to abandon things as the way he relates to them would be completely free and deattached.

If material things have the potential to create problems, does it mean a full tamed mind is impossible?

In Zen we are not taught to abandon things. Instead we are taught to let go of our attachment to things. The key here is that it is not the things themselves that make us suffer, but it is our attachment to these things that make us suffer. Eliminating the things themselves is different than learning to liberate yourself from your own attachment to these things.

Three men sit in a lions den waiting to be eaten by a hungry lion. The first man hides in the corner trembling in fear of the lion. The second man stands strong ready to face the lion and kill it. The third man is liberated from attachments and is not in fear of the lion, nor does he want to kill the lion. In the present moment the third man is filled with joy and happiness for he is alive.

Abandoning things, is like the man trying to get rid of the lion. At first it may seem like the best choice, but there is a middle way between the first two men.


Is a Mahayana Buddhist *required* to take a Bodhisattva vow? Is the taking of a Bodhisattva vow a requirement(1) in Mahayana, or is it merely an option (or maybe at most a recommendation)?

And if it's not a requirement, then for someone who decides not to take it, what if anything is the difference, in terms of the overall aim(2), between the Mahayana approach and the Theravada approach?

--

(1) By "requirement" I'm invoking the usual idiomatic use of that word -- i.e. pointing to an action and its consequences. For example, "if you want to build muscle, you are required to lift weights" or "if you want to avoid rebirth in a hell realm you are required to refrain from murdering your parents"

(2) Clearly there are differences in practice formats, but I'm thinking more of the end point. In that context, without the vow to continue as a Bodhisattva, Theravada and Mahayana seem like one and the same.

As per my understanding, formal taking of Bodhisattva vow (with ceremony and all) is not a hard requirement, as long as one eventually internalizes the core message of the vow: that one must surrender the hope of ever attaining Nirvana and get very comfortable with the idea of staying in Samsara for a long, long time.

Here is a version of the vow we chanted, after every meditation session:

  Sentient beings are numberless; we vow to save them.
  Desires are inexhaustible; we vow to end them.
  The Dharmas are boundless; we vow to master them.
  The Buddha's Way is incomparable; we vow to attain it.

See those adjectives -- numberless, inexhaustible and so on? Reciting them again and again makes you question what you're really up to ;)

Of course this trick only works in conjunction with perfectly realizing the rest of six paramitas. Staying in Samsara is an act of murdering the ego, not of easing into worldly pleasures. Murdering the ego is the main prerequisite for Enlightenment, from Mahayana perspective.


Notion of good and bad in Buddhism if I understand correctly, Buddhism is opposed to dualistic concepts: Us vs. them, beautiful vs. ugly, pain vs. pleasure. We should rather realise the emptiness of those constructs in order to see the things in the way they really are, i.e. see their real nature.

How then, does that translate to the concept of good and bad? Because I think every Buddhist tradition teaches us that certain behaviours, acts or ways of thinking are beneficial and create good karma, whereas others are detrimental to our spiritual progress or to our own well-being and that of others and create bad karma. Examples of good vs. bad behaviour abound in many texts like the Vinaya rules but also in the Noble Eightfold Path itself. Right speech for example is considered good whereas the opposite - lying, denouncing, spreading rumors, careless speech in general are surely to be considered bad, detrimental, whatever you want to call it.

How can I accept the duality of good vs. bad while accepting that other dualities are just hollow projections of the untrained layman's mind that keep me from seeing the true nature of things?

I would also be greatly interested if somebody could shed a light on the different traditions' views on the subject.

Thank you!

The original Buddhist teachings do not include a doctrine of non-duality. The Buddha's enlightenment came from ending craving & attachment rather than from ending dualistic perceptions & thoughts.

Understanding good & bad for moral/social purposes is one kind of knowledge.

Seeing & understanding the true nature of reality for liberation is another kind of knowledge.

The Buddha taught: (1) avoid evil; (2) do good; & (3) purify the mind. Purifying the mind means ending egotistic attachment towards good & bad rather than giving up the understanding of good & bad.

  'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there,
  released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse. These are the two
  Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened
  — has given in sequence.

  Itivuttaka 39


What was the 1st attempt to have a Theravada monastery in the West? Venerable Nyanatiloka had tried to setup a monastery in the West. Were there previous attempts? How successful were they? Do they still exist? If not, what happened?

Following is the link "Plans for a Theravada Buddhist monastery in Europe" with regard to this exercise. Extract as follows:

  Upon returning to Germany, Markgraf planned to found a Buddhist Monastery in the southern part of Switzerland and formed a group to realise this aim. Enrico Bignani, the publisher of Coenobium: Rivista Internazionale di Liberi Studi from Lugano had found a solitary alpine hut at the foot of Monte Lema Mountain, near the village of Novaggio overlooking Lake Maggiore, and Nyanatiloka left Burma for Novaggio at the end of 1909 or the beginning of 1910. The architect Rutch from Breslau had already designed a monastery with huts for monks, and the plan was that Bhikkhu Sīlācāra and other disciples were to join Nyanatiloka there. Nyanatiloka's stay and plans drew a lot of attention from the press and several journalists visited him to write about the him and the planned monastery. However, Nyanatiloka suffered heavily from bronchitis due to the cold weather, and also from malnutrition, and after half a year left Novaggio with the German monk candidate Ludwig Stolz, who had joined him at Novaggio, to try to find a better place in Italy or North Africa. In Novaggio he worked on his Pāli-grammatik (Pāli Grammar) and his translation of the Abhidhamma text called Puggalapaññatti (Human Types).

According to this timeline, Theravada had the following significant times

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/thera_timeline.htm

  1899  • First Western Theravada monk (Gordon Douglas) ordains, in
  Burma.

  1958   • Ven. Nyanaponika Thera establishes the Buddhist Publication
  Society in Sri Lanka to publish English-language books on Theravada
  Buddhism. • Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement is founded in Sri Lanka to
  bring Buddhist ideals to bear in solving pressing social problems. •
  Two Germans ordain at the Royal Thai Embassy in London, becoming the
  first to take full Theravada ordination in the West.

The Insight Meditation Society predates the first monastery

  1970's     • Refugees from war in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos settle in
  North America, Australia and Europe, establishing many Buddhist
  communities in the West. • Ven. Taungpulu Sayadaw and Dr. Rina Sircar,
  from Burma, establish the Taungpulu Kaba-Aye Monastery in Northern
  California, USA. • Ven. Ajahn Chah establishes Wat Pah Nanachat, a
  forest monastery in Thailand for training Western monks. • Insight
  Meditation Society, a lay meditation center, is founded in
  Massachusetts, USA. • Ven. Ajahn Chah travels to England to establish
  a small community of monks at the Hamsptead Vihara, which later moves
  to Sussex, England, now known as Chithurst Forest Monastery.

  1980's     • Lay meditation centers grow in popularity in North America,
  Australia and Europe. • First Theravada forest monastery in the USA
  (Bhavana Society) is established in West Virginia. • Amaravati
  Buddhist Monastery established in England by Ven. Ajahn Sumedho.

Depending on what your thoughts are on The Insight Meditation Society, you may consider that an earlier "monastery" and how strictly you interpret monastery.


My interests have changed. I wonder how to keep my previous life? Lately, I have experienced a great breakthrough in my meditation. Being able to keep equanimous in front of deep sankharas I couldn't deal with before. My heart and mind are filled with happiness and joy, and I'm constantly deepening my practice. Although, I found that I have completely lost interest in my previous world. I was on the path of writing a dissertation towards doctoral studies, in philosophy, and now I can barely open a book without thinking - what nonsense this all is, philosophers, thinkers, full of ego and ignorance. How can I follow them? I ask myself, will my past life and interests come back to me or it is a true change of heart. I have considered now a way to contribute and give others the gift of dhamma. But dhamma should be given free. And I have a family to take care of. I wanted to share and ask for useful thoughts and other experiences like mine.

:)
Thank you

You have a family to take care of & livelihood is a factor of the Buddhist 8 fold path. You must earn a living.

If you have an intellectual talent for philosophy & have spent time & money in nearing completion of major studies, I would suggest you consider forcing yourself to complete your studies because your qualification can be used for livelihood. For example, once you complete your PHD, you can do some studies in Buddhism &/or psychology and thus branch out into that more practical & benevolent field (rather than work in pure Western philosophy). Formal qualifications can be very useful things.

For example, when I was young (23 years old) & first discovered meditation, I practised for a whole year, full time, and felt very free. I did not understand Buddhism well & left the meditation monastery to study psychology at university so I could learn to help people. I found the studies not practical at all; so I completed the 1st year of study, left university & returned to the meditation monastery. Some years later, after I discovered certain Buddhist teachings which are for helping ordinary people & returned to Western society, I regretted not completing the psychology degree. What you can do with a qualification is often more relevant than what you must study to obtain the qualification.

I don't wish to burst your 'enlightenment bubble' but it appears you are 'attached' to this 'enlightenment'. While I am being humorous here, often ideals must be abandoned or modified for more practical considerations.

I would suggest for you to consider (weigh up) how you could use the PHD in a more practical way.

While you are correct in stating Buddha-Dhamma should be given freely, I personally do not believe it is a crime to earn a living from Dhamma. Many universities have Buddhist studies; the lecturers/professors must have proper secular qualifications (rather than just be monks); therefore individuals, such as yourself, must fulfill these roles.

There are ex-Theravada monks who are now paid university professors, who still are part of the Theravada Buddhist community; including liaising with monks. They are never criticized.


Does Paritta/Sutta really have magical power? Many people believed certain Paritta/Sutta have certain magical power, for example Bojjhanga Sutta for curing illness and Om Mani Padme Hum having a great (even greatest) magical power among other Mantra (i refer Mantra to Mahayana tradition and Paritta to Theravada tradition).

What do you think about this?

Does the Buddha has spoken by Himself - that His follower can re-chant his words (Sutta/Mantra) to gain specific magical power? If He has, please kindly tell me what Sutta is it,

Note : Please dont be offensed, i love listening to Sutta, but im curious about this one.

In AN 4.67, the Buddha allowed the monks to use the paritta to protect themselves from harm. Notice Ven. Thanissaro's note:

  "This is one of the few protective charms mentioned in the Pali canon and specifically allowed by the Buddha for monks to use (another charm, also allowed to the monks, is contained in DN 32). Note that the power of the charm is said to come, not from the words, but from the mind of good will with which they are said. It thus differs from charms taught in later forms of Buddhism, where the words themselves are said to contain power."


Food and other cravings, and guarding the senses How do I deal with food cravings or craving in general? According to the four efforts I should replace craving with the disadvantages. Can loving-kindness also work? I feel like concentrating on impermanence and on the disadvantages, in the midst of an emotion, works not as effective. I guess one needs to strengthen one's conviction in both?
I read the Buddha saying about guarding the senses -- but I doubt that the Buddha meant not looking, not hearing (etc) at things. While it can be advantageous, I think perceiving them differently is much more important. Can someone answer what "sense-guarding" means, or "not grasping at the beautiful", and how do I do it?

I feel like concentrating on impermanence and on the disadvantages, in
  the midst of an emotion, works not as effective.

Yes, that's because what impermanence is not the one and only thing which need to be considered to uproot the cravings. No matter how hard you try can you get satisfied with any kind of cravings? It can be food. If you are fully satisfied or
if you've reached ultimate satisfaction would you need to eat food again? No right. Our mind always looking for this satisfaction and it always get cheated by things like nice / delicious food etc. And then we keep running after that. It's true we feel happy when we eating that, but those doesn't full fill our mind's expectation of ultimate satisfaction. Why is that? That's because everything in this world is insatiable. That's the reality | truth of this world. Impermanence is just a one quality / attribute of that nature. Once you realise this, you should think twice before running after mirages. Because no matter how hard you run you won't be satisfied only thing you get is the tiredness and other occurrences while running. And then you should see danger of those kind of actions. Not knowing the gratification (assada), the danger (adinava) and how to escape from (nissarana) are the root causes for cravings. When you think about this and when you realise the uselessness of cravings it will start to get reduced.

  I read the Buddha saying about guarding the senses -- but I doubt that
  the Buddha meant not looking, not hearing (etc) at things.

Again this links to the above. How you guard your senses is thinking about the uselessness of those by knowing the gratification (assada), the danger (adinava) and how to escape from (nissarana). This doesn't mean that not looking at things but controlling the attachment / craving / gratification (assada) towards the thing you look at and the action of looking by thinking of danger. Which will realise you the gratification (assada), the danger (adinava) and how to escape from (nissarana) the thing you looked at and the action of looking. And finally you start to escape from the part of attachment or the gratification of that. Because that's what drives you towards the danger.

If you think about the bait given to a fish. Is the food in the bait given pain to the fish? or the hook (used to catch the fish with the fishing rod) given the pain?

If you the answer is hook, then if you just place the hook without the food (bait) does the fish get caught or the fish get pain?

No right. Then if you think deeply you will understand that the food (bait) is given pain to the fish. Like wise gratification (assada) gives the danger (adinava) to us. We can't blame fish because it doesn't know that it's a trap. It's called Avidya (ignorance). For us it's the same. Poor us! we are covered with Avidya (ignorance) so we don't realise the truth, we don't realise it's a trap, and we get attached to things and keep running after gratification (assada) of those, thinking those will give us ultimate satisfaction. But it will never happen. Because the world is insatiable. Once you see this you will find a
to escap (nissarana) from gratification (assada). Don't misunderstand this escape is not from the outer world things, but from the attachment / cravings.

Where does the ultimate happiness and satisfaction actually do exist, which is looking for by our minds? -> It's called Nivana, Nirvana or Enlightenment

With Metta..!


Does regret help us to correct our faults? Does regret / guilty help us to correct our faults? Isnt the pain from our faults push us to the correct path?

In the Abhidhamma, regret and remorse over the past is considered an unwholesome mental factor.

Worry (kukkucca) is remorse, brooding, and repenting over evil acts
done in the past or good acts left undone.

The following theme for reflection from AN 5.57 (quoted below) can prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states. It encourages shame of evil (hiri) and fear of evil (otappa), which are mentioned as beautiful mental factors in the Abhidhamma.
So, remorse and regret over the past is unwholesome. But shame of evil and fear of evil, or basically moral shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (otappa), for the future, is wholesome.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

Hiri and otappa are explained below in Ven. Bodhi's "The Guardians of the World" :

The Buddha points to two mental qualities as the underlying safeguards
of morality, thus as the protectors of both the individual and society
as a whole. These two qualities are called in Pali hiri and ottappa.
Hiri is an innate sense of shame over moral transgression; ottappa is
moral dread, fear of the results of wrongdoing. The Buddha calls these
two states the bright guardians of the world (sukka lokapala). He
gives them this designation because as long as these two states
prevail in people's hearts the moral standards of the world remain
intact, while when their influence wanes the human world falls into
unabashed promiscuity and violence, becoming almost indistinguishable
from the animal realm (Itiv. 42).
While moral shame and fear of wrongdoing are united in the common task
of protecting the mind from moral defilement, they differ in their
individual characteristics and modes of operation. Hiri, the sense of
shame, has an internal reference; it is rooted in self-respect and
induces us to shrink from wrongdoing out of a feeling of personal
honor. Ottappa, fear of wrongdoing, has an external orientation. It is
the voice of conscience that warns us of the dire consequences of
moral transgression: blame and punishment by others, the painful
kammic results of evil deeds, the impediment to our desire for
liberation from suffering. Acariya Buddhaghosa illustrates the
difference between the two with the simile of an iron rod smeared with
excrement at one end and heated to a glow at the other end: hiri is
like one's disgust at grabbing the rod in the place where it is
smeared with excrement, ottappa is like one's fear of grabbing it in
the place where it is red hot.

And from Iti 42:

"Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the
two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of
other honored persons."
Those in whom shame and fear of wrong
Are not consistently found
Have deviated from the bright root
And are led back to birth and death.
But those in whom shame and fear of wrong
Are consistently ever present,
Peaceful, mature in the holy life,
They put an end to renewal of being.


Anapanasati (Forced Breathing) Is the breath all important? I know that the breath conditions the body, in that the breath tranquilizes the body, but often I read about NOT volitionally breathing in and out and this is exactly what I am doing. Can I use an alternative object or even open monitorin, that is many objects in a succession?

The breathing naturally arises as a "sign" that the mind has right mindfulness & right concentration. If a meditator aspires to fulfill the 16 stages of Anapansati, they should never seek to observe the breathing & never be concerned about the breathing. The Buddha taught his path is the abandoning of craving. The meditator should only watch the mind; to ensure the mind is free from craving.

An analogy is a mother hen sitting on eggs hoping for the eggs to hatch. All the mother hen does is sit on the eggs, to keep the eggs warm & safe. In time, the chicks inside the eggs will hatch the eggs. The mother hen does not use a hammer or her beak to crack open the eggs.

Similarly, the more the mind thinks about watching breathing, the less the mind will watch the breathing. This is because thinking cannot watch breathing because what watches breathing is consciousness.

Using thinking to watch breathing is the same as a mother hen using her beak to crack open the eggs. It is the wrong method & will only harm the chicks.


what those wrong views mean? Middle length suttas often include following descriptions of wrong views (MN 44, MN 109, MN131, MN 138):

regards material form as self, or self as possessed of material form,
or material form as in self, or self as in material form.

(similar descriptions are given for feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness. To limit the scope, I'd like to focus on the material part for now, and see whether I understand those insightful categories (as I have a feeling that this slips through the words).
For the sake of simplicity I interpret: regards material form as self is basically I am a collection of atoms, self as possessed of material form: this is hard for me to understand, maybe as eager to have many houses and fat bank account?, material form as in self: I can be only certain about things that are taking place in my head? self as in material form: hard to understand.

For the sake of simplicity I interpret: regards material form as self
is basically I am a collection of atoms

The wrong view is: "The body is a/the self; I am the body; the body is me".
The right view is: "The body is a collection of atoms (elements/dhatu)."

self as possessed of material form: this is hard for me to understand,
maybe as eager to have many houses and fat bank account?

Yes, the above appears correct. The wrong view is: "I have a body; I own gold & silver".

self as in material form: hard to understand.

The word "form" ("rūpasmiṃ") in Pali, above, is in locative case. The above appears to mean to regard the self as located in the body. Possibly, for example, "my liver; my finger; or my heart"; or the common belief: "the soul/self abides in the body".
In Hinduism and also probably later Buddhism, there is found the terms "dehi" and "deha". "Deha" means the "envelope or shell" the "dehi" dwells in. "Dehi" means the "soul" or "creature" dwelling in the "deha". For example, in the Bhagavad Gita:

vāsānsi jīrṇāni yathā vihāya navāni gṛihṇāti naro ’parāṇi tathā
śharīrāṇi vihāya jīrṇānya nyāni sanyāti navāni dehī
As a person sheds worn-out garments and wears new ones, likewise, at
the time of death, the soul casts off its worn-out body and enters a
new one.

Or the Christian Bible says: "You are the body of Christ. Each one of you is a part of it."

material form as in self: I can be only certain about things that are
taking place in my head?

I assume the word "self" ("attani") above is also in locative case. This appears to mean believing: "I am made of mind & body and the body is a part of myself".
For example, when my uncle passed away, at the funeral, i ended up in the car of the Christian Orthodox Priest travelling to the cemetery. The priest said to me it was wrong that my father (an Orthodox) was cremated because in the Orthodox religion they believe the person is made up of both the soul and the body rather than merely the soul. Therefore, it is improper for an Orthodox to cremate the body of the deceased. The view of the priest here was the self is made up of two parts and the body is part of the self. This appears to be an example of: "form in the self".
The Pali is below:

rūpaṃ (nominative or accusative) attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ (nominative), rūpasmiṃ (locative) vā attānaṃ.
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
Sujato translation


When to help and when not to? How does one know when to help and when not to help others?

It seems without awareness of the results - bad, good, neutral for the one being helped and one who is helping, it is difficult to make choices.

For example, you may help someone in distress however you may also become the recipient of that distress.

I guess the most Buddhist answer is going to be, to the extent you are blinded by "kleshas" (mental/emotional hangups) you can't clearly see what is good for others -- nor even what is good for yourself. The fewer hangups you have, the better you can estimate the outcomes - all the way until Buddha's omniscience, which involves 0% obscurations and therefore 100% clarity. So working on your own mental and emotional hangups is the best way to ensure your actions will do more help than harm.

As was said in Sedaka Sutta:

  And how does one help others by helping oneself?
  -- By practicing Dharma, by developing it, by pursuing it.

Meanwhile, is there a rule of thumb we can apply to decide when to help and when not to help? Here is what I follow:

the kind of help that inspires other person to let go of obsessions, negativity, confusion, attachments, fixed ideas, overgeneralizations, preconceptions, one-sided views etc. - is useful even if it involves lots of effort and pain on my side;
but the kind of help that supports person's samsaric lifestyle - and helps them run on like a squirrel in the wheel - this kind of help has very little long-term effect IMHO, outside of reducing their immediate suffering. I still do it sometimes, out of compassion -- and in the hope that perhaps it will inspire recipient's faith in basic goodness -- but I don't allow it to use all of my energy / tip me out of balance - otherwise that would be what Chogyam Trungpa called "idiot compassion".


Is fourth precept personal and depends on the individual? I find it very hard to get a clear understanding what is considered a breach of this precept and what is not. Different perspective offers different answer.

For example:
Some people considered social niceties such as "I'm fine" as an answer to "How are you?" is not lying (when someone is not fine).
Some people do not make such exceptions, when you say something untrue, that means you are lying.

Receiving foods and say "Thank you, it's delicious" is a lie since the food is not eaten yet.
Some people said that is not lying but an expression of gratitude.

One person views others as justifying lying.
The other person views others as being (too) dogmatic, which is not the core of Buddhist teaching.

How can we have a clear cut understanding about this particular precept therefore put them into practice? To what extent it can be considered misrepresenting untruth?

The precept is very clear:

  I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
  Musāvādā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

Musāvādā comes from two words: musā, which means neglectfully, falsely, or wrongly; and vadati which means to speak. Musāvādā as a noun simply means "a lie". The language is clear: this precept means not to tell lies.

If you are asked how you are and you respond with "I'm fine" when you're not fine, you've told a lie: it is false speech.

If you say food tastes delicious but it really doesn't, you've told a lie: it is false speech.

Do these "white lies" break the precept? By the simple language of the precept, yes. One might tell these kinds of lies to avoid giving lengthy explanations of our health or moods, or to avoid offending someone when we don't like their cooking. But to lie is to break the fourth precept, regardless of the reason for the lie.

What can we do? Use a skillful approach to responding that does not require telling a lie. "How are you doing?" even if you are miserable can be answered with another truthful statement, such as "Oh, I've been very busy" (assuming you've been very busy). "How is dinner?" could be answered with "I'm enjoying it greatly" if you are in fact enjoying it (which isn't the same thing as liking the taste specifically; it's entirely possible to enjoy a meal without liking the taste if you're enjoying other aspects of the meal, such as the opportunity to be with friends and family, or perhaps the opportunity to eat mindfully and regard the flavors of the food even if they're not your favorite).

To follow this precept is to keep your speech pure. If the precepts were easy to follow, we wouldn't need them! Avoiding false speech requires great skill and thoughtful responses, but we can all do it.


Did Buddha ever deny the existence of God? I heard that when Buddha was asked about God, he kept silent.

Although perhaps in Buddhism nothing really exists, did Buddha ever deny the existence of God?

Hasn't he really never spoken about God?

Here: Tittha Sutta: Sectarians

  Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that — when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people — even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?

  "There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all without cause & without condition.

Also here: A Discourse to Knowers of Veda -- Tevijja Sutta

  “And just even so, VāseMMha, though you say that the Brahmans are not able to point out the way to union with that which they have seen, and you further say that neither any one of them, nor of their pupils, nor of their predecessors even to the seventh generation has ever seen Brahmā. And you further say that even the Rishis of old, whose words they hold in such deep respect, did not pretend to know, or to have seen where, or whence, or whither Brahmā is. Yet
  these Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas say, forsooth that they can point out the way to union with that which they know not, neither have seen! Now, what think you, VāseMMha? Does it not follow that, this being so, the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, is foolish talk?”

  VāseMMha, is there a single one of the Brahmans versed in the three Vedas who
  has ever seen Brahmā face to face?”


Does Buddhism apply to this formula for Christianity? In a discussion about suffering with my brother that got heated he said,
"Buddhism can't end suffering any more than Christianity or Islam, it's a great sales pitch though. Formula to religion: life is bad, but we can end suffering in some distant end goal that no one can ever actually achieve."
I'm a not very well studied or practiced, so I didn't know exactly how to respond and it's shaking my worldview.

For me, the Buddha’s great insight about suffering had a very practical goal in this life—not some future one. I see this goal being confused with the accomplishment of the enlightenment and total realization of the Buddha. That takes much time and patient dedication which I won’t speak about.
I feel that it is important to point out a couple of obvious differences between Christianity and Islam, and what came to be called Buddhism: the Buddha was not God and is not the creator, and the point of Buddhism is not to worship Buddha, but to emulate him throughout your life, while practicing what he taught about ending suffering. The desire to end suffering does not bring about ‘happiness’. That is the well-crafted carrot on a stick that consumptive corporatists dangle in front of us to keep us wanting more and more in a hopeless chase to find something which ultimately can’t be found outside ourselves.
The Buddha’s path doesn’t make you happy, although you might experience being happy while on that path; instead, the Buddha taught how to end suffering, which leads to the satisfaction called comfort. All too often today, that message is corrupted, by those that should know better, into a ‘buddhist’ search for ‘happiness.’

The goal to be sought is not momentary elation, but an enduring, universal omnipresent enjoyment: “… Unshakable freedom of mind, this is the goal…” [1] when achieved, then “to whatever place you go, you shall go in comfort; wherever you stand, you shall stand in comfort; wherever you sit, you shall sit in comfort; and wherever you make your bed, you shall lie down in comfort.” [2]

If you think about it, all sentient beings seek comfort, not happiness. It is only in modern times that ‘happiness’ has become our stated goal, but it is only an abstraction, not something that is attainable, and marketeers know this. That is why they are always trying to convince us that we need to buy their products to be more comfortable in some way. They know that this is our actual motivation, but they also know that desiring or craving things will not bring us happiness, nor comfort, so we will never be satisfied.

Any community that lives on staples has relatively few wants. The community that can be trained to desire new things, even before the old have been entirely… consumed, yields a market to be measured more by desires than needs. And man’s desires can be developed so that they will greatly overshadow his needs.[3]

This is the exact opposite of Buddha’s great insight about how not to suffer.
I’ll leave it at that, so you can answer your brother without getting into the complexities of how one goes about implementing what Buddha taught.
[1] “The Middle Length Sayings (Majjhima Nikaya),” Volume I, tr. I.B. Horner, Luzac and Co., Ltd., London, 1954, pg 253
[2] “The Book of the Gradual Sayings,” Volume IV, tr. E.M. Hare, Luzac and Co., Ltd., London, 1935, 1955, pg 200
[3] American Prosperity - Its Causes And Consequences, Paul M. Mazur (Lehman Brothers) 1928, pgs. 24-25


What are the "defilements"? Simple question, but I would like to know- what are the defilements, according to Theravada Buddhism? I keep hearing this term and would like to find out what it means, according to the original teachings of the Buddha. Thank you

In simple words, defilements are like little clouds that descend on the head -- and when you look around through one of them, you see everything in a different color or blurry or distorted.

That's what they are, they are glitches that affect your interpretation and evaluation. The problem with defilements is that subjectively they are indistinguishable from reality, it just looks like that's the way the external object actually is -- not a cloud over your head. Or you may get really angry with someone and yell at them, thinking your anger is justified - but it really just a defilement, a temporary madness.

In the original Buddha's teaching, as recorded in Pali Canon, the major types of defilements are:

lobha -- usually translated as desire or greed -- that's the defilement that suddenly makes some things appear very likable.
dosa -- usually translated as anger or hatred -- that's the defilement that makes some things appear very wrong.
and moha -- usually translated as ignorance or delusion -- that's the defilement that makes you confused about what's what.

The traditional metaphor is that these three are like the three base paints that mix in various proportions to create the innumerable variety of defilements observed in real life.


Should I decrease the amount of time I practice concentration meditation? I have been following buddhist practices for little over three years now, and samadhi - or concentration, as you prefer - meditation was obviously part of my practice. As I was often taught from some of the books from which I learned meditation, I used samadhi meditation as a way of stabilizing my mind and of being able to do insight practices, beyond just getting more relaxed.

One of my primary concerns after having exited the "bubble" of samadhi meditation after a long time is that I feel that some of the daily-life difficulties that I was somehow able to attenuate with concentration meditation are now reappearing, although with much less strength. More precisely, since when I needed to decrease the time for samadhi meditation I have been experiencing more mood swings, a little more anger, sometimes even a bit of depression, but at the same time I also felt more connected with the environment around me. Just a few months ago, when my samadhi meditation routine was more strong, I kind of avoided part of the suffering surrounding myself by making use of my concentration abilities.

This left me wondering whether I should try to tackle some of my personal problems through insight or other practices in a more definitive way, rather than trying to avoid them by shifting my concentration to more tranquil places. I am not at all against consistently practicing concentration meditation, but sometimes it takes more time than I have; also, I think to have heard time ago the Buddha criticizing a routine composed of just samadhi meditation. Actually that seems a reasonable recollection, since the elaboration of the four noble truths and of the noble eightfold path from the Buddha seem to be oriented toward solving the problems of existence in a more definitive way, while, as I was taught, the jhanic states are only temporary and shouldn't be considered otherwise.

Concentration meditation is only a tool to temporary suppress your problems and hindrances.  It is not a self-contained technique for eradicating them.  This was one of the Buddha's great discoveries - an obstacle that he saw past when he was under the teaching of Uddaka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama.  Concentration is only valuable insofar as it aids in insight practice.  As the Buddha says, “When my concentrated mind [in the fourth jhana] was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to..." (MN 36.38).  The malleable and clear mind that you enjoy following samadhi is not an end in itself but needs to be directed back to the world of form.  That includes all of your mental hangups, psychological issues, etc.  The techniques for doing this are vast and include everything from mindfulness practices to Zen koans.

Ultimately, concentration meditation and insight practice go hand in hand.  They add value and support to each other making either practice greater than it would be on its own.  You don't need to abandon samadhi practice.  Just make sure you are using it effectively.


I can feel the rising and falling of sensations in vipassana, but what to make of thoughts? There are two things I want to understand here. Firstly, though I'm not overly disturbed by thoughts during vipassana sitting, I just don't know how do I treat them. What I presently do is just try to ignore them and continue observing the rising and falling. But if the thoughts are too strong and persist, I tend to observe them impartially until they leave of their own accord (but during this time my observance of anicca has stopped). Am I doing this thing rightly or not?

Secondly, I want to understand the reality of thoughts. I know that ultimately none of these have permanent reality, but compared to conditioned reality of sensations what is the conditioned reality of thoughts? Basically, I want to know whether they have any objective reality, or they are subjective (just things in my head)?

I recently read in a book that reality keeps vibrating each and every instant, and we need to look into the arising/vanishing of these vibrations, as that is what anicca is all about. My question is do these vibrations apply to thoughts as well or just sensations?

How should I treat thoughts?
You should strive to know thoughts as thoughts. If you are observing impartially, that's good. If you are ignoring the light, fleeting thoughts, it depends what you mean. You don't want to actively ignore anything as that will cultivate aversion or even a dullness of mind. If you mean the thoughts are just too light, too fleeting to catch, then you're doing what you can, and your coverage will improve with practice, if you strive for it.
The other side of this is that it's more important to impartially observe whatever comes up, rather than simply impartially observing thoughts. That is, you should try to stay in the here and the now. A thought might become frustration, and you should observe that impartially. Then the frustration becomes hotness in the body. As soon as we are aware of the hotness, we should observe the hotness. Or perhaps coldness following fear. And then maybe the thought comes back, and we observe that, or we feel an irritation on the skin, and we observe that. I'm giving as many examples as I can from my own experience to try to illustrate that when a thought overtakes us, the here-and-now can be a swiftly-moving target.
What is the conditioned reality of thoughts?
The Buddha placed thoughts on an equal footing with all other sensations, as you can read in the very brief Sabba Sutta (found in the Samyutta Nikaya, Sutta #35.23):

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

So from a meditative point of view, the most objective things you have are the thoughts and the senses. Don't worry too much whether thoughts are objective or subjective. Rather consider objectively that a thought is a thought, and seeing it as anything else is subjective.


How is possible that monks memorised 10.000 sutras? According to Wikipedia, in the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali canon there are 10.000 sutras.
According to tradition, Ananda recited by heart all 10.000 sutras after the death of Gautama and they have been memoriesed and recited regularly by monks, for many centuries, before they were written down.
So my questions is: how is it possible to memorise and recite regularly 10.000 sutras? Is it realistic to think it happened like that or is there another explanation about how the sutras have been transmitted and written down?
I hope the question is clear.
I’m asking this because if I try to image today’s monks memorise and recite 10.000 sutras it seems something out of reality. My guess is that only very few people would have the ability to do that. So I struggle to imagine how they could have done it for centuries. But maybe I am missing something and there is an explanation that I cannot see.

The way the Pali Canon was transmitted was by oral tradition. The composition is in a poetic form, using mnemonic formulae for memorization and recitation. The recitation would have also served a ritualistic or ceremonial purpose. Even the tradition says that in the First Buddhist Council, Ananda and Upali recited the suttas and the vinaya.
Please see "Pali Oral Literature" by L.S. Cousins. I quote below:

Early Buddhist literature is an oral literature. Such a literature is
not without its own characteristic features. A widespread use of
mnemonic formulae is one of the most typical of these. I would refer
to the considerable body of research on the nature of oral epic
poetry. In such poetry the formulae are used both as an aid to actual
performance and to maintain the continuity and form of the epic
tradition.
Both these features are certainly present in the sutta literature. In
the first place many suttas are clearly designed for chanting. We
should assume that, then as now, their chanting would produce a great
deal of religious emotion - the pamojja and piti-somanassa of the
texts. The difference of course would be that the language of the
suttas would still be directly comprehensible to the hearers. In these
circumstances suttas would be chanted by individual monks both for
edification and for enjoyment. We may compare the recitations
attributed to Ananda and Upali in accounts of the First Council. In
practice they would have to be tailored to the needs of the particular
situation ~ shortened or lengthened as required. An experienced
chanter would be able to string together many different traditional
episodes and teachings so as to form a coherent, profound and moving
composition.

I believe that the monks edited and reorganized the Pali suttas over centuries to make them have mnemonic formulae and they also modified similar stanzas to become exactly identical - which is why you can find some standard formulae repeated in multiple suttas. This made it easier to memorize, recite and transmit. This is explained below.
From section 3.2 of the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali:

For several hundred years, from the time that separate transmission
lineages emerged in the Asokan period until the texts were written
down, the EBTs were passed down orally in separate textual lineages.
Comparative studies have shown that this oral transmission was highly
reliable and that the core doctrinal material was essentially
unchanged. How did this work,given what we know about the
unreliability of memory? Indian culture provided the template for
highly reliable oral preservation. It is known that the Ṛg Veda and
other Vedic texts were transmitted orally—that is,by memory—with
extreme accuracy for over two thousand years.
In his comprehensive study of the Majjhima Nikāya, Anālayo considers
the impact of oral transmission and concludes: “At the same time,
ratherthan giving us a completely new picture of early Buddhism, what
my comparative study of the parallels to the Majjhima Nikāya
discourses yields is a reconfirmation of the essentials, with
occasional divergence in details.”
In the field of oral literature, there is a distinction between texts
that are to be memorised verbatim, as in the Buddhist and Vedic
traditions, and those which serve as springboards for storytelling, as
in oral folk traditions.
The latter are subject to natural evolution and variation; they are
meant to adapt to the teller and the situation. Such, according to
Oldenberg, are also found in Buddhist literature, specifically in the
Jātaka collection of the Khuddaka Nikāya. But the former, which are
codified and fixed texts, are meant to be preserved in exact form, as
in the case of the EBTs.
The Indian oral culture developed various methods to ensure that this
was achieved. Such methods pervade every aspect of the EBTs, and
include:

Repetitions of words, phrases, passages and whole Suttas;
Standardisation of words, phrases and passages;
The use of synonyms;
The use of the waxing syllable principle;
Sound similarities;
Concatenation of Suttas or other textual units;
Formal structures, especially ABA;
“Summary” and “exposition”, which is a standard feature of Indian oral education;
Framing narratives to define the limits and give the context for the spoken material;
Verse summaries of prose teachings (especially in the Aṅguttara);
Similes (usually in an ABA structure);
Numbered lists;
Group recitals.

From this page, we find the story about Ananda's eidetic memory, but I could not find the original source for it.

Shakyamuni Buddha had a famous disciple, Venerable Ananda, who bore
the nickname of “The Learnt Man”. As Venerable Ananda has a rare
ability, an eidetic memory, he could remember every word of Buddha’s
teachings. Because of his special talent, many often asked Buddha what
good deeds Venerable Ananda had done in his past life to deserve such
a blessing.
Buddha replied, “Ananda’s eidetic memory was a result of the
accumulation of good deeds in his past life.”
He explained, “Several lives ago, a master monk demanded his novice
monk to memorise all the sutras he was taught and would be reprimanded
or punished if he did not meet the master monk’s expectation. On a
fateful day, the novice monk received no food offering all morning and
became worried, as spending more time on the streets would mean less
time to study his sutras. In desperation, he started weeping. An elder
approached this novice monk to show his concern, and after learning of
his difficulty, he told the novice monk to go to his house for food in
his subsequent days. Having secured a source of food offering, the
novice monk could spend most of his time learning his sutras.”
Putting the story into perspective, Buddha said, “The master monk was
Buddha Dipamkara, the novice monk was me, and the benevolent elder is
the Ananda today. Ananda’s good karmic deeds had gained him his
eidetic memory in his present life, which allows him to remember every
word of dharma preaching.”

Also, from "The Life of Ananda, Guardian of the Dhamma" by Hellmuth Hecker and Ven. Nyanaponika Thera:

In selecting Ananda as the treasurer or guardian of his Dispensation,
the Buddha had chosen one whose personal qualities coincided perfectly
with the demands of the post. By virtue of his devotion to learning,
Ananda was ideally suited to receive the manifold teachings delivered
over a forty-five-year period; by virtue of his phenomenal memory, he
could retain them in mind exactly as spoken by the Master; by virtue
of his sense of order, he could be relied on to preserve them in the
correct sequence and to explain them in such a way that the structure
of ideas accorded with the Buddha’s intention; and by virtue of his
steadfastness, he would so endeavor that the pupils under his charge
would receive the teachings fully and be properly trained so that they
in turn could pass them on to their own pupils.


Can this question be asked? In Buddhism, If I ask the following question:

  Suppose you completely empty your mind of all thoughts. You go into complete emptiness of mind, where nothing is arising.
  Suppose that in that state you make a choice to arise a thought. If in that state a choice is made to arise a thought, "choice" is the arising of "this thought".
  "Choice" must be arisen before "this thought" is arisen.
  Is there something that must arise before "choice" in order for "choice" to arise?
  If there is "something that must arise before 'choice' in order for 'choice' to arise", is there something that must arise before "something that must arise before 'choice' in order for 'choice' to arise"?
  etc. etc. etc.
  So, where does it end?
  What is the first "thing" that arises in your mind before the rest arises out from this first "thing"?

Does the above question fall into the category of the Four imponderables? Specifically "The jhana-range of a person in jhana... [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana]"? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html

If yes, why? If no, why?

Knowledge has limits.

"Mind is not Buddha. Knowledge is not the Way." But then, even saying this is leading you astray again, so I should shut up. Your question can be asked, because you have asked it. But not all questions make any sense. I think that the error is the choice of your second word, "Suppose you..." This word has no referent. But to communicate with you, I need to resort to meaningless terms like 'you' and 'I'. Try not to get hung up on them.

"Have you had breakfast?"


Is Buddhism about being less "sensitive"? I'm just curious, since before I began practicing the Buddhist way of life, I was a very emotionally sensitive person. I constantly had my "feelings hurt" or got into petty arguments over small things in life with people who were once my friends. Sometimes this broke apart many friendships. However, a lot of Buddhist teachings seem to deal with detatchment from the ego, therefore as to loosen or weaken one's sense of self. I found that sometimes I no longer clung to my opinion about reality as if it was absolutely right. But what about emotions? Is Buddhism about taming one's emotions (I grew up as an often very emotional individual on many ends of the spectrum)? Or does one approach emotions by letting them manifest opnely? In short, in my practice, how can I go about dealing with my innate sensitivity? Thank you.

The effect that the emotion has on you to evoke an immediate reaction has reduced. But you will still feel emotions normally. You start to see emotions as a part of the whole play of things. They come to pass, when earlier you just reacted to everything. This is a sort of calmed reaction to any emotion. Having said that, Buddhism is sensitive in that it has compassion in it which is something like how Jesus said, "they know not what they are doing, forgive them", when he was being nailed to the cross. He was able to forgive them even as they were doing that horrific thing to him. That is compassion.


The middle is way between extremes Sorry for the noobie lay questions.

Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons.

E.g. enjoying reading a book because it is innately pleasurable and because it is an extrinsic good in teaching me something.

It seems to me that there is no way to do so, that we cannot resolve opposites into one reason or meaning for being. That whatever you think of dialectics, nothing can be synthesized with an absolute opposite.

I think then that any reason or meaning is had to the exclusion of something else, and there is a fundamental deficiency in thought, such that any meaning is absolute i.e. a lie, or contradicted.

You might be asking several questions, but let me try to just answer the first one, where you ask,

  Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons?

On the contrary, at least initially, the first of the "four noble truths" is that everything is dukkha (i.e. stressful, unsatisfactory, cause of anxiety, etc.).

It's important to understand dukkha: What are the twelve aspects of the Four Noble Truths?

  Does the Buddha say that we can enjoy something for two different mutually exclusive reasons?

If you're asking, "What does the 'middle way' mean in Buddhism?", there's a Wikipedia article about that: Middle Way

In summary, I think that the 'Middle Way' doesn't mean "both of the two different mutually exclusive reasons" ... instead it usually means "neither of the two different mutually exclusive extremes".

For example:

Should we pursue sensory pleasure (hedonism), or, should we mortify the body with asceticism? The Buddha's "middle way" answer to that question was, "neither of those two extremes" (e.g. eat to live, but not live to eat).
Should we believe in eternal life of the self/soul after death, or, should we believe that death is annihilation? The answer is "neither".
Should we believe that everything exists, or, that nothing exists? No...

And so on.

The problem is that asking, "Is it this extreme, or is it that extreme?" implies that it's one extreme or the other: which reminds me of what's called a false dilemma, also known as a "fallacy of the excluded middle".


Reference request: where is this text about abandoning hindrances from? I found the text below on another site. However, it doesn't say whether the source is a specific sutta, commentaries or something else. Could someone show me the origin?

  Six things are conducive to the abandonment of restlessness and remorse:

  Knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures (Doctrine and Discipline);
  Asking questions about them;
  Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);
  Association with those mature in age and experience, who possess dignity, restraint and calm;
  Noble friendship;
  Suitable conversation.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html


Why is swastika in buddhism is in this 卍 format and not in this 卐 format? What is the difference between the two? What is the meaning of each sign? I want to know why swastika is reverse in both the religion and what is the meaning of each sign?
Someone within this forum said below lines on which I want to know what you people have to say on it and I want to know what's right.

  In Buddhism drawing right hand side swastika 卍 (Good, positive, solar aspects, movement clockwise 'with' the currents of Nature) means non-violence, peace.
  In Hinduism drawing left hand side swastika 卐 (Evil, negative, lunar aspects, movement counter-clockwise 'against' the currents of Nature) means violence.

Please enlighten me.

Buddhism explains the dependent origination of suffering, which is the 'wrong path' (SN 12.3).

Conversely, 'dependent cessation' is called the 'right path' (SN 12.3).

Dependent origination is often pictorially depicted as spinning clockwise, as follows:

The clockwise direction is the direction of 'origination' or 'creation'.

Theistic religions, such as Judaism, Islam & Hinduism worship creation, therefore it is expected they would worship a clockwise swastika.

Where as Buddhism honors cessation rather than creation, i.e., turning back creation.


Why do i look sad, while doing things consciously? I have started doing things consciously, i don't want to laugh anymore, i just want to maintain that inner peace felt in doing things meditatively.
But people have started asking that "i am looking sad".
Should i smile or should i go with the flow, i want to follow Lord Buddha.

One more thing i want to know the Essence of Lord Buddha with in few lines, i theoretically know only about focusing on breathing and vipassana meditation(which i am going to attend soon)

It is difficult to be around non-meditative people when you are meditative. Dhammapada 302 states:

  Suffering/difficulty comes from association with unequals.

When they say: "You are looking sad", this is a reflection of their own lack of knowledge, their own sadness & their own underlying fear. This has happened to me a few times before, when I used to work in an office.

The Buddha taught that a person accomplished in meditation can in a 'finger-snap' generate metta (loving-kindness).

  Monks, if for just the time of a finger-snap a monk produces a thought of loving kindness, develops it, gives attention to it, such a
  one is rightly called a monk. Not in vain does he meditate. He acts in
  accordance with the Master’s teaching.

  AN 1:6.3–5

Yes, you probably should smile, say you are fine & offer an easy explanation, such as you are training yourself to work/do things with calmness & without stress.

As for the essence of the Lord Buddha, this was explained in MN 37 as:

  Nothing is worth clinging to...


Selfless charity to poor and needy Is selfless charity to the non-monastic poor and needy, recommended for Buddhists as part of their practice?

How do the different Buddhist traditions differ from each other on this topic?

Quotes from scriptures to support this, would be appreciated.

The target recipients include the hardcore poor, the homeless, victims of natural disasters, abandoned old folks, orphans, shelterless disabled persons, victims of human trafficking, refugees of war, victims of oppression and other displaced persons.
 Animals can also be included.

"Selfless" here means "concerned more with the needs of others than with one's own".

Charity is recommended as a practice as it cultivates Metta(kindness), Karuna(compassion) in the mind. Buddhism does not say to be selective when you are giving for charity. It just mentions that giving to virtuous beings is more meritorious and the way one should give gifts.

  "Selfless" here means "concerned more with the needs of others than
  with one's own".

In an ultimate sense the goal of charity in Buddhism is to cultivate a wholesome mental quality that helps to attain enlightenment. It's not about fixing what's wrong with  the world. There are no others or 'oneself' involved in that sense.


How does one develop right view in the space of multiple views? There is the story of the blind men and the elephant and each of the men had varying views of the elephant. Since none of them had the ability to have a complete view, they had differing right views.

How does one develop right view in the context of many views?
How does one determine right views?
What are examples of right view?

Ballanced skepticism.

You cannot force yourself to believe in rebirth. You can only educate your mind not to grasp firmly to the view that there isn't. If you adopt a ballanced attitude, that considers the several options without being partial to any option, then I think it's close to the best possible attitude. The true right view, of believing in rebirth, non material worlds, the existence of arahats, and so on, can only arise when you verify it yourself, beyond doubt. Until then, it's all provisional. So don't grasp views, especially those that might become an obstacle to liberation. Because I believe this is actualy the main point.


What does "Nothing like anything" mean according to Buddism? I heard "Nothing like anything" from many people. I think a lot over it and finally i got it like "Tyag se he mukti milte h" and i feel it with my self yes tyag se he mulki milte h but i could not get it remain with my self. Will you please give me a direction so that I could pertain it as remain and what is the the proper meaning of "nothing like anything" according to Buddism because I do not have much knowledge about Buddha teachings. Thanks in advance.

So your question is "Tyag se he mukti milte h" which means sacrifice, renowned and non attachment will bring Salvation.

Nothing like anything is never said by Buddha.

However coming back to question first of all Lord Buddha's view on salvation is a bit tricky if you are coming from a Hindu background, by that I mean you are not supposed to sacrifice anything just remain in the middle, as Lord Krishna also said remain in tranquility or there should be equanimity in life.

As the question has been asked on Buddhism, So lets stick with buddha's view.

So the aim to be always remain conscious, which seems to be impossible but with practice you will start realizing that you are doing better.

Sit silently and start by focusing on breath, just observe your breath for 3 minutes in starting and do this at least three to six times a day, which should be easy you are android developer.

Now also try to use 30 second rule multiple times a day, which in short is to try to remain in the present moment.

Now lets say you feel good in meditation and at some point bad, Buddhism approach is that you will not get flown by mind in either of the above said situation, do not get excited when feeling good and do not feel depressed on feeling bad, just OBSERVE.

OBSERVATION is very powerful


What additional ethics you find in Buddhism which are not found in other religions? What additional ethics you find in Buddhism which are not found in other religions?
Other religions mean Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Taoism or any other religion you know.
I also like to know whether other religions have any ethics you do not find in Buddhism.
To start with concentrate on five, eight precepts compare them to other religions.

Divisive Speech.

This is definitely something unique to Buddhism (I think). Other religions talk about lying, but I don't remember any mentions of divisive speech.

  Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord.

This comes from Buddha's special insight into the nature of dukkha. Dukkha comes from a conflict of mind, an unresolvable uninergated contradiction. Craving is one example of such contradiction, aversion is another, and conflict between people because of their incompatible views (about the world or about each other) is a third!

So when you engage in divisive speech, you create and spread conflict between the sides, which will sooner or later bear the fruit of dukkha.

While the non-violence is taught by many religions, it is only (to my limited knowledge) in Buddhism is where the source of dukkha is understood so deeply that the role of divisive speech in creating dukkha is clearly recognized.

Harsh speech

  They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people.


Are attachment, aversion, ignorance Kamma? Are attachment, aversion, ignorance Kamma?
Are they leading to a bad destination?
If they are not Kamma how do they lead you to a bad destination?

There are three types of kamma, namely, bodily, verbal & mental (refer to AN 6.63).

As soon as intention & attachment arise in the mind, this is mental kamma & such mental kamma will have a result or destination.

For example, by mere thinking alone, a neurotic person may have a psychiatric hospital as their destination.

Therefore, as soon as ignorance & aversion result in intention & attachment, this is kamma.


Do the texts of Mahayana Buddhism or those of any other school posit that everything is to be regarded as ideation? (Idealism) Does Mahayana Buddhism or any other school of Buddhism posit the idea that the physical world does not exist apart from an observer's frame of reference, as in everything exists only in the mind as imagination?

the idea that the physical world does not exist apart from an observer's frame of reference

This is agreeable for expression. As i understand it, the Theravadin texts posit this iow.

as in everything exists only in the mind as imagination

This is dodgy. Which is closer to what you are asking?

That which imagines is imagined.
That which imagines isn't imagined.

There is a fundamental difference and #1 is closer to Theravada. #2 would be disagreeable.


Type of Meditation and Mood I was wondering what meditation type is most conducive to improvement of mood or even mood stability in Buddhism? I noticed that most of my problematic behaviours and attitudes depend on low mood.

According to my teacher, mood instability comes from not having a stable frame of reference as far as one's values. Meaning, when one has a stable system of coordinates in one's head, according to which everything is evaluated, one's values are stable and one can optimize one's actions within that frame of reference. However, when one does not have that, then for such person it is typical to waver between different coordinate systems of other people. As a result, one's values keep fluctuating. Today, according to this system, everything is great - and tomorrow, according to another system - you are a loser.

The traditional medicine from that is to work on internalizing the Dharma until it becomes one's stable frame of reference. This starts with taking Refuge as the commitment to never hold any other system of values higher than Buddha-Dharma. As a result one's values and one's assessment of one's situations stabilizes and the mood swings diminish and disappear.

The next step is to work on going beyond a single frame of reference and to become capable of switching frames of reference without getting stuck mentally or emotionally. This ultimate level of this is cultivation of spontaneity, or being oneself. This basically means that one becomes one's own system of coordinates, one always trusts one's own judgement and therefore is immune to any and all mood fluctuations.

In terms of meditation, I would recommend analytical meditation on the first three Noble Truths.


How to focus on one thing like a monk? Question : How to focus on one thing like a monk ( ideal one )?

Is there a well defined meaning of word " focus " in buddhism? I want to learn the technique through which I can focus on one thing at a time like a monk.

In Buddhism it is recognized that mind is not static, it's not like a lense that can be focused. Mind is something that unfolds, moment after moment. If you sit down and watch your mind unfold for a while (an exercise called meditation) you can notice that the state of mind flows from current to next through its associations in memory (plus distractions from the senses).

One simple way to achieve concentration (after calming down and reducing inner and outer distractions) is to condition this associating process to come back with questions and thoughts about the same "thing", instead of it coming back with other related topics. Basically, you can keep asking yourself questions about the object, and for each question instead of answering from memory you should come back to the object and reexamine it.

This is not really a one pointed concentration yet though, just regular meditation on a given topic. To achieve real one pointed concentration you need to shift attention from object itself to the image of object in your mind. If you look very carefully, you can see that the image of the object in your mind is never complete, it only has one-two elements or attributes of the object at any given time, not all at once. In fact, if you pay attention you can see how your mind is hard at work assembling the experience of the object from its multiple attributes by cycling through them.

If at this moment, when seeing this cyclic assembly process, you shift your attention from the image of the object to mind itself, while letting it continue doing its assembly thing, you will have achieved one-pointed concentration.


The healing Bodhi tree for Shakyamuni Buddhas long term sitting? Recently I heard from a group of commentators that the Bodhi tree, a tree species which Buddha choose to attain enlightenment under, was actually known to have medicinal properties. Has anyone ever heard this before? Apparently, this tree was what allowed Buddha to sit under the tree for long periods of time without developing pressure sores across his lower body. This particular sect of Buddhism believes Buddha sat under the tree for at least 7 years. Honestly I'm not surprised to find apologetical statements because of their position. Does anyone know if the Bodhi tree actually has these "medicinal" properties? Also, would you consider it's properties sufficient enough in explaining away the lack of pressure wounds we would expect to find on Buddha's body?

To summarize my question:

Does the Bodhi tree actually have medicinal properties as some Buddhists claim?
Are the medicinal properties sufficient enough in explaining away the pressure sores we would expect to find on Shakyamuni's body through his prolonged meditation model (years)?
Please no short term models to undermine the question, thank you.

Does the Bodhi tree actually have medicinal properties as some Buddhists claim?

Maybe it does? For example, Phytopharmacology of Ficus religiosa references studies which say it does. I can't judge whether these are good/reliable studies (questioning the reliability of those studies might be a good question for Skeptics.SE if you really want to pursue it).

Are the medicinal properties sufficient enough in explaining away the pressure sores we would expect to find on Shakyamuni's body through his prolonged meditation model (years)?

I can't say I'm an expert on pressure sores, I'm not sure what to expect.

Bicyclists for example can sit on their saddle for hours and days on end, partly because they have become physically accustomed to it through practice/use.

Also, for what it's worth and for example, to prevent pressure sores in a bed-ridden geriatric patient, this paper says,

  When older adults are admitted to a hospital or a nursing home, caregivers should inquire how often patients will be repositioned, Edsberg says. She suggests ascertaining the facility’s policy on repositioning. “It’s recommended that the patient be repositioned every two hours,” she says. “Caregivers might want to consider being proactive in enforcing this by setting a timer in the patient’s room so that it’s not forgotten.”

It also recommends good nutrition. Anyway, that confirms my preconception that occasional repositioning is important (and is used) to help prevent pressure sores.

See also this topic, Buddha meditation under the bodhi tree, which questions whether the Buddha "sat and did not move for days"... a meditator might change position occasionally.

Also I presume that Gautama maybe did develop sores and so on, when he was practicing during his ascetic period.

I suppose that ideally to answer this question you might like a comparative (double-blind) study of people sitting on Bodhi tree leaves, or something like that (I don't know of such a study); or an answer from someone with personal experience of it.


Does Nirvana have svabhava in Madhyamaka? As suggested in this comment, we shall try to look more closely into this.

Does Nirvana have svabhāva in Madhyamaka?

Here, svabhāva is as defined in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka, and commonly translated as inherent existence, inherent nature or inherent substance.

Why conditioned things (the Pali term sankhara) do not have inherent existence (svabhāva) is explained in this answer, this answer, this answer and this essay.

However, Nirvana is unconditioned. So, does it have or not have svabhāva? And why?

According to Madhyamika, whatever is dependent-arising is empty of svabhāva. As Nagarjuna says, the meaning of emptiness is dependent-arising; and dependent-arising is the meaning of emptiness. Each and every phenomena, be it permanent or impermanent, form, consciousness or non-associated compositional factor, lacks svabhāva.

There is a number of reasons supporting emptiness of svabhāva. In his commentary to Gyaltsab Je on Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum, Geshe Gyaltsen said:

  There are specific reasonings to realize emptiness that are suitable
  for specific disciples, like the diamond slivers, the four
  possibilities, the king of reasoning that is the reasoning of
  dependent arising, and the reasoning of not being one or many.

In his commentary to Tsongkhapa's Special Insight Chapter of the Middle-Length Lam Rim, Geshe Gyaltsen explains dependent arising:

  Dependent arising means that phenomena depend on something else to
  exist.

On the fact that both samsara and nirvana are empty:

  The perfection of permanence [that is possessed by a buddha] refers to
  the equality of samsara and nirvana seeing both as empty of inherent
  existence.

All phenomena are dependent-arising. If it exists conventionally, it either a permanent or an impermanent phenomena. If it is a permanent phenomena, it does not depend on causes and conditions (the grossest level of dependent arising) but it still depends on other factors.

Even permanent phenomena such as space, emptiness (the absence of svabhāva), partial and complete cessations (such as nirvana that is the final true cessation) are dependent on part. Geshe Gyaltsen also says:

  Since the aggregates are impermanent phenomena, it is correct to use
  causal dependent arising as a reason [for establishing its lack of inherent existence]. The second, dependence on parts,
  can be used as well. Also when the subject would have been
  uncompounded space the second kind of reason, depending on parts,
  would be a correct reason as well.

We do not even need to go into the third level of dependent arising (dependence on name) that is posited only by Prasangika to establish that nirvana is empty of svabhāva, is empty of true existence, is empty of existing by way of its own characteristics (all these are synonymous).

We do not need to know either that there is a terminological division of five types of nirvana: non-abiding, abiding, with remainder, without remainder, and natural.

To summarize, nirvana depends on factors that it is not, and without which it would not exist. You can apply this to any phenomena, including permanent phenomena: the person depends on factors (the body, consciousnesses, etc) that the person is not, but without which the person wouldn't be what it is.


Vajrasatva Practice as training in ultimate Bodhicitta? I am doing Vajrasatva purification practice, and wonder whether this is a training in Ultimate Bodhicitta?
As stated in the Scriptures related to Mind Training: one should first train in Ultimate Bodhicitta.
So is purification through Vajrasatva Practice the kind of training to be used to get accustomed to the view of emptiness?
Also, is it the best antidote for attachment?
Many thanks!

When you say "Vajrasatva purification practice" do you mean an appropriate visualization plus the hundred-syllable mantra followed by a dissolution?
If so then the answer is: no, this is not training in the Ultimate Bodhicitta, this is a preliminary practice.
If by "Vajrasatva purification practice" you don't mean the above mentioned sadhana but instead you mean the cultivation of the view that "In the absolute sense there is nothing to be purified, no one purifying, and no act of purification" - then that's training in Ultimate Bodhicitta.
There's nothing to be purified etc, - means you no longer regard yourself as a problem. Things don't require fixing because nothing is broken. In the ultimate sense everything is exactly as it should have been. All judgments like "dirty" and "pure" are mind-made categories, defined relatively to one another. That's the view of Emptiness.
When you cultivate the view of Emptiness, you get used to the idea that to let go and to open up is okay. You stop being driven by your hopes and fears and come out as authentic being. Instead of pretending to be perfect, you figure things out as you go, and that creates a sense of kindness and openness. Now you can actually relate with people.
This is why they say, first cultivate the Ultimate Bodhicitta and  only then the Relative Bodhicitta. Because the view of Emptiness is what gives that authenticity and relaxed attitude, that sense of not forcing your preexisting agenda on people that makes it possible to meet the real them. Only then saving others from samsara, the point of Relative Bodhicitta, is possible.


Is the belief in no rebirth conditioned by craving? Suppose somebody strongly believes in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly denies the possibility of the existence of rebirth.

Is such a belief/view a result of craving for views regarding rebirth?

Is it possible to attain Nirvana with such a belief/view?

Does an arahat strongly believe in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly deny the possibility of the existence of rebirth?

It's a very modern view, actually a very materialistic view at least, coming in camouflages of emptiness (e.g. householder equanimity, that like to deny effect of deeds)

It falls mostly even into one of the three 'evil views':

  From: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by Ven. Nyanatiloka

  The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:

  (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),
  (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),
  (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

  (1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosāla, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that everything is minutely predestined by fate.

  (2) was taught by Pūrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs, etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness, etc. no reward is to be expected."

  (3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc.

    Table I - Consciousness-States (viññāna kkhandha)
    karmic unwholesome (akusala), Rooted in attachment (lobha):

    accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, unprompted
    accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, prompted
    accompanied by joy, dissociated with wrong view, unprompted
    accompanied by joy, dissociated with wrong view, prompted
    accompanied by indifference, associated with wrong view, unprompted
    accompanied by indifference, associated with wrong view, prompted
    accompanied by indifference, dissociated with wrong view, unprompted

    29.accompanied by indifference, dissociated with wrong view, prompted

See also: How to address wrong view?

Usually they deny mundane right view and excuse their action by transcendent right views means.

How ever, it does not mean that everybody who does not firm believe in rebirth is destinated to low reals!

If one holds on a liberal perspective while being vituose in a mood "what ever may came" or "for now, I do not know but also can not exclude" like suggested to the Kalamas:

  "Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

  "'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

  "'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

  "'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

  "'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

  "One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."

Because not acting unwholesome out of any believe, seeing the benefit of virtue in all cases, one is good protected to be not destinated upwards as well.

So it should not be understood in a way that the Buddha or his disciples force you to take on a believe or that someone not believing on rebirth, maybe even never gave it a thought, althought he/she is a virtuous person, acts in good and harmless way, is destinated, out of missing a conscious believe, to unpleasant states.

It all comes down to the actions by mind, speech and bodily deeds one performes of where he/she would find him/herselves later on.

If starting to keep the five precepts firm, you will see for your self that youR welbeing increases and states "as if in hell" do no more accure that often or even fade eternally. Then, later, you see cause and effects for youself, knowing that your current existence is not just something that happens accidently or by power of others or ends with that done today and that you future is designed by previous and current deeds. Here you are for now and there you could be, or there. Own choices design the path where to go and they can not be made undone.

Once you came till here you can be Comfortable with the truth

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


How to evaluate someone's knowledge? From Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche teaching I came to understand that non-judgmental observation of situations and aversion of attachments is the way to get rid of sufferings. Then how would a teacher evaluate a student's knowledge on anything?
In traditional schools and colleges there are grading systems. Students are assigned grades according to their exam results. How are students evaluated in Buddhist monasteries?

I believe (based soley on what you've written) that Mingyur Rinpoche is talking about our first reaction to new stimuli: in the first moment of perception there's an unlanguaged, felt sense (vedana) that whatever we are perceiving favors or threatens us which gives rise to attachment or aversion. Simultaneously, there's an awareness of what we perceive (samjna) followed by a host of associations that go with it (prapanca) which leads to further kleshas and conceptualizations (anusaya) which incline (cetana) us (anusaya) toward action (karma). This process is what keeps us trapped in samsara.
On the other hand, determining whether someone understands the lesson they've been given on the five skandhas, or the Utarratantra Shastra - while entailing the same processes - inclines the mind toward liberation. That is, what drives the process is the wish that whomever is receiving the teaching may understand it and benefit from it.
Having been a monk, and having been in both the role of student and teacher in a monastic college (and Mingyur Rinpoche visited my monastery twice while I was there), I can tell you that the point of a Buddhist education is to sharpen one's prajna in order to recognize the constituents of experience and to recognize reality for what it is. Seeing things as they are - as opposed to how we think they are makes us much less reactionary, and much more content.
So, in the end, there is absolutely no contradiction between assessing whether or not a student grocks the meaning of a text, and striving to meet whatever one encounters with equanimity.