Realigning your priorities after realizing death and impermanence It is very common to see people realigning their priorities after a near death experience or surviving a cancer. Things like money, career, fear of the future or anxiety don't bother them as much as before.

In Buddhism how can one try to develop the same kind of behave? Only through meditation? Any specific meditation method to do it? (I thought about something related to death and impermanence, but it has to be something really powerful to achieve similar results)

The ancient extinct Kadampa school of Tibetan Buddhism (not the NKT, New Kadampa Tradition, which is an unsanctioned "breakaway" school) practiced mindfulness of death. Their motto was:

  Base your mind on the Dharma
  Base your Dharma on a humble life
  Base your humble life on the thought of death
  Base your death on an empty, barren hollow.

"The Words of my Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche explain this practice in the following way:

  While standing up, sitting or lying down, tell yourself: “This is my last act in this world”, and meditate on it with utter conviction. On your way to wherever you might be going, say to yourself: “Maybe I will die there. There is no certainty that I will ever come back.” When you set out on a journey or pause to rest, ask yourself: “Will I die here?” Wherever you are, you should wonder if this might be where you die. At night, when you lie down, ask yourself whether you might die in bed during the night or whether you can be sure that you are going to get up in the morning. When you rise, ask yourself whether you might die sometime during the day, and reflect that there is no certainty at all that you will be going to bed in the evening.

One Kadampa would always turn his bowl upside down when going to bed, and would not cover the hot ashes to last until morning. When asked why, he answered: "I really cannot say if I will wake up tomorrow".

Besides the ongoing mindfulness of death, there is also a formal meditation on death, which involves contemplating three points:

that we are sure to die,
that we can not predict time and circumstances of our death,
that when we die, there is nothing that can help us.


Pāramitāyāna and Tantrayāna Wikipedia includes this (unreferenced) sentence:

  According to the perspective of Tibetan Buddhism, Mahāyāna practitioners have the choice of two practice paths: the path of perfection (Sanskrit: pāramitāyāna) or the path of tantra (Sanskrit: tantrayāna), which is the Vajrayāna.

Would you say a bit more about that (for someone who hasn't been taught Mahāyāna practice or Tibetan Buddhism)?

For example, some related questions include:

Is the quoted sentence more-or-less true?
Is this a good high-level view of (introduction to, or taxonomy of) Tibetan Buddhism?
What are pāramitāyāna and tantrayāna:

What is the goal of each?
What is the purpose of each (do they tend toward the goal)?
What (or how) is the practice of each (how, for example, is the purpose implemented)?

To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?

The quote is more or less true. The position that Tibetan Buddhism distinguishes between pāramitāyāna and tantrayāna is accurate. Pāramitāyāna is most often translated 'perfection vehicle' or 'sutra vehicle' while tantrayāna is usually translated as 'tantra vehicle' or 'secret mantra vehicle'.

In the Middle Length Lam-Rim, Tsongkhapa says:

  [Atisha] held numerous lineages of masters such as the two lineages of
  the common vehicle and of the great vehicle, with regard to which
  there are the two – (1) the perfection and (2) secret mantra [vehicles]. In
  the perfection vehicle he held three lineages: the lineages of the
  view and of conduct, the latter of which has the lineage from Maitreya
  and the lineage from Manjugosha. In the secret mantra he had received
  five types of transmission as well as numerous lineages such as the
  lineage of teaching systems,[tenets] the lineage of blessings, and the
  lineage of various instructions.

In this context, 'common vehicle' refer to:

  a lineage common to the Hinayana and Mahayana

As Geshe Jampa Gyatso phrases it in his commentary to Tsonkghapa's Middle-Length Lam Rim. These refer to the teachings and practices 'common to beings of small capacity' (wishing for a precious human rebirth) as well as those 'common to beings of middling capacity' (wishing for abiding-nirvana, individual liberation). One might say that, of these two, only the linage common to beings of middling capacity is a fully qualified path, because a path is found in the continuum of a practitioner generating effortless, renounciation, that is 'a mind of definite emergence from samsara'.

'Great vehicle' refers to the practices exclusive to 'beings of great capacities' (those wishing for perfect buddhahood, that is non-abiding nirvana, freedom from both afflictive and knowledge-obscurations). The entrance to the Mahayana path is effortless renounciation + uncontrived bodhicitta (whether it be aspirational or engaged).

Within this category of teachings [of the great vehicle] you have indeed the two 'vehicles' or 'lineages':

Perfection vehicle
Secret mantra vehicle

As Geshe Jampa Gyatso writes:

  The lineage of the Mahayana has two: (1) the perfection vehicle and (2) the
  vajra vehicle. In the perfection vehicle there is also two: (1) the
  lineage of the view and (2) the lineage of the conduct or the lineage of
  the vast. One lineage was passed on from Buddha Shakyamuni to
  Maitreya, to Asanga, to Vasubandhu, to Arya Vimuktisena, and so forth.
  The other was passed from Buddha Shakyamuni to Manjushri and so forth.
  In the secret mantra lineage there are five lineages. There is also
  the lineage of tenets, the lineage of blessings, and the lineage of
  instructions.
  As both 'vehicles' are Mahayana, they serve the same purpose: causing one to achieve enlightenment in order [for him] to benefit all sentient beings. Prasangika-Madhyamika claim that one has to come to practice tantrayana/secret mantra vehicle to achieve full enlightenment (and could not get pass the tenth bhumi without it). This is merely because the secret mantra vehicle purifies one's mind all the way through.

The perfection vehicle includes what we call 'the linage of the view and that of the conduct' or 'the profound and the vast' or 'wisdom and method' or 'the view of dependent-arising and great compassion'. It is so significant that, as Geluk students, teachers often say to us "if anyone asks you what Buddhism is all about, answer that it is about the view and the conduct: the meaning of dependent arising on one side, great compassion on the other".

Furthermore, we claim that a path is entered upon generating definite emergence. That a path of the perfection vehicle is entered upon generating bohdicitta as well (because it is a Mahayana path), and that the tantra path is entered upon generating renounciation + bodhicitta (becaus it is a Mahayana path) + realization of emptiness (whether it be inferential or direct, although this is a subject of debate). It does not mean you can not engage in tantric practices such as, say, Medicine Buddha Puja, or Guru Yoga, and so forth before having realized emptiness. On the contrary, we claim that engaging in those will get you plant the seeds you need to come to be able to actually practice tantra. You can not practice it unless you had a transmission or at least a permission from a qualified teacher, though.

There are four degrees of Tantra, but I will not go into that. This being said, Tantra has to do with understanding that one's aggregates are created by karma, it is playing with 'pure view' and the notion the behind the veil of the two obscurations, phenomena are naturally pure (as in 'abiding in natural nirvana'), and it encourages us to 'take the result as the path' as the Sayka emphasize very much (they call it Lam-Ré). This 'taking the result as the path' can take the aspect of self-generation visualizations (you generate yourself in the aspect of this or that deity manifesting from emptiness).

There are differences in tenets between tantra and sutras as well. The notion of 'subtle wind that goes from one life to the next' is hardly a notion of the perfection vehicle.


How does one do an "eye opening" for a new statue? What the actual words or at least the structure of of the ceremony/ritual?

I'm particularly interested from the Mahayana East Asian standpoint (Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese/Japanese) However, I don't speak or read any of those languages.

It may or may not be relevant, but I have a Samantabhadra, Kwan Yin, Medicine Buddha and a Shakyamuni statue.

My answer refers to Tibetan Buddhism, I am not sure whether the same applies to other traditions.

Eye opening ritual is the final stage of a statue filling ritual. A newly bought statue is hollow inside and its base can be opened with a tool. If one sells an already filled statue, it is a good practice to ask in what circumstances it has been filled.

During the statue filling ritual the face of the Buddha is covered. Traditionally, the face wasn't even painted before the statue has been filled. In this case the eye-opening ceremony involved adding the actual eyes to complete the statue. Nowadays it is difficult since many statues are acquired in Asian countries to be sold in the West.

To fill the statue one needs a special transmission to do so. In the West various local Buddhist centres organize statue filling events so that people can bring their own statues and have them traditionally filled. You can see a photo relation from one of such events. I have never heard of anyone filling the statue without receiving special instructions.

Personally I own a two statues. One has been bought and filled in Germany and the second one was bought in Kathmandu and filled in a local monastery. I uncovered the eyes only when it safely arrived to my home and I placed it on my altar. I've been told it is a good practice to cover the eyes of the Buddha during the travel and open it only when you can place the statue at it's final destination.


Are there any english translation of the Shobogenzo of Master Dogen? Shōbōgenzō (正法眼蔵?, lit. "Treasury of the True Dharma Eye") is the title most commonly used to refer to the collection of works written in Japanese by the 13th century Japanese Buddhist monk and founder of the Japanese Sōtō Zen school, Eihei Dōgen.

I like the translation I have at home, by Chodo Cross under guidance of Gudo Nishijima.

What makes this translation unique, it's goal was to stay as literal or as close to Japanese original as possible. So unlike other translations which are often overly idiomatic and make their interpretations for you, this one leaves it all as written by Dogen. Beside leaving interpretation of subtleties up to the reader, it also preserves the flavor of Dogen's speech - which makes for a more tasteful reading experience.


Natural practice of meditation Hey I just wondered: I met a high intensity theravadin meditator (who teaches it) and he defined the self enlightened as being meditators that no one had to teach. It came naturally, so to speak.

Is it possible to be practicing this untaught meditation but not be self enlightened?

Re. the first paragraph of your question, perhaps the teacher you met was talking about a so-called pratyekabuddha or paccekabuddha (it's useful to know the technical word if you want to read more about it, see also e.g. the 'external links' etc. at the end of that article).


What are the benefits of practicing under a teacher vs. practicing alone? Question is in the title.

I was wondering about the benefits of practicing with a teacher vs. practicing alone.

By alone i mean when one has a great deal of time to practice and no worldly responsibilities such as a marriage, children, being the owner of a car, house, flat etc. meaning that one can then spend a lot of time on studying and practicing the dhamma.

If one has found a good teacher who is willing to teach, nothing like it. Unfortunately, good teachers are rare, and most wander alone.

It's like climbing a mountain without a guide. Sometimes we get lost, wander around a lot, maybe learn a lot of things in the process, but also get hurt by falling down. Most times the learning is not really essential to climbing the mountain, it can sometimes feel like it is impossible to continue, and other times one can think, "I have come so far, I can't turn back now".

In the modern age with so many dharma books and teachers online, one may not always need a direct teacher. However, one can get confused with a multitude of approaches and schools.

It's a risk, but it also protects from getting locked into a dogma or school. This can happen to anyone who finds a teacher or school at an early age and never encounters other ideas. The Dalai Lama (in his book "Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World's Religions Can Come Together") has said that until he visited the Theosophical society in Chennai and met people of other faiths, he was pretty certain only Buddhism had all the answers, and every other approach was wrong.

Ultimately we make do with what we have. We don't abandon our practice merely because we can't find a good teacher, we do it the best way we can.

If we accumulate merit by helping others it will lead to better guides, books and teachers - dharma will find us.


Why did Buddhism declined and then almost extinguished in India? I am currently exploring why Buddhism declined in my country India. Most of internet sites tell me that it was because of islamic invasion, but then hinduism survived it.
In my opinion, it is easy to follow Hinduism where you just have to worship a diety for material gains. However to understand Buddhism itself you need certain amount of intelligence and life experience. So the Indian kings must have found it easy to back Hinduism to reign as it bolsters desires to rule and perpetuate.

What is your opinion on this?

The religion which has committed greater sacrifice for the humanity will always come on the top. Good Karma never dies. Moreover we believe in the cycles of period. This period belongs to Christianity. May be next will belong to Hinduism and then may be Buddhism will come. In this era the things are happening exactly the way it should. Only a fool will believe that Greatest religion now will remain the greatest religion forever because Sabbe Dhamma Anatta.
Buddhism declined the way it should have declined for the conditioning of this era. Give up these mental fabrications. These are not good for Anatta.


Would 10 days Vipassana a waste of time, if not practised afterwards? People who have done 10 Days of Vipassana Meditation retreat 5 to 100 times often say that from 5th day the Mind becomes very subtle & remains 24 * 7 like that.
However when they're back to their families & life an average normal lifestyle.
The Mind becomes similar to what it was before (in most cases, as per my experience).
Is our Mind is similar to any other muscle of the body, The bodybuilders can come back in shape quicker than someone who has never achieved it before.
If someone is doing the vipassana 1st time & someone else has a good experience.
Would a 10 days vipassana a waste of time if not practiced after?

Anything we strive to attain in life takes practice. Mastery signifies being able to perform not only in ideal circumstances, but amidst the chaos of everyday life. Ironically, one can become attached to the feeling of being (or striving to be) detached. This can become a serious obstacle if we start dividing practice opportunities into preferences.
How do we counter this? Though from another tradition, I can think of no better quote than one of Dogen Zenji:

we do not sit in order to become enlightened; we sit as an expression of enlightenment.

What he meant was the Buddha did not require any external factors for his enlightenment. Once he realized that trying to force his mind and body into attainment was not the way, he found the Middle Way, a balance between discipline and natural flowing.
Thus, Attainment is not something we can forcibly will or strive into existence. Like mastery in any art, it needs to flow naturally from practice. The mind being subtle is still just the mind. The mind being rigid is still just the mind. Learning to see within those two states is equally worthwhile and necessary.


What is the proper understanding of "taking refuge" in Buddhism? Many years ago, a Zen Roshi said in a class that "nobody else is your boss except for you.  Only you can make the decision and apply yourself to practice, nobody else can."  So, I've heard this many times from various Buddhist traditions.  However, Buddhism also has this idea of "taking refuge" in various things.  If you are responsible for yourself what is the point of "taking refuge?"  What is the proper understanding of "taking refuge" in Buddhism?

Traditional refuge formula goes like this:

  Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
  Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.
  Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.

  To Buddha for refuge I go.
  To Dhamma for refuge I go.
  To Sangha for refuge I go.

According to dictionary, "sarana" means den or lair, but also more broadly, shelter or refuge. Apparently, at the time of Buddha, "sarana" meant being under political protection of someone. For example, when a peasant acknowledged becoming a subject of, say, king Bimbisara, he would say "Maharajam Bimbisaram saranam gachami" -- literally, "To great king Bimbisara for refuge I go". This would serve to indicate that A) the peasant accepts no other lord and won't pay taxes to anyone else and B) the peasant now expects the king to provide military protection from bandits and other neighboring lords.

The same way, when beginner Buddhist goes for refuge to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, he or she A) promises to accept no other religious or philosophical authority as higher than Buddhism and B) expects to find protection from worldly troubles in Buddhist practice.

In Tibetan Buddhism, this idea of taking up a "provisional boss" (my play on your words, not theirs) is said to be a temporary measure employed for the duration of training, until one gets to the ultimate protection, the luminous mind of Bodhicitta.

The above is my own understanding, at the same time I really like explanation given by Chogyam Trungpa, which directly dismisses your dilemma about the notion of refuge contradicting Buddha's imperative of one being one's own island:

  By taking refuge, in some sense we become homeless refugees. The point
  of becoming a refugee is to give up our attachment to basic security.
  We have to give up our sense of home ground, which is illusory anyway.
  We are suspended in a no-man's land in which the only thing to do is
  to relate with the teachings and with ourselves.

  The refuge ceremony represents a final decision. The ceremony cuts the
  line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of
  an odyssey of loneliness. Still, it also includes the inspiration of
  the preceptor and the lineage. Acknowledging that the only real
  working basis is oneself and that there is no way around that, one
  takes refuge in the Buddha as an example, in the dharma as the path,
  and in the sangha as companionship.

-- basically, he defines taking refuge as becoming a (metaphorical) mendicant, which refers to letting go of one's stereotypes about oneself and reality, and the false sense of security they provide. As one thus becomes truly placeless (radically open-minded), the extent to which one takes comfort in Buddha is only as inspiration of predecessor having made the same path.

  At that particular point, the energy, the power, and the blessing of
  basic sanity that has existed in the lineage for twenty-five hundred
  years, in an unbroken tradition and discipline from the time of
  Buddha, enters your system, and you finally become a full-fledged
  follower of buddhadharma. You are a living future buddha at that
  point.


Can following Buddhist practices help me in my studies? I am a student and follow Buddhist ideas. Can Buddhist practices increase my capabilities to be a better student? More discipline? Clearer mind? What practices would be of the most benefit to achieve my academic goals?

Related questions (involve increasing focus/ attention, productivity/ efficiency/ time management)

What meditation practice will allow me to sleep less and focus more?
Best type of meditation for attention
Does meditation increase productivity for software developers and related professions?

Additionally, what studies have been done for the more general "spillover" type benefits such as greater well being and confidence?

You didn't mention whether you are a University student or a high school student. I'm going to assume you are in University for this answer.

Since you follow Buddhist ideas, you are likely familiar with the 5 precepts which are voluntarily taken by lay people who wish to follow the Buddha's teachings and who recognize that living in a manner that is harmless to others is needed as a first step. By taking the 5 precepts, a University student would be avoiding some of the worst problems that plague University populations many of which are related to alcohol and drug use and the regrettable behaviors that can follow. Here's a recent example of highly intelligent students ruining their reputations and educational opportunity by engaging in Wrong Livelihood. The practice of sīla can serve a student well and preserve educational opportunity.

The benefits to a student of practicing mindfulness are many and are briefly outlined here from the Brown University Student Health Services page.
An excerpt:

  Several studies with college students suggest that the practice of mindfulness leads to decreases in stress and anxiety, improvements in concentration and attention, and increases in self-awareness and overall emotional well-being.  Professor Willoughby Britton, a clinical psychologist at Brown, has studied the effects of mindfulness meditation on Brown students and has found that meditation decreases anxiety.

Here's enough data to make your head spin from the American Mindfulness Research Association, much of it new and with mixed results. As is often said said regarding following Buddhist teachings and practices, try it for yourself. See if you see beneficial changes in yourself. When you see it for yourself; you'll know. :)


Buddhist Verse Closest To Christian/Jewish Verse What verse that has actually meaning and carries value is similar in both Buddhism and Christianity?

This may be closed as to broad but I think it holds value to have a verse that crosses between such distinct and different religions.

How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me? Veludvareyya Sutta

  And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Luke 6:31

*

  In the same way others each love themselves, Therefore one who cares for himself should not harm another. Udana 5.1

  ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Mark 12:31


Is appana samadhi the same as magga/phala? In this video by Sayadaw U Nandasiri, if I am understanding him correctly, he equates appana samadhi and magga/phala enlightenment. Is this correct? I had understood momentary, access, and absorption to be referring to jhana. Do they also refer to magga/phala? Or are they one in the same?

I cannot answer the first part of the question so i will instead address the other part of the question, i.e.

"I had understood momentary, access, and absorption to be referring to jhana".

The following quote on the 3 different types of concentration is from the book "Practicing The Jhanas" by Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder. They were both students of Pa Auk Sayadaw and undertook a Samatha Meditation Course under his guidance. They write in the book that they achieved the 4 material jhanas and the 4 immaterial jhanas. Here is their description of the different types of concentration and in what practices they appear:

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION
Momentary concentration is the most difficult to understand, because there are two types. The first develops in vipassanā practices in which the object changes frequently. In contrast to samantha practices in which the object is constant, in vipassanā the object is, in a way, changing or “moving.” As such, one could say that the ultimate object of vipassanā meditation is the present moment and what is being perceived in the present moment (hence, the relationship to “momentary” concentration).
Insight-oriented momentary concentration practices are widely used and can be found in meditation such as vipassanā (as it is commonly practiced in North America and Europe) as well as in the Tibetan dzogchen rigpa practice and the Zen shikantaza practice. The Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw presents the four elements meditation, which is a momentary concentration practice, as the entry point into the vipassanā practices. We describe this practice in chapter 8. The second type of momentary concentration arises during samatha practice.
The Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw sometimes refers to this type of momentary concentration as “preparatory” concentration, because it prepares the meditator for and precedes access concentration (the second type of concentration). In samatha practice, the meditation object is consistent rather than changing. Having a consistent object leads to serenity and purification of mind.
ACCESS CONCENTRATION
Meditators can eventually attain access concentration using either type of momentary concentration practice—samatha or vipassanā. However, samatha practices are more likely to lead to access concentration because of their more stable nature. Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of the jhāna factors. For most people, a period of intensive practice is required to reach access concentration. In access concentration, the meditative experience becomes smoother, easier, and more pleasant because of this lessening of hindrances and the arising of the powerful and blissful sensations of the jhāna factors. This allows meditators to meditate longer and progress more easily in the practice.
It becomes a positive, self-reinforcing loop.It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator’s continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and “bright.”Most of the practices outlined in this book are samatha practices specifically designed to settle the mind and develop laserlike awareness, leading eventually to full absorption into the jhānas. Examples of samatha practices designed to develop access and absorption concentration are ānāpānasati meditation (as presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw), the kasiṇas, thirty-two-body-parts meditation, skeleton meditation, and the bramavihāras (sublime abidings).
As access concentration develops, but prior to full absorption, it is also easy to confuse access with absorption concentration. In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna. (The differences between access and absorption are described below.)Even after a meditator has experienced full jhāna absorption and begins to move through the practice progression, access concentration continues to be used. With progression to each successive jhāna, the meditator first experiences access concentration as the awareness orients to the new experiences and increases in stability.
ABSORPTION CONCENTRATION
The words jhāna and absorption are synonymous. In absorption concentration, awareness is pulled into the jhāna with a “snap.” The beginning meditator cannot “will” the absorption to happen or “make” it happen. Full absorption arises only when the concentration is strong and ripe after many days, weeks, months, or even years of unwavering focus on a specific meditative object. Only later, as a meditator becomes more experienced with full jhāna absorption and more skilled with the progression of jhānas and the five “jhāna masteries,” is it possible to enter a jhāna at will.
The five jhāna masteries are specific attainments that meditators complete in each jhāna, as demonstrations of mastery, before they can progress to the next jhāna. They are described in chapter 5.In absorption, in addition to the strong presence of the appropriate jhāna factors, the awareness is extremely secluded and focused, and ongoing concentration is more easily maintained. Awareness fully penetrates and is suffused by the jhāna factors. The Visuddhimagga highlights the difference between access and absorption concentration using the analogy of walking. Access concentration is like a toddler learning to walk. The child can take a few steps but repeatedly falls down. In contrast, absorption concentration is like an adult who is able to stand and walk for an entire day without falling down.
A modern metaphor would be of a top spinning. In access concentration, the top needs constant attention, wobbles frequently, and falls down. In absorption, the top spins in a centered way on its own.There may be misconceptions about the experience of full absorption in jhāna. First, there is awareness while in jhāna. It is not a zombie state, trance, or period of unconsciousness. However, there is no sense of “me” while in jhāna. The only awareness while in full absorption is of the object. If meditators have awareness of data from the five senses, it is because they are temporarily out of absorption. The five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell) do not arise while in absorption jhāna. In addition, there is no thought or decision making while fully absorbed in jhāna.
Beginning meditators who find that they are thinking or noticing input from the sense doors should view this as a slight imperfection of jhāna rather than full jhāna absorption. Meditators can also “pop out” of jhāna unintentionally because concentration wanes and the jhāna factors lessen. It is best not to worry about initial imperfections, which are bound to happen as beginners are developing mastery of the jhānas. As concentration increases, these imperfections wane and stability increases.Awareness in the jhānas is incredibly pristine, purifying, and indescribable. It is distinctly different from access concentration. Because access concentration can be so pleasant and nonordinary, however, people sometimes mistake access concentration for absorption, when it is not. This is one reason why it is important to receive guidance from a qualified teacher who knows the difference between access concentration and absorption concentration.
Absorption concentration is an incredibly powerful tool for purification, refinement of awareness, and access to realms far beyond normal, everyday comprehension. In addition, this intense focus can be an incredibly powerful tool to apply to the vipassanā practice. Meditation powered by the supercharged energy of the jhānas, or even a strong access concentration, can provide a vehicle to insight beyond normal perception that may not be possible with momentary concentration alone.We should note that, because awareness is so refined in full absorption, sensory input that would seem minimal in ordinary consciousness can feel extremely jarring when emerging from jhāna. This experience is intensified further when a meditator has completed weeks or months of deep absorption practice and reenters worldly life.


Bad births and not so Bad births? As we know there are lower realms mentioned in Buddhism, like the animal realm.

If you have heard the story of the "Alavaka yaksha/yakkha" (He was an evil being by birth)

You might also think "If beings like "Alavaka" can reach goals in the path are they considered lower because they are evil by birth?"

After all he is not the only one of his kind to reach goals of the path on the spot where they learned Buddhism.As to Suttas/Sutras these beings serve as soldiers in armies of Gods/Devas, so they clearly aren't some primitive things like our animals.These beings also have ridiculous strength and amazing abilities like shape shifting.

So what i'm asking is...

Are they labeled Lower realm creatures because they are Bad or Evil from birth or is there any other reason?

(Please note that i am only asking about the Race/Species/Beings
called  Yakkha or Yaksha)

This page which describes The Thirty-one Planes of Existence places yakkhas immediately above the human realm:

Devas of the Four Great Kings (catumaharajika deva) -- Home of the gandhabbas, the celestial musicians, and the yakkhas, tree spirits of varying degrees of ethical purity. The latter are analogous to the goblins, trolls, and fairies of Western fairy tales.

See also this Wikipedia article,

Yaksha (Sanskrit यक्ष yakṣa, Pali yakkha) is the name of a broad class of nature-spirits, usually benevolent, who are caretakers of the natural treasures hidden in the earth and tree roots. They appear in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist texts. The feminine form of the word is yakṣī or Yakshini (yakṣiṇī).
In Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist texts, the yakṣa has a dual personality. On the one hand, a yakṣa may be an inoffensive nature-fairy, associated with woods and mountains; but there is also a darker version of the yakṣa, which is a kind of ghost (bhuta) that haunts the wilderness and waylays and devours travelers, similar to the rakṣasas.
Yakṣas in Buddhism -- In Buddhist literature, the yakṣa are the attendants of Vaiśravaṇa, the guardian of the northern quarter, a beneficent god who protects the righteous. The term also refers to the Twelve Heavenly Generals who guard Bhaiṣajyaguru, the Medicine Buddha.

See also this (long) definition of Yakkha (as well as this page which contain back-story to the Alavaka Sutta).

The idea of a dangerous guardian reminds me of this other topic about a "guardian" that seems "wrathful" and/or dangerous: What is a wrathful Buddha?


What is the motivation for Torma? Torma are sculpted butter and flour cakes set on mandalas and on altars during Tibetan Buddhist ceremonies.

Does anyone know what the story is with Torma and why are we doing offerings anyhow? Is there anything that is distinctively Buddhist about them, or is this really a syncretic tradition (i.e. is this just Hindu sacrificial rituals, but without the Hinduism)?

Everyone talks about offerings as if the internal mental model for offerings is obvious. As largely a secular Buddhist, I want to understand, but I don't have a lot to go on here. Offerings in a Christian church is money donated to the institution to fund the minister, etc. This isn't that sort of offering. Is this an offering to goose a Buddha or Bodhisattva or other diety or demi-god into doing something for us? The dieties don't actually eat the torma, so do the just appreciate the gesture, i.e. it's the thought that counts? Does this work via depriving oneself of something of value, a sort of austerity? Are these intended to more like a symbol to carry meaning?

I found an interesting introductory article, "On Torma Offering", at http://shambhalatimes.org/2009/03/15/on-torma-offering/. These tormas are "given" generally in rituals by monastics who own nothing and usually have just about that much to give so the more important aspect of the ritual is the intent or motivation, the mental attitude. Indeed, appearances are absolutely deceiving so an open mind in all aspects is very helpful. For example, in the six realms, (god, demi-god, human, animal, hungry ghost, & hell realms), every physical thing thing is said to be exactly the same with just relative views and reactions by the beings in those realms as they "see" from their own point of view. (One example given often in sutras is the river that is seen as nectar of immortality by the gods, water by the humans, and pus and the like by the beings in the hungry ghost realms.) I often think all six variations are demonstrated, relatively, right here in our world, all the time.   So, very little given with little to no attachment and great compassion for the receiver(s) (like the widow with 2 pennies and a monk or nun without attachment) can be quite an amazing gift.


Which commentary on the MMK should be studied first? I am currently casually reading various things, and Ocean of Reasoning is one of those things. I've began to feel that I should pick a challenging reading to focus on, but I'm thinking I might want to read Ornament of Reason before Ocean of Reasoning.

Is one or the other traditionally studied first? Or is there some other commentary before these that I should study? I am already well acquainted with the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā itself.

I suppose it depends on which lineage you draw your water from. Ocean of Reasoning is a Gelug text, as is Ornament of Reason (I think?), while in Kagyu they study Madhyamakavatara, a relatively early commentary by Candrakirti, with subcommentary by Jamgon Mipham.


If science can't prove the existence of other dimensions forever Should I believe what is said in the Buddhist text instead? Even though I can't prove it myself either.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Three possible approaches, here.

One, you just acceptt this on faith. Depending on your mindset, this can be something like believing the impossible or groundless, or something more like feeling like you need to a decision. You can't prove tea or coffee is better for breakfast, but you can't stand around all day weighting the alternatives. So you make a decision, aware that the reasoning has some holes.

Two, you look at these as a myth, an instructive story and you don't even put much thought into if the story is true. In our distant past, everything was hearsay. There was no science, no reliable news outlets, and it was just a bunch of people telling stories. People got used to some stories seeming a bit far fetched, but everyone you ever heard in your life was a bunch of plausible sounding stories.

Three, you look at these as patently incompatible with everything we know about the world from multiple reliable sources-- science, journalism, and so on. You either discard that part of Buddhism as nonsense, or alternatively review it and look for what can be salvaged-- for example, some modern readers view the cosmology as a metaphor for states of mind (hell is the state of mind in this world and this body that we put ourselves in when we act unskillfully)


Does any Theravada Suttas / sources refer to Oozing orifices? What are the Suttas? According to Satipatthana Mula (By Sujato Bhikkhu edited by Piya Tan) Śāripūtrābhidharma Satipatthana contains a section on oozing orifices. What exactly does Śāripūtrābhidharma sources say about oozing orifices in English? Are there are parallels in Theravada literature especially the Tripitaka which compair with what Śāripūtrābhidharma sources say?

The Theravada satipatthana sutta contains the same reference:

  “Again, bhikkhus, as though he were to see a corpse thrown aside in a charnel ground, one, two, or three days dead, bloated, livid, and oozing matter, a bhikkhu compares this same body with it thus: ‘This body too is of the same nature, it will be like that, it is not exempt from that fate.’

(MN 10 - Bodhi, Trans)

The Visuddhimagga explains the phrase (festering = oozing):

  The festering: what is trickling with pus in broken places is festering (vipubba).
  What is festering is the same as “the festering” (vipubbaka). Or alternatively,
  what is festering (vipubba) is vile (kucchita) because of repulsiveness, thus it is
  “the festering” (vipubbaka). This is a term for a corpse in that particular state.

  -- Vism. VI.3 (Nyanamoli, trans)


Who should we regard as role models? When practicing the Dhamma there are many exemplary characters found in Buddhist texts who are worthy of emulation,I want to know whether it would be right for a layman to regard an Arahant Bhikkuni as his role model. Is it suitable?

In my opinion, keep only Buddha as your role model otherwise you will be in for a dissapontmemt. The next option is to keep any other teacher who is passed away without any known bad publicity. It is not advisable to keep any other living teacher as your role model. However, you can keep any living Kalyanamitta (spiritual friend) as your role model. The reason being you can accept any drawbacks of your spiritual friend as you know they are not perfect.


What does the Buddha mean by this quote? There is no punishment for anger. It is the anger which will punish you

I pondered on this for a few hours now but can't understand the meaning.

Tnx for all the help

There's an explanation of it here, on the Fake Buddha Quotes web site: “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.”
It's not a quote from the Pali canon.
Buddhism probably does have things to say about "anger": but maybe not that. :-)
If I had to make sense of it I'd guess it's saying that anger is unpleasant and thus a kind of punishment (the consequences of angry behaviour might not be good either).
According to Buddhism, anger might be associated with aversion and perhaps with an unwise view of 'self'.

According to Bodhipaksa one of the earliest versions of this quote (from a non-Buddhist source) is,

They teach that he who hates shall be hated, and that the one who gets angry shall be punished by anger, and that all sin is punished by it and not for it. This is correct.

I guess this might also be Christian-like in origin, e.g. it reminds me of the aphorism, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword."
Another original version of the quote is from a book about the Hindu (non-Buddhist) Bhagavad Gita,

Even more intriguing to me is the karma of our health. Again, let me illustrate one or two kinds of connection. For one, the Buddha says that we are not punished for our anger, we are punished by our anger. In other words, anger is its own karma.

Note the absence of quotation marks. Eknath is not quoting the Buddha, but paraphrasing his teachings on anger and karma.

So it's talking about, trying to say something about, karma.
That (karma) is something which the Buddha will have talked about; however starting here from a fake quote (a mis-quote) about anger probably isn't the easiest start to explaining karma, a difficult subject.


Do we perceive the whole? According to I think all Buddhists, the whole is nothing more than its parts. I've read it claimed that, given everything is partite, nothing exists. Perhaps Being means something more than its parts, though I'm not sure. Anyway, do we perceive - with or as the skandhas - something as a thing that is more than its parts? Such as a chariot.
I think that would mean that things that don't exist can sometimes be the object of perception. In turn, that interests me because beings without any existence may - perhaps - be in some sense permanent and non-empty, as well as impermanent and empty.
The implications for karma seem obvious.

Update: it definitely seems that Theravada Buddhists claim that we only infer the whole, and do not perceive it. I'm unsure about the Mahayana, especially given how often "the whole universe" crops up in discussing the bodhisattva. So, if I may ask two follow up points:

is the inference to a whole like something: so that the whole in some sense belongs to our mental life?
what about in the Mahayana?

We do not need to see the whole to recognise what it is. Perception of parts of car or chariot is sufficient to establish it is car or chariot. Similarly parts of face features are enough for us to conclude who is.
We do not necessarily perceive the whole. Yes we can hold perception of things which were but are no more.


Distractions in Meditation Upon asking questions previously, I wondered some things about my meditation. In meditation, I often experienced greatly reduced thoughts, almost no thoughts; but, the sensations at the tip of the nose are almost always lacking.

Is it possible that, despite the absence of thoughts, something other than arising cognitions pulls my attention away from the meditation object?

Just to be clear: I am asking what specifically are the type of possible distractions which may arise in meditation. I'm also wondering what is the relative strength of these distractions, for example: does a single thought break concentration? Does paying attention to some external object merely once break concentration?

Welcome to the in-betweens!  When someone starts meditating, there are generally a few phase that they will pass through.  These are all well documented, though I personally think they find the best expression in the 10 Ox herding pictures from Zen.  The first is quieting the mind.  In the series of Ox herding pictures, this is the state of seeing and taming the ox where the mind's unruly nature is first seen for what it is it's thrashings are subdued:

Once the mind settles, however, there is a very lengthy process of riding the ox to the mountain:

This seems to be where you are at now.  Take special note of that second painting.  I selected this artist's rendition specifically because I think it beautifully characterizes this phase of training.  The adept is riding the ox backwards.  He literally has no idea where he's going.  Indeed, this stage of training is very much categorized by a feeling of bumping around in the dark.  And it can go on for years.  Or it can be over in a matter of days.  There is literally no way of knowing how long it will take.  The adept doesn't even know if there is a mountain awaiting him!  He has no idea what's ahead!

The only thing you can actively do at this stage is practice with sincerity. Sit daily for at least an hour.  Apply your mind to your object of meditation.  Don't worry about what is a distraction and what isn't. The mind is entirely too complicated to sort those things out at this stage.  Moreover, much of what drives us into distraction is completely unconscious!  As you go forward, you might even find your mind filled with thoughts again as deep, forgotten memories or unseen, habitual obstacles begin to rise to the surface.  Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you go on retreats of three days or more.  This will go a long way to loosening the hold those subtle, unseen, and unconscious distractions have on your mind.  As they begin to fall away, your concentration will strengthen almost seemingly without effort.

If your practice has sincerity, eventually you will arrive at the foot of the mountain.  You just have to persist.


Do Buddhism and Atheism contradict each other? Can a person be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time? Or are some beliefs in deities too important to the practice of Buddhism?

Within the canonical texts of the various schools of Buddhism there are various beings that roughly correspond to that of deities, in particular Devas and Brahmas. Both Devas and Brahmas are particular types of beings who have taken very high rebirths as a result of their good Karma. They have very long lifespans and many wonderful benefits.

However they aren't the objects of reverence that they are in other religions. Although one might pray to or request one of these beings for help in worldly matters it is understood that these beings are rather limited, and they eventually die like any other being.

In practical terms rejecting the existence of such beings doesn't really present major problems as it isn't an essential doctrinal teaching. One can be a practicing Buddhist without believing in them.


Are Buddha nature and Original enlightenment different, or always identical? Are Buddha nature and Original enlightenment different, or identical?
So, when a sastra says "Since the essence of Mind is grounded on the Dharmakaya, it is to be called the original enlightenment", is the exact same the case for Buddha nature?
When a Soto monk says "manifest buddha nature", do they mean "manifest original enlightenment"?

Yes.  The difference in terms just highlights a difference in emphasis.  All zen teachings basically point to the same thing.  The difference is dependent on what obstacle the teacher is pointing too.  For someone who is always striving, a teacher might call it original mind to emphasize that he is already in possession of what he's striving for.  For someone who thinks zen is about rarefied states or accomplishments, a teacher might call it ordinary mind.  For someone who is caught up in intellectualizing, he might simply hold up a flower.
Its all the same shit - namely the shit you are caught up in.


What are the five kinds of seeds? In the Seeds Sutta (SN 22.54), we find there are five kinds of seeds, which can grow, when they are fertile, undamaged and securely planted on the ground with water to nourish them.
Water is delight and lust, or in another translation, relishing and greed.
Earth refers to the four stations of consciousness, or in another translation, four standing-spots of consciousness, i.e. form, feeling, perception and volitional formations.
But what are the five kinds of seeds? This translation of the sutta says "Consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen as like the five kinds of seeds."
What is consciousness together with its nutriment, that forms five kinds of seeds? What five?
In other suttas (e.g. MN 148), there are six kinds of consciousness - related to the six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind or intellect).
But what are the five in this sutta formed by consciousness and its nutriment?
And what is the nutriment for consciousness? In another translation, this is fuel.

What is consciousness together with its nutriment, that forms five kinds of seeds? What five?

From Ven. Bodhi's note in "Middle Length Discourses":

Nutriment (ahara) is to be understood here in a broad sense as a prominent condition for the individual life-process. Physical food(nurture the body), contact (nurture feeling), mental volition (nurture consciousness to manifest to 3 realms of existence: sense, form, and formless worlds), consciousness (nurture name/form or mentality/materiality at rebirth, the psycho-physical organism in its totality); these are the elements that help perpetuating samsara; Craving is the origin of nutriment since craving of the previous existence is the source of the present individuality with its dependence upon and continual consumptions of the four nutriments in this existence.

Also from Ven. Bodhi's note:

"Bhikkhus, there are these five kinds of seeds. What five? Root-seeds, stem-seeds, joint-seeds, cutting-seeds, and germ-seeds as the fifth"[73] The five kinds of seeds (bija) are actually five means of propagation. Spk gives examples of the five kinds drawn from Vin IV 35.

And From Ven. Thanissaro's "The Buddhist Monastic Code":

The Vibhaºga defines bhÒtag›ma as vegetation arising from any of five
sources:

from bulbs, rhizomes, or tubers (e.g., potatoes, tulips),
from cuttings or stakes (e.g., willows, rose bushes),
from joints (e.g., sugar cane, bamboo),
from runners (e.g., strawberries, couch grass), or
from seeds (e.g., corn, beans).


Are probabilistic physics and pratitya samutpada compatible? Can a physical theory be fundamentally probabilistic (such as the popular interpretations of quantum mechanics) without contradicting pratitya samutpada?

Clarification

Pratitya samutpada is about how all things arise in dependence on conditions. If there is such a thing as a probabilistic event, then I would say there is some part of that event which does not depend on conditions, only on chance, whatever that might mean.

Dependent origination is about how sorrow & grief arise. It is not related to physics.


Hamstring issues when in a five-point-meditation posture Most days when I sit in a five-point meditation posture on a cushion there isn't a problem when sitting for the duration of a meditation session, but for particularly long sessions or on some days, sporadically, my left hamstring will start to feel uncomfortable tight to the point where I will not be able to continue meditating through it. Usually when this happens can't even mindfully adjust to a position where it won't dominate the session from that point onward.

The pain is sharp and gradually builds until about all I can do is stretch it out and leave it that way. It appears to be muscular in nature. There are no medical conditions that I have that I am aware of that would lead to this problem, and there don't appear to be any circulation issues.

What are some of the elements I can ensure, adjust, do beforehand, or do regularly to try to keep this from happening or mitigate the problem?

Maybe the desire to adhere to a particular meditation posture is the problem. If someone got it into their head that to meditate properly, one needed to hold a headstand position, then there's sure to be lots of discomfort to get in the way of the meditation.

The purpose of the posture is to reduce bad mental qualities that get in the way of meditation, things like back pain from slumping and not sitting up straight; things like lethargy that comes from lying down.

Yet you need some kind of relaxation to prevent giving the mind food for discursive thought. You can't really meditate while driving because there's too much to be responsible for, not enough room for the mind to calm down.

So how comfortable do you need to be before you can settle down? Is it a distracting thought or a legitimate injury you're doing to yourself? If your legs hurt when you sit down, then just stretch them out and go back to the breath. Yet if you find there's a constant, never-ending stream of uncomfortable things that you need to keep "fixing", then that points to a mental discursiveness that you need to stop following.

The Buddha gives ways of dealing with Distractive Thoughts. If all else fails, press your tongue to the roof of your mouth and batter through your mind's urge to "fix" parts of your posture.

(Re: closing the question, I think there are perfectly Buddhist ways to answer a question like this--these are distractive thoughts, although one needs to discern the difference between a mere thought and an potential injury which is yours to prevent. I've read stories of people injuring their knees because their teacher told them to keep sitting in tight postures, ignoring their pain.)


How can we conclude that something is unarisen and eternal? Let us suppose there is something (i.e. nirvana) unarisen and eternal.

How can we conclude and trust that it is indeed unarisen and eternal ? Because in order to find out whether it is unarisen, we will have to go into its infinite past; and to find out whether it is eternal, we will have to go into its infinite future.

Nirvana is said to unarisen and eternal.

So my question is : How do we know something is unarisen and eternal ?

Imagine, for example, that you're trying to travel to Paris (or to Rome, or Varanasi, or anywhere else).

So, you ask people, "How to get to Paris?" -- and you follow road signs, which say, "This way to Paris."

When you get to Paris, after you arrive, I don't think you ask yourself, "How do I know this is Paris?"

I think that descriptions of nirvana (like "unarisen") should be understood as instructions or directions like this.

I don't know, maybe another analogy is like, you go with someone to the sea-shore, and they say, "That ocean is always there." You look, and what you see are waves which appear and disappear, and so it's difficult to see what's constant, to see that there is anything that's constantly there.


I am confused about certain things, I really hope some kind person can help What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all. Advaita says that there is only the universal conciousness and all the objects and people are ilusions what is the Buddhist view here?. Advaita says that in deep sleep conciousness do not stop what is the buddhist view here?.

In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let conciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that conciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do buddhist explain that experience of our true nature. Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality conciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was conciousness.

What is the view of Buddhism here? What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana?. What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which impliyes that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a ilusion that we are not.

Hopefully someone will be able to answer my questions I would really be thankful.
Thank you for Everything.

Kind Regards

From Buddhist perspective, the key ideas of Advaita Vedanta are pretty similar to (Mahayana) Buddhism except the parts where it says that consciousness is everything and that our true nature is consciousness.

Instead we say that consciousness is just one of the phenomena, albeit a very important one. We also say that identifying with anything (including consciousness) leads to suffering, because it makes you vulnerable to change (of that).

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all.

I mean, obviously time exists in some sense. It's 4:27pm when I write this. I'm not making this up, really ;) Similarly, space exists in some sense. My cubicle at work has very little space. So in some sense space is real too.

In Buddhism we say, that every thing is valid within its certain context or within its certain frame of reference. But outside of that frame of reference, it makes no sense. So we try not to say "exists" or "does not exist" - we think these categories are naive. Instead we say, "here is the context in which it can be observed, here are the limits of that context, so this is the extent to which it can be said to exist".

Advaita says that there is only the universal consciousness and all the objects and people are illusions what is the Buddhist view here?

Well, in Buddhism we agree that everything is connected, or interrelated. Things influence each other and our consciousness arises based on those interactions. But we don't say it's "one" or "many" - because again that depends on perspective. In one sense its one, in another sense its many. We don't want to make one-sided statements.

In (Mahayana) Buddhism we say that separate objects and people are illusion, and that instead it's an interconnected network. We also say that the way things look to us is "like an illusion" because what we see is the models our mind builds, not the actual things. These models can be approximate or completely wrong, but that's what we see. In this sense too, objects and people as they appear to us are illusions.

Advaita says that in deep sleep consciousness do not stop what is the Buddhist view here?

There are different levels of mind, some more coarse and some more subtle. There is a kind of mind that does not stop in deep sleep and there is a kind of mind that does not stop with death.

In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that consciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do Buddhist explain that experience of our true nature.

There are many "schools" in Buddhism that teach different styles, created by different temperaments of teachers and thus better fitting for different temperaments of students. Some teach meditation that is very similar to what you describe, "relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself". Others teach different methods. It depends on the student.

In Buddhism we would say that our true nature is "the way things really are" aka "truth" or "suchness". Which is more broad and more correct than "consciousness" because consciousness is just one part of the mix.

Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality consciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was consciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here?

In Buddhism we also say that things are nondual - meaning that matter, energy, information and mind are different aspects of same stuff, that it is not fundamentally two or three or four different things. So, when you understand that matter, energy, information, and mind are different aspects of same stuff, you wake up from the dream that coarse phenomena are important, and realize that in fact subtle influences are much more important.

What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana? What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which implies that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a illusion that we are not.

Yes of course. Generally speaking you are right, and Buddhism says the same. But it is important to really understand this in-depth, not just repeat someone's words.

Brahman is a fancy word for the Absolute, the totality of everything in space and time. Nirvana is the word for the absolutely perfect peace, freedom, and harmony. This perfect peace or perfect harmony is achieved when there is complete integration of all dualities, when there is no more conflict.

In Buddhism we say, it's not enough to just say that everything is already perfect, that universe is in harmony, and that samsara is nirvana. This is true, but not enough. We also say, it's not enough to just sit and let consciousness be aware of itself. Instead, we say, we should work on eliminating the conflict, both in our lives and in our minds. And how do we eliminate conflict?

We don't create outer conflict with our behavior. We create outer harmony with our behavior. We don't create inner conflict with our thinking. We create inner harmony with our thinking. We let go of childish simplifications and attain real understanding. This way we don't just say that everything is Brahman, Nirvana, Harmony and Peace - we actualize it in our life.


8 causes of Earthquake - Maha-parinibbana Sutta Buddha as part of the noble eightfold path preached that killing any organism is an unskillful action which results in bad karma. He also preached that every buddhist monk's final aim should be nibbana. In the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, it's mentioned that one cause for earthquake is a monk attaining enlightenment. Earthquakes result in the killing of atleast few organisms. So that should mean a monk should not pursue enlightenment. How does a practicing buddhist monk address this apparent contradiction?

Thanks.

There are instances where the earth trembled due to certain significant event or a very meritorious person. But I do not think these are not very serious tremors. In recent times also these have happened. E.g.

Sometimes, even in this unhappy atmosphere, there would be a ray of hope. Sayagyi had said that on my arrival in India, nature would give a sign of my future success. I travelled by air from Yangon (Rangoon) and, as it happened, when I descended from the plane in Calcutta there was an earth tremor. The next day I read in the newspapers that it had affected a large area of northern India. To me it was as if the country was thrilled to regain the long-lost jewel of the Dhamma.
Signs of this kind had occurred in the time of the Buddha. Was this nature’s way of expressing joy at the rebirth of the Buddha’s teaching through the return of Vipassana? However, when I recalled the present difficulties, I felt that perhaps the earthquake had just been a coincidence and that it was senseless to give it importance. I needed to understand and accept the existing situation, which was bleak.

Source: First Vipassana Course In India
Killing many beings who a meritorious may cause natural disasters. In the past there is a Tsunami which hit Sri Lanka when an Arahat was killed. In such cases life may get harmed.
Being enlightened is beneficial to oneself and others. Generally as far as I know earth tremors arising from this do not harm beings.


Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'? Further to these comments, why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', specifically, instead of about 'attachment'?

Wouldn't they make as much sense, or even make more sense, if they identified attachment rather than craving as a condition for the types of suffering which are mentioned in the first noble truth?

Craving (lit. "thirst", tanha) is a technical term that means that very phenomenological moment when you (here!) daydream about something (over there!). Buddha says "unsatisfied craving IS dukkha" (suffering) - note how he does not say "craving is the cause of suffering", he says "unsatisfied craving IS". That's because dukkha isn't exactly "suffering", it should be more precisely translated as "unsatisfactoriness", or, as I sometimes translate it, "the feeling of wrongness". So as you see, to say that "unsatisfied craving IS the feeling of wrongness" is almost a truism, a statement that is obviously and self-evidently true. This way Buddha not as much identifies the cause of suffering, as illustrates the nature of suffering, brings it into light and shows it upclose so we can see it for what it is. Indeed, suffering is nothing else but the painful experience of the unsatisfied craving for another experience.

As for "attachment", I feel like this is a long-standing misunderstanding that crept in since the earliest days of Buddhism, when the term upatthana/upattana (to attend) got mixed up with upadana (fuel). In my opinion, the sequence here is that what one craves for, one attends to, thereby fueling the craving. In other words, as you keep obsessing over the object of your craving, you only make it worse.

This makes it clear that upattana/upadana (to-attend/to-fuel, usually translated as clinging or attachment) is not really the direct cause of suffering, but only a sustaining factor. The direct cause of suffering is craving.

Four Noble Truths (at leat the first three) are focused on the immediate experience of suffering, as it occurs and can be ceased in the present moment. That's why they talk about craving being the cause.

The Twelve Nidanas cover the big picture: how entire experience of "I" and "The World" arises. In that context it's more appropriate to talk about Upadana being a fuel for Bhava, and Avidya being the root cause of it all.  Avidya (invalid/confused understanding ~of the experience) causes reification of experience as external objects which then become the object of craving. This craving causes dukkha, sure, but more importantly for the big picture it leads to ego-centric imagination (Upadana) which leads to individuation (Bhava).

I hope this analysis of the terms and how they relate to the phenomenology of suffering clarifies the topic.


Why walking meditation is not mentioned in the ways of attending to mindfulness? Namo Buddhaya.

Buddha talks about walking meditation at several places in the suttas for example here. However he doesn't mention it in the Long discourse about the ways of attending to mindfulness. There are 4 ways of attending to mindfulness but none of them mention walking or walking meditation.

My questions are :

Why doesn't Buddha mention about the walking or walking meditation in the long discourse about the ways of attending to mindfulness?

Is there any sutta where Buddha talks about the technique of walking meditation?

I think that walking is mentioned in DN 22 -- in the translation you referenced, it is this:

  Moreover, monks, a monk while going knows “I go”; or, standing he knows “I am standing”; or, sitting he knows “I am sitting”; or, while lying down he knows “I am lying down”; or, in whatever way his body is disposed, he knows it is (disposed) in that way.

Ven. Sujato's translation:

  Furthermore, when a mendicant is walking they know: ‘I am walking.’ When standing they know: ‘I am standing.’ When sitting they know: ‘I am sitting.’ And when lying down they know: ‘I am lying down.’
  Whatever posture their body is in, they know it.


Moving from absorption to self-awareness Practice : Mindfulness

I'm taking a concrete example to get the right help.

Reading a book ,

Reading without being absorbed , mind keeps wondering but still able
to read words
Reading with being absorbed , mind more likely continuously anchored
on reading with minimal mental movements

Now I want to be aware about myself while being absorbed in reading or be aware about the reader while reading

Could anyone provide me a guide to proceed to that ?

In Buddhism

awareness is on:

Arising and passing of phenomena pertaining to the mind and matter process (Samudaya-vaya-dhammanupassi)

more particularly:

through sensations (as you experience phenomena and any characteristic of the aggregates or characteristics of matter though a sense door - vidita vedana - and also make you whole body sensitive - Sabbakayapatisamvedi)
any mind and matter phenomena creates sensations

arising from:

internal and external sources (Ajjhatta-bahiddha)

with:

equanimity, and
absence of clinging and craving of any type

So it is good to be aware of the reading so you don't miss any facts, but this might not liberate you from stress and misery.

If awareness alone did the trick then the happiest people would be the circus performers, gymnasts, etc.

So what ever you are absorbed in, be aware of the sensations and their arising and passing, keeping your mind firmly equanimous and devoid of craving and clinging. This is the type of awareness you have to develop in daily life including when reading.

Reading on its own creates verbal fabrications but if you can limit thought proliferation this is good. The though proliferation can be limited by:

calming the fabrication - less distraction from bodily pains

though observing the speed and length off the breath cycles - may be not easy while reading
passively looking at sensation, ideally in a small area like the upper lip

anchoring the mind

realise your mind has left the anchoring object
objectively looking at sensations or experience created by the distracting object
objectively look at the sensations created by:

reaction of your perception
though proliferation

bring back your mind to the anchor

For further details see:

http://www.vridhamma.org/Discourses-on-Satipatthana-Sutta
http://www.vridhamma.org/The-Discourse-Summaries
http://www.vridhamma.org/The-Significance-of-Vedana-in-Vipassana
http://www.vridhamma.org/Importance-of-Vedana
The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness
http://www.vridhamma.org/Sampajanna
Sampajañña
http://www.vridhamma.org/Sampajanna-the-Thorough-Understanding


According to the Noble Eightfold Path, is it poor practice to speak poorly in solitude? I had this question yesterday, when I was using my navigation system to navigate somewhere completely new in my car. I, by accident, took a wrong turn that resulted in multiple miles of detour. When I realized my mistake, I verbally spoke an explicit word out loud. I was completely alone in the car at the time.

I immediately realized my second mistake in speaking as such and I verbally corrected myself to a non-explicit word.

The Noble Eightfold Path puts emphasis on right speech, and not saying anything to harm others and self. I was not meaning to harm anyone in my outburst, but to express the anguish of a delayed trip.

Buddhism writings (specifically the Dhammapada) also put emphasis on sage qualities, more specifically in the quote "a sage tames himself". Certainly what I did in that situation was not a kusula action, and thus can help breed other akusula actions.

My question is: Is it bad practice to display this kind of poor self-control when in solitude?

Solitude is the best time to practice skillful behavior!  When you don't have anyone else watching you, it's that much easier to lag in your discipline.  The best noble qualities are ones that are intrinsic to your character.  They show that your integrity is deep and that your practice is strong.


Is Buddha the root of Dhamma? Here Monks praise Buddha by exclaiming the following:

  The monks said to the Buddha: “The Buddha is the root of the Dharma,
  the eye of Dharma, the foundation of the Dharma. May he teach us!
  Having heard him teach the Dharma, the monks will receive it
  respectfully as he has taught it.”

My questions are :

What is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the root of Dhamma?
Similarly what is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the eye of Dhamma? And what is the meaning of the fact that Buddha is the foundation of Dhamma ?

Buddha is the root of the Dhamma as in Buddha is the root source of his teaching.
Buddha is the eye of the Dhamma as in the Buddha's omniscience and all seeing knowledges are what see the the Dhamma that is hidden from the world.
Buddha is the foundation of the Dhamma as in the Dhamma preached by his followers are based on the teachings of the Buddha.


Logic vs Karmic principles Imagine this hypothetical situation (which is meant to simplify the scenario in this question):

There haven't been any past lives -- this is your first life, and therefore there is no past karma, but only the karma[s] you make in this life.
(So, in this imagined version of events, we can use the knowledge at hand without complications clouding our judgement.)

The universe is in it's first cycle, and birth has happened for the first time.
(This further eliminates any doubts of the unknown, and allows us to work with our hypothesis.)

Now imagine the following two events/actions:

Imagine walking out into the streets and seeing a hungry puppy and feeding it your lunch out of kindness/empathy and happily walking into your workplace in the bliss of doing something nice with your lunch, instead of eating it like always.

In the lunch time an old enemy of yours taunt you and this leads to a fight which ends with him arm being broken by you (intentional).

The question is: can you explain why both event 1 and event 2 would effect the next life?
As there is no Soul/Person/being in our teaching, what we have is a self responding, self generating and a replicating consciousness. If there was a soul or a being, we can justify this by saying "I am being rewarded for my good and being punished for my faults".
But we are without such permanent identities: what we have is a consciousness that gives birth to thoughts and disappears ... one thought would arise from another, but all thoughts have their own identity, apart from its parent thought (this is much like we and our parents).
On what basis can we attach the karmas of different actions together, when there is only emptiness (Anatta) between 2 different actions?

The answer for this comes in the Acela Sutta (although this quote comes from here). Of course, the question was phrased differently by Kassapa, but the essence of the question is the same.

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

The second useful sutta is the Acintita Sutta which states that the precise working out of karma cannot be conjectured:

  "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

The third useful quote below comes from the Sivaka Sutta, teaching that not everything we experience in life is due to karma. Some times it's due to the weather or indigestion etc.

  As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama,
  there are some brahmans & contemplatives who are of this doctrine,
  this view: Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done
  before. Now what does Master Gotama say to that?"

  [The Buddha:] "There are cases where some feelings arise based on
  bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on
  bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on
  bile. So any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view
  that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
  — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
  the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
  wrong."

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."


Where does it say Siddhartha Gautama mastered all types of meditation? I vaguely recall that before he sat to meditate under the bodhi tree and was enlightened, he learned all the different techniques of meditation. Where does it say this?

In the Maha-Saccaka Sutta it describes his learning some meditation types/techniques, from teachers, before he sat and was enlightened:

  Alara Kalama ... the dimension of nothingness.

~~~

  Uddaka Ramaputta ... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

~~~

  Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost.
  None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives
  in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to
  their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this.
  Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling
  painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the
  utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of
  austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any
  distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones.


How do we sense the flow of time? According to the Abhidhamma, at each given instant there is a consciousness that arises and ceases completely before the next consciousness arises. Each consciousness is only aware of the present moment (just an instant and only that instant) and therefore cannot know about previous instants.

So, how is it possible that we have a sense of the flow of time? How do we know that there was a past?

Past is a conceptual construct that only seems solid in the absence of careful examination. But if you look closely you will see that Past is assembled by the mind from multiple cues (as is Present by the way).

The experience of second-to-second flow of time is a byproduct of chitta-vrtti, the associative cycle, when each subsequent dharma (~thought) comes by association with the previous one. The sense of relatedness of the two dharmas is what creates the illusion of flow.

Disclaimer: this answer represents my own experience and understanding and is not meant to reflect an official position or to be consistent with views of any Buddhist school.


Can Cyborg/ Trans-human reach enlightenment? When enlightenment is depended on a Human Body The world is going to a point of no return, with the thirst for materialistic grandeur and power to rule over nature; after the conquered of Oriental by the Occidental. This article talks about Cyborg. Cyborg, Bionic Man, Clone, Trans-human... these could be the future of you and me, friends and colleagues walking on the streets. Or programmed, or with specific "functions", or one prototype of "human resources", it could all be tailor-made. When human falls into such situation, are Buddhist self-cultivation practices such as meditation, mantra chanting, concentration of mind... etc still viable; can enlightenment still be reachable for these types of humans?

Explanation Added:
Especially for certain schools of practices, it's about the Wind (氣), Nadi (脈), Bindu (明點) related to the human body, e.g., the Tibetan School. Certain other schools, included is the Hinayana, that the practice of the White Skeleton Visualization is depended upon working on the body to transform the consciousness - can a "Re-made Human" (Cyborg, Trans-human who has his body parts enhanced, replaced by organic or inorganic components, partially human partially machine, with devices implanted to achieve certain supernatural abilities such as remote viewing, mind control with micro-wave... all could be imagined... in short, Iron Man or Wolverine type of human) do the Buddhist practices and achieve enlightenment?

Remarks Added 14/02/2017

Excerpt from MarketWatch:

  Musk also touched one of his favorite topics: artificial intelligence. Specifically, he spoke of humans eventually merging with machines, like something out of a "Terminator" movie. ...merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence ...the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself...

The future human destiny is approaching us with rapidity:
In a beautiful name called upgrading human.

This question is actually unanswerable. However a human being is vastly more complicated than a mere cyborg. The ability to achieve enlightenment. Whereas a cyborg would be created artificially, and is merely a mind and a body to accomplish some tasks. Therefore it doesn't seem plausible that a cyborg achieves enlightenment/Nirvana.

Edit:
Understood the clarification. The changes you mention, like enhanced body parts or something, may enhance man's capacity in the outside world but the alterations to the body structure/parts will have lots of unintended consequences. We don't clearly understand the ramifications and chemical
imbalances in the system. In the same way that we are able to interact seamlessly with mobile phones in our age of technology, man's capability will increase but seemingly at a cost of his/her own natural technology called the mind and body. It is still an artificial way rather than a natural style.

Let's take a simple example. Are you able to meditate well with all the interactions you are having with your computer and mobile phone and Facebook/Twitter etc.,? If you are able to think about this you will understand how spiritual goal is unrelated and artificially enhancing life spans or body parts will be detrimental to a person's spiritual growth. Understand that man's body is already a well engineered machine. Just because we are insensitive to that and don't treat it well, doesn't mean our body is not an awesome machine. Our bodies are a vehicle too. We must oil it well and consume well in order to keep it running. But it has its life span and capabilities and we must respect that.


What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy? Many Buddhist texts and teachings make a distinction between absolute and relative truth. Please explain the difference and give some examples.

In Theravada, as the Wikipedia article states, there are types of truth: conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca).

These two types of truth are not exactly the same as relative and absolute truths. Rather than focusing on the universality or specificity of the scope of the truth, they focus on the intrinsicness of the truth - i.e., whether an object agrees with a truth by its inherent nature, or whether it is simply said to agree with it by external convention.

An example of conventional, extrinsic truth is in a fist. When you close your hand, a fist appears, almost by magic. When you open your hand again, the fist disappears. There was never anything intrinsic about the object that made the fist appear; only convention and recognition gave rise to the truth or falsehood of the arising of a fist.

An example of ultimate, intrinsic truth is in the pain felt when a fist connects at high velocity with a face. The fist and the face are only conventional descriptions of the reality, but the pain is intrinsic to the experience and thus said to be ultimately real. Also ultimately real are the vision of the fist coming towards the face, the feeling of the hardness of the fist and the softness of the face, and the sound of the fist connecting with the face.

In brief, conventional reality refers to entities, while ultimate reality refers to the building blocks that make up reality (i.e. experience). So, the entities of fists and faces are conventional, but the sights, sounds, and feelings associated with the experience are ultimate reality.

The importance of this doctrine is in establishing a proper paradigm for understanding reality. Because conventional truths are based on mental formations, they cannot aid in an understanding of reality. A permanent, satisfying, controllable convention can be conceived of, but it will never exist in ultimate reality. By delineating that which exists in ultimate reality, one can limit one's observation to those objects that will provide an understanding of how reality works.

For example, focusing on the concept of food as you eat, you will never come to see the nature of reality as arising and ceasing incessantly, because you are focused on something that is constant (but not really existing) - i.e. the food. As a result, you will easily conceive of it as good or bad, me and mine. If you focus on the experience of tasting and feeling as you chew the food, you will notice that you don't actually taste or feel the food always, your mind flitting between tasting, feeling, liking, disliking, thinking, etc., and you will come to understand the nature of reality, which in turn will allow you to let go of your attachments to good an bad experiences as you see that there is nothing truly desirable or undesirable about them.

This is based on the teaching of the Buddha while he was alive.

Relative and absolute truth, I believe, are more a part of the Mahayana claim that the teachings of the Buddha during his life were only meant to be taken in the context of the audience's limited ability to understand higher truths. Such teachings, it is claimed, can therefore be disregarded or at least superseded by later teachings that were kept secret until a time when beings could understand the higher truths they contained.

So, an example of a relative truth would be the teaching of dependent origination and the four noble truths; ultimate truth would be seeing that even those teachings are emptiness, and therefore meaningless. The point is that in order to understand the ultimate truth of emptiness, one must first realize the conventional truths as stepping stones.

I'm sorry if I haven't done the Mahayana view justice, but I don't subscribe to it myself; there is nothing in the original teachings of the Buddha to suggest that they are only relatively true, or that there is anything absolute beyond them. But, I guess I'm biased :)


What effects do Buddhist chants have? Does listening to Buddhist chants such the Wisdom Sutra bring any benefit when working, meditating or other activities?

Here is a quote on Buddhist Chanting. In here it's told why Buddhists chant and the benefits of it. The quote is from an article named "The Practice of Chanting in Buddhism" by Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammasami:

"Chanting is very common to any religion. Buddhism is no exception in this regard. However, the aim and purpose of chanting is different from one religion to another. Buddhism is unique in that it does not consider chanting to be prayer.
The Buddha in many ways has shown us to have confidence in our own action and its results, and thereby encouraged us to depend on no one but ourselves. This in fact is the sum and substance of His last message in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. One of the passages in this discourse reads: "Ananda, be dependent on yourself, take refuge in yourself and not in others, by this mean be dependent on the Dhamma, go for refuge to the Dhamma -- the righteous principles".
When a Buddhist does chanting, he is not asking some one to save him from evil nor is he hoping to be given a place in heaven as a result after he dies. Instead, through chanting he may be learning, teaching, philosophising or re-memorising the discourse.
Actually, in the Anguttara Nikaya there are some discourses dealing with chanting like Dhammavihari Sutta. It mentions five categories of people who make use of the discourses.
The first one studies it just for the sake of study without putting it into practice or explaining it to others. He even does not reflect deeply on what he has studied. He is known as 'Pariyatti-bahulo' who is keen on studying it alone.
The second one preaches or teaches what he has learnt from the discourses but does not follow it himself. He is 'Pannyatti-bahulo' who is keen only on teaching.
The third one does chanting. He philosophises about the discourses, trying all the time to satisfy his philosophical thirst. He forgets to make use of as mode or life. He is called 'Vitakka-bahulo' who is eager only to indulge in philosophical aspects of the Suttas (Discourses).
The fourth one is the one who chants the discourses to make them last for a long time in his memory. He memorises and re-memorises. Nevertheless, he does not go further to follow it in daily life. He is 'Sajjhayaka-bahulo' who is enthusiastic only in memorising or chanting the teachings of the Buddha, He may even expect some magical power from chanting.
The fifth and last one is who studies the discourses, teaches them to others, reflects on their philosophical points, chants them regularly and above all actually practices it in daily life. He is the one the Buddha praises to be 'Dhammavihari' -- a practitioner of the Dhamma, which he has learnt from the discourses.
Having reflected on this Sutta, it is left to us to judge ourselves to which category we belong and why we study or chant the discourses.
I would like to dwell a bit more on chanting in general. This is, after all, an All-night Chanting ceremony. It is nothing but right for us to be fully convinced of what we are doing. Initially I did mention that Buddhism is unique because it does not consider chanting to be a form of prayer.
Then why do we, Buddhists, chant?
In the olden days, before there were sufficient support materials for study like books, translations and computers we had to memorise to learn a discourse. After we had learnt it, we still had to chant regularly to protect it and hand it down to future generations. If we did not recite it daily we might forget it and omit some part of it. The Anguttara Nikaya says that if the discourses are poorly maintained this will lead to the disappearance of the Sasana. It was so important those days to memorise and chant it regularly. This must have definitely contributed in developing chanting practice. Chanting meant almost for the survival of the Dhamma itself.
Now we have sufficient support materials, why we should then be still chanting? Is there any more reason to do this?
There are some reasons sufficient to continue chanting practice. Regular chanting gives us confidence, joy and satisfaction, and increases devotion within us. This devotion is really a power. It is called the Power of Devotion (Saddhabala). It energises our life in general. I do not know about the others. For me I often have a joyous feeling when the chanting goes right. I become more confident of myself. I see it as a part of developing devotion.
In Buddhist monastic education tradition, chanting and learning by heart still forms a part of it. We study some of the Theravada Abhidhamma texts -- the highest teachings of the Buddha which deal with the ultimate nature of things -- in that way in Burma. We are explained the meaning and how the logic develops in the Abhidhamma. In the night we try to chant without having learnt it by heart. We could do it because of the technique. It is known as evening-class (nya-war) over there. It means a certain technique of studying the Abhidhamma and some of the Suttas. It is very helpful as it helps you to reflect very quickly".

Lastly, here is a website where you can listen to different Buddhist chantings e.g. Chinese Pureland and Pali Devotional Chanting.


Seeking explanation of this image's iconography I came across the following image on China's Taobao online shopping site and was hoping someone could explain the content. (the seller could not) The central figure is Shakyamuni Buddha, that much is clear. I am unfamiliar with the rest of the setting.

The things I'm sure about - it's tough to see everything with the picture size, but this is a depiction of the Buddha's moment of enlightenment.  The fingers pointed down and the palm up are the "world witnessing" mudra - the Buddha's response to Mara the tempter when asked who would bear witness to his spiritual accomplishments.  The naked women on the lower right are Mara's three daughters - craving, passion, and antagonism (Tanha, Raga, Arati) who came to tempt the Buddha.  All the wacky looking beasts raging around the Buddha is Mara's army.

Less sure about - the "Buddha" up top is probably Maitreya - the Buddha who will supposedly follow the Shakyamuni.  I'm thinking maybe the folks in the two upper corners are depictions of the six paramitas (giving, concentration, energy, virtue, patience, wisdom)?  No idea about the stuff at the bottom.  Maybe that's Dipankara (the Buddha before the current one) in the middle with the attendants?

PS - This should be a comment, but I don't have enough text space!


Was the Buddha known to chant during his meditation? Did the Buddha chant some mantra or holy word throughout his meditation? Or he was just silent to realize what is coming through him to interpret?

During his developmental years (before he became Enlightened) he might have.
This is because mantras are a way for you to match vibration with a particular deity and thus receive their assistance.

The Buddha gave many such great mantras including the Zhunti mantra but a Buddha has no reason to use them because the Buddhas are all connected simultaneously through their uncovered dharmakaya/Tathagatagarba/Buddha-nature.


In what realm did archaic humans live? Is it manussa (human) realm or tiracchāna (animal) realm? I think the interesting part is to first classify archaic humans, as a manussa or a tiracchāna?

Is there any explanation about this? Since as far as I know, Buddhism supports the theory of evolution.

There are times when humans hold long lifespan, good conducts, beautiful and large bodies, and there are times when their lifespans are short, bad, animal-like conducts, ugly small bodies. Currently it goes foward the decaying line again. Lifespan, bodies, without much taken support, is already very short and degenerated. So the age of going into relationship.

(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


Does this count as breaking the first precept? Let’s say that my face was itchy but just before I scratch it, I just remember that there might be face mites living on my face and I might be killing them. And as I’m scratching my face, I keep thinking that I might be killing the face mites. My original intention was to scratch my face but if I think I might be killing the face mites but continue to scratch my face because it’s itchy then does that count as breaking the first precept?

The first precept is:

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

Conditions that Break the Precept
(By Ñanavara Thera)
The five factors of the first precept are:
* pano -- presence of a living being.
* panasannita -- one knows that it is a living being.
* vadhacittam -- the intention to kill.
* upakkamo -- the effort to kill.
* tena maranam -- the resulting death of that being.

All factors must be fulfilled in order to break the first precept.
If you can answer yes to all of them then the first precept is broken. If you can answer no to one of them the precept is not broken.