Which Buddhist Meditation is comparable to Transcendental Meditation? A friend of mine was practicing zazen for many years.   They started to get discourage with their practice and started to explore transcendental mediation.  Now, they claim their progress with TM is far better in a matter of weeks when compared to zazen.  I was wondering if there is an equivalent to TM in any of the Buddhist traditions?  If so, what are the basics and framework of the parallel type of meditation?

What is TM (Transcendental Meditation)

Being a Buddhist, I only have a cursory familiarity with TM, but here it is. A TM practitioner is instructed to sit regularly, at least 15 minutes every morning, or more. Meditation is presented as joyful, easy, resting activity that does not require much effort. Instead of suppressing thoughts or holding uninterrupted attention on breath etc., the practitioner is instructed to let their mind expand in its natural state. This is a state of open unfettered unperplexed awareness, like your mind on a day when you have enough time that you don't have to rush and can instead allow yourself to "gather your thoughts". As the mind expands, all kinds of memories and thoughts start bubbling up into scope. At this point the meditator is instructed to use their personal mantra, especially selected to match their personal predispositions (this part sounds like upaya to me). After reciting the mantra several times until the thoughts calm down, the TM meditator can stop using the mantra, and let their mind expand naturally. This combination of letting the mind expand while not letting it wander is said to be the core principle of TM. Two other unique elements are the joyful & resting mood that the TM meditator learns to associate with meditation, and the use of mantra.

What Buddhist meditation is similar to TM

I'm not aware of any Buddhist meditation that would combine the same exact elements in the same way as TM. However, all elements of TM are found in Buddhist meditation techniques:

The joyful and resting mood is like in satipatthana, like in 2nd jhana.
Letting the mind expand in its natural state is like zazen, like Mahamudra meditation.
Coming back when thoughts arise is like the labeling ("thoughts!") technique in beginner's samatha meditation.
Using mantra is like in mantra meditation.

So to me, TM sounds like a peculiar combination of techniques usually associated with beginner's meditation (using the mantra, coming back from thoughts), with intermediate-level technique of generating the joyful mood, plus a technique that firmly belongs at advanced meditation levels -- letting the mind expand in its natural state.


Does the concept of Brahma muhurta (time of Brahma) exist in Buddhism? On Buddhist retreats and at most Buddhist monasteries the morning meditation session is at around 4:30 or 5:00 am.

  In Hinduism, Brahma muhurta (time of Brahma) is a period (muhurta) one and a half hours before sunrise or more precisely 1Hr 36 Mins before sunrise. i.e. 96 Minutes = 2 Muhūrta or 4 Ghaṭīkā,and each Muhurta lasting for 48 minutes. Literally meaning "God's Hour", it is traditionally the last phase or muhurta of the night and is considered an auspicious time for all practices of yoga and most appropriate for meditation, worship or any other religious practice.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmamuhurtha

Is there a similar theoretical basis in Buddhism? If so, where can I learn more about it?

Side note: I've been automatically waking up at 4:00-4:30 am now for sometime now without intending to. It doesn't matter how tired I am, or how late I go to bed, I come fully awake at this time, and my eyes aren't burning or showing any signs of fatigue. I'll sit up and mediate in bed after a little washing up. After an hour or so (actually 48 minutes sounds about right, I don't set a timer so I can't confirm) I will go back to bed or about the day after a little more meditation, depending on my schedule. I find this automatic process quite fascinating. That's how I started to research this phenomenon.

I am unable to find a reference, but I have heard at a Dhamma sermon that the Buddhist monks are advised to get up at 4 in the morning, then clean the mouth and have a light soup which consists of salt, water and may be some other ingredients.(A light soup with salt in it) After that monks are advised to learn the Dhamma, may be memorizing, understanding etc. So yes it is advised to get up at 4 am and study but I am not sure whether the term Brahma Muhurtha is used in that scenario. Outside the Dhamma, many studies have been done on morning people and they have been found to be more successful, proactive and happier.

http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2010/07/research-says-morning-people-are-more-proactive.html
http://www.prevention.com/health/sleep-energy/study-finds-morning-people-are-happier

Laymen also can follow these steps and can become happier and more successful in reaching their visions.


Lay meditation in Korean Zen Have there been reform movements in 20th century Korean Buddhism that put more emphasis on meditation practice than traditional Korean Buddhism did, and that, in particular, also encouraged meditation by lay people? Put differently, I wonder whether Korean Buddhism has had a reform movement similar to, say, the reform movement of Mahasi Saydaw in Burma (that, in turn, was important to the development of Vipassana meditation as practiced by many in the US).

According to the answer to a related question, there was no significant reform movement in Korean Seon:

  So there may be others who revitalized Seon, but in many ways the traditional practices and texts of Seon remained unchanged over a long time. Of all 3 Seon, Zen and Chan, the Korean practice seems the most like a mono culture with a tendency to remaining close to traditions.


Finding the source of a sutta How do you find out the source of a sutta? For example, MN 109, SN 56.11
begin

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One

How do we know who this author is? Is there general guidance on who to attribute the suttas to?

I don't know much about this but according to Wikipedia (here and here) it was Ananda who narrated the stories in the suttas.

  A council of 500 Arahats was held at Rajgir (Sanskrit: Rājagaha) to agree the contents of the Dhamma and Vinaya. Ananda recited the Suttas, such that each begins: ‘Thus have I heard’.


Can Jiddu Krishnamurthy's teachings be considered Buddhist in nature? There was a guy named Jiddu Krishnamurthy. He talked a lot about conditioning, awareness and to see the things as they are. One of the content from the hyperlink is

  His aim was to set humanity free. He maintained that the individual is freed by becoming aware of their own psychological conditioning, and that this awakening will enable them to give love to another.

My question is

Was his teachings Buddhists in nature?
Do any Buddhist teachers or philosophers opine about him? If yes, in what ways?

Was his teachings Buddhists in nature?

This is a quote from the page you referenced ...

  Krishnamurti said: "I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect."

... so, according to him, accoding to that, maybe not (not in name).

From the same page ...

  Krishnamurti was raised within the Theosophical Society to become an incarnation of Maitreya, the messianic Buddha.

... so he was presumably (I don't know) exposed to some kind[s] of Buddhist doctrine.

Do any Buddhist teachers or philosophers opine about him? If yes, in what ways?

Well I don't know about him in particular.

This answer says that the Theosophists (I think these were an early 20th-century European group) were trying to consolidate all religions into one -- to say that all religions were essentially the same or One in some way.

I think I've seen some people (who would call themselves themselves Buddhist) disagree with that doctrine, and disparage the Theosophists, so ...

See also e.g. this answer -- someone leaving the "Theosophical" society to found a "Buddhist" society


How to ordain as a Theravada monk? What is the most prominent way to ordain as a monk? Like who's involved, and how to contact the respective person to ordain?

The I. Mahākhandhako: The Great Khandhaka gives most knowledge on not only how the Sublime Sangha got into arising but also how it leaves access for those wishing to make use of the Sublime Buddhas Boundage, (Re-)Legion, toward Unbond.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange or other world-binding trades but to escape from this wheel: access to real refuge]


How to improve mindfulness of thinking? Recently I've been facing problems with trying to remain mindful of any thoughts that pass through my mind. This problem is particularly prevalent in my formal meditation, where I only realise I am thinking half way through the thought, or even when it has stopped. I also cannot remember the first parts of the thought pattern, what made it to arise, etc. Any tips on keeping a more stable eye on this 'frame of reference'? Thanks.

My understanding is the 3rd frame of reference (cittanupassana) does not involve observing thoughts (vitakka). It involves knowing whether the mind-heart (citta) is defiled or not. Defilements (kilesa) are not thoughts. Although there can be 'defiled thoughts', 'defilements' (kilesa) are the energy/drive/mood of greed, hatred & delusion, which are not thoughts.
For example, when there is sexual lust, anger or fear, the energy or vibrations that runs through & simulates the physical body with lust, anger or fear, giving rise to all kinds of physical reactions & tensions, is not 'thought'.
The teaching about the 3rd frame of reference does not mention thoughts. It states:

And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has lust, discerns that the
mind has lust. When the mind is without lust, he discerns that
the mind is without lust. When the mind has hatred, he discerns
that the mind has hatred. When the mind is without hatred, he
discerns that the mind is without hatred. When the mind has
delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is
without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.
When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is
scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is
enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is
not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is
surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is
unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind
is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that
the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns
that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns
that the mind is not released.
Satipatthana Sutta

To be able to observe clearly or meticulously the arising, existing & passing of thoughts requires a high degree of concentration (mental collectedness/clarity/stability). The teachings state:

And what is the (mental) development using concentration (samādhi) that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness (sati) &
clear-comprehension (sampajaññā)? There is the case where feelings
(vedanā) are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist,
known as they subside. Perceptions (saññā) are known to him as they
arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts
(vitakkā) are known to him as they arise, known as they persist,
known as they subside. This is the (mental) development using
concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness &
clear-comprehension.
Samadhi Sutta

A tip I can provide is to develop concentration (samadhi), such as by using Mindfulness With Breathing (Anapanasati).
An analogy is as follows. If you wish to scientifically examine water, ideally, you take a drop of water & place it under a microscope. You do not walk into a raging surf (in the ocean) with a microscope. Similarly, to observe thoughts in a meticulous manner generally requires a large amount of concentration and a small amount of thoughts.


Accurate translation of "Satipatthana Sutta" I'm looking for an accurate translation of "Satipatthana Sutta". Could someone let me know what is the best available accurate translation? I don't want to be confused by just reading all available versions.
Thank you

In my opinion, one of the best translations is the one in Analayo Bhikhu's "Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization".

see https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/direct-path.pdf or

https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/satipatthana_direct-path_analayo_free-distribution-copy2.pdf


Who was the buddhist figure who forbade writing what he said, and whose disciples instead wore paper robes? There's an enlightened buddhist figure I remember reading about a year or two ago, but I am failing completely to search him up. I would like to find his name and story again, could you help me identify him? These are the details I remember:

He was enlightened (I think), and the head of a monastery.
He was known to say quite profound things (of course!), but forbade anyone from writing down what he said.
A couple of his disciples thus resorted to wearing paper robes and carrying ink with them, so that when they were within earshot of him and heard him say something impressive, they could write it down immediately.
He was quite angry at people who wrote down what he said in his presence. I remember reading he once chased a disciple out of his meeting room in fury, shouting "You'd sell me if you could!".
I think books/scrolls were sold of his teachings by those disciples; which is what frustrated him (it seems he was concerned some people were only there to make money by doing this) and is what compelled him to forbid people to write down what he said and chase that person out.
I think he may have been from Japan.

This man contrasts very well with one popular image of enlightenment (outwardly serene, all the time, and completely unable to be messed with in any way) and I would like to show this to a friend who might be struggling with unrealistic self-expectations in their path to enlightenment.

Yúnmén Wényǎn (862 or 864 – 949 CE), (雲門文偃; Japanese: うんもんぶんえん, Ummon Bun'en; also known in English as "Unmon", "Ummon Daishi", "Ummon Zenji"), was a major[a] Chinese Zen master in Tang-era China. He was a dharma-heir of Xuefeng Yicun


Sensual Pleasures and their removal (MN 19 & MN 75) According to these suttas, is itsomewhat possible through seeing the inherent harm in sensual pleasures, to shy away from them? I remember that it by first experiencing piti during meditation that one slowly but surely starts to abandon sensual pleasures.

There is a sutta where the Buddha says that until he experienced piti during meditation; his mind was still capable of returning to thoughts of sensual pleasure.

This said, starting the path requires abandoning sensual pleasures before experiencing piti. The Buddha abandoned sensual pleasures well before his development of the 1st jhana.

The mind that never thinks of sensual pleasures is a non-returner yet the eightfold path for mere stream-enterers has the abandoning of sensual pleasures as its 2nd and 6th factor.

Believing the 1st jhana must be attained before abandoning sensual pleasures is wrong view.


How do you understand Ananda Sutta? How do you understand the Ananda Sutta?
How do you place it in relation to the Atman or Anatta (An-atman) doctrine?

SN 44.10

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

Regards.

Like the sutta explains, if the Buddha said there is a self it would be wrong since it comes under eternalism. If the Buddha said there is no self, Vacchagotta would have taken it as Annihilationism. Vacchagotta's mind was probably capable of grasping only one extreme or the other instead of viewing things as mere experiences rising and falling. That's probably why the Buddha stayed silent.


Why wasn't the Buddha a solipsist? Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking because I consider myself a great person etc., Chakravartin, but why didn't the Buddha take solipsism seriously, perhaps before his complete enlightenment? If he's so great then how can it be that we, everyone else, are so little?

Was it, perhaps, because he was born a prince, or there was no history of solipsism in India at the time, or what, really?

I think it could just beyond the powers of imagination to get inside a mahasattva's head, so to speak.

Solipsism is an extreme opposite of Buddhism. It posits that only the self is truly real. That all that exists is the self. It places the self on a throne.

The Buddha was not a solipsist because he saw and knew the truth: that the self is not real, but rather like an illusion with not one iota of real or inherent existence. Seeing the truth, how could he possibly believe solipsism?


Did the Buddha ever teach logic? Was western logic ever taught by the Buddha? How about Indian logic? How can  logic be useful in the Eightfold Path? How could logic be a hindrance? How could logic be a blessing?

In one sense the Buddha advised against using deductive reasoning to gain certainty about what brings an end to suffering. From the kalama sutta :

  "It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Note that logical deduction requires axioms to deduce conclusions from. Logical reasoning doesn't tell us if the axioms are true and therefore it doesn't tell us if the conclusions are true.


Were robes a factor in the spread of Buddhism? If you look at the countries where Theravada Buddhism has historically taken hold (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar/Burma) they are all in fairly close proximity to each other in the southern part of Asia. Countries where Mahayana Buddhism has historically taken hold tend to be considerably more widespread geographically in Asia and include the northern regions of Asia.

I remember reading on the internet (so it must be true! ;-)) that the reason for this was that in the Theravada tradition it was required that robes be made in very specific ways and made of cotton. Cotton not being suited to colder climates impeded monks from traveling north. The article continued that Mahayana had more flexible interpretations of robes so robes were simply made of wool and other heavier materials as monks moved north to spread the Dharma.

Is this explanation considered true and accurate or is there another explanation for the historical movement of Theravada Buddhism to areas south of India and Mahayana Buddhism to areas north of India?

In Theravada, robes may be made of six types of material, including linen, cotton, silk, wool, jute, or hemp (Mv.VIII.3.1). I've got a wool robe myself and it works fine in Canadian winters, so that shouldn't be a factor.

There may have been other geographic-based reasons, though; other aspects of monastic discipline might have made it difficult to practice the strict vinaya of the Theravada in colder climates, e.g. alms round, not-storing or cooking food for oneself, etc. Or, it may have been just by chance - kind of a "you go left, I'll go right" kind of thing.

One reason for Mahayana Buddhism spreading quicker might be the fact that it is generally-speaking easier to adapt to, since the focus is less on monastic discipline and more on engaged practice; in Zen Buddhism, for example, monks can drink alcohol and have wives, so much less adaptation is required for new practitioners. Tibetan Buddhism has spread mostly due to the humanitarian issues surrounding Tibet and the charisma of the Dalai Lama.

Another reason would probably be the Theravadin focus on attaining liberation in this life, a goal not easily accessible to the masses; the Bodhisatta path, while orders of magnitude more difficult in theory, can be relatively easy in practice.


Impermanence causing depression and anxiety I’ve learned that all things are impermanence. This is causing depression and anxiety in my life. I’m sad and scared that my relationships will one day come to an end. The fact that all things are impermanence just make me sad. How do I feel better?

That which impermanence appears to ,or that which speaks about impermanence. Is that changing ?

Any kind of material form whatever, whether past, future, or present,
internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or
near, all material form should be seen as it actually is with proper
wisdom thus: “This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."
Gautama Buddha (MN 22)

Just meditate on these phenomenon and seeing them for what they are you aren't identified.


Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen? Is there any benefit to, as far as is humanly possible, total dedication to the precepts, in zen?

So total celibacy, vegetarianism and non violence to any life form, complete abstinence form alcohol, etc..

For the laity without a zen master.

"Perfect" virtue (when based on right view, which could be problematic with certain "Zen-views") is the condition for no remorse, no remorse... happiness, concentration, ... insight... liberation.

When focusing on the foundations, one works smart and straight forward till perfection. One hearing then the good teachings it might plopp.

Good associations/relations so that it might work.

(Note: not given to keep or give to keep in the wheel of trade, exchange, stacks... binding to worlds but for using as escape)


love and caring is suffering In my point of view everything we love finally ends up with sufferings. love is a root to suffering. But in the society there are plenty of people who lead very happy and non-suffering lives with love. But the people with full of honesty mostly get cheated and suffer their lives. So why is this world seems to be unfair ? does it completely depends on our PREVIOUS BIRTH sins and merits ?

It is true that worldly love finally ends up with sufferings; that worldly forms of love is a root to suffering. The only people without suffering are enlightened people. It may appear in the society there are plenty of people who lead very happy and non-suffering lives with love but this appearance is not true.

If the people with full of honesty mostly get cheated and suffer their lives, how can such sinlessness (honesty) be the result of previous sins & merits? Such an idea is illogical.

People with full of honesty get cheated because of acts of evil people.

If I am a good person & an evil person wants to murder me, how can I stop this? I cannot.


How can one define luxurious beds and seats in the eighth precept? The precept,

  Uccasayana mahasayana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

in eight precepts suggests that one should abstain from high and luxurious beds and seats. How should one define which bed or seat is not high and which one is not luxurious?

Can this precept be practiced at home?

It's an interesting question; for lay people, I've never been able to well-define this one. I usually translate it as "don't get attached to the pleasure of lying down or sleeping." But, we should probably go with the Buddha's words for monastics in the Brahmajala Sutta:

  "Or he might say: 'Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on food offered by the faithful, enjoy the use of high and luxurious beds and seats, such as: spacious couches; thrones with animal figures carved on the supports; long-haired coverlets; multi-colored patchwork coverlets; white woollen coverlets; woollen coverlets embroidered with flowers; quilts stuffed with cotton; woollen coverlets embroidered with animal figures; woollen coverlets with hair on both sides or on one side; bedspreads embroidered with gems; silk coverlets; dance-hall carpets; elephant, horse or chariot rugs; rugs of antelope-skins; choice spreads made of kadali-deer hides; spreads with red awnings overhead; couches with red cushions for the head and feet — the recluse Gotama abstains from the use of such high and luxurious beds and seats.'

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

I would venture to guess that modern spring beds of all kinds could arguably be included in this list.


Why do Buddhism monk hits people in the head? i saw this video on facebook and youtube ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHDp1GbzE4o

and they're writing on it in arabic
"الرقية الشرعية عند البوذيين "
witch means "the buddhism's Exorcism"
i want to know if this is really a buddhism exorcism . if not , what is it ?

I don't think it's a usual practice. I found this explanation online:

A monk who was seen forcefully hitting temple-goers' heads with a bundle of dried grass has defended the unorthodox practice, calling it his unique way of blessing the faithful.
Phra Jirapan Analyo, the 53-year-old abbot of Pha Sadej monastery in Saraburi, admitted that the practice may look violent in a video that went viral this week, but insisted that it does not hurt.
"The knocking of heads is a way to cure diseases and illness for the faithful," Phra Jirapan said. "And the knocking may look violent, but it didn't hurt anyone."
...
Phra Benja Papassaro, a monk who oversees temples in Saraburi province, told reporters that he watched the video and believes "his action does not violate the holy doctrines, though it does look excessive." He said he and other senior monks are discussing the issue to find a formal conclusion on the matter.

A more usual form of Thai "blessing" would be "sprinkling" water (see for example here).


why i am unaware, not awake? I made you read the explaination and you are trying to get what is not available! What is that and why we do this? Why we want to be awake when we are totally unaware of being awake-state?

From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Assu Sutta: Tears


Proper practice with the five hindrances What is the proper way one should incorporate the concept of the five hindrances into the practice?

For instance, should a lustful thought arise in the mind, followed by a bodily sensation, at what point is the sensual desire noted and in what way do we go about "overcoming" it?

Are the five hindrances done away with through proper understanding and experience of their impermanence? thank you

I have recently posted an answer to a question very similar to yours. In there i write about The Five Hindrances and give references to a book and an audio dhamma talk on the topic. In the book and audio talk a thourough description of the hindrances and their antidotes are given.

You can find the answer here. Maybe it can be of help to you.

  What is the proper way one should incorporate the concept of the five hindrances into the practice?

The hindrances are what blocks one from developing in meditation. When the mind is obscurred by concepts, desires, doubts etc. and therefore not being able to "see clearly" there will be wavering in the mind. When there is wavering in the mind the true nature of phenomena cannot be seen, i.e. the 3 signs of existence.

You mention impermanence yourself and that is one of them. The other two are; dukkha = unsatisfactoriness and anatta = not-self, the impersonal nature of phenomena.

There are different ways to deal with the hindrances. As Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi talks about in the audio dhamma talk one can note the hindrance a couple of times and return to the primary object of meditation e.g. the rising and falling of the abdomen. The hindrance might come back multiple times and with greater intensity. One can then leave the abdomen and instead take the hindrance as a primary meditation object. If that does not work too then one can begin to administer antidotes to the hindrance. See the quote in next section.

Here is a quote on how to overcome the first hindrance which is "Sensual Desire":

  SENSUAL DESIRE

  A. Nourishment of Sensual Desire
  There are beautiful objects; frequently giving unwise attention to them — this is the nourishment for the arising of sensual desire that has not arisen, and the nourishment for the increase and strengthening of sensual desire that has already arisen.

  — SN 46:51

  B. Denourishing of Sensual Desire
  There are impure objects (used for meditation); frequently giving wise attention to them — this is the denourishing of the arising of sensual desire that has not yet arisen, and the denourishing of the increase and strengthening of sensual desire that has already arisen.

  — SN 46:51

  Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sensual desire:

  Learning how to meditate on impure objects;
  Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure;
  Guarding the sense doors;
  Moderation in eating;
  Noble friendship;
  Suitable conversation.
  — Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta

  Learning how to meditate about impure objects
  & 2. Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure
  (a) Impure objects
  In him who is devoted to the meditation about impure objects, repulsion towards beautiful objects is firmly established. This is the result.

  — AN 5:36

  "Impure object" refers, in particular, to the cemetery meditations as given in the Satipatthana Sutta and explained in the Visuddhimagga; but it refers also to the repulsive aspects of sense objects in general.

  (b) The loathsomeness of the body
  Herein, monks, a monk reflects on just this body, confined within the skin and full of manifold impurities from the soles upward and from the top of the hair down: "There is in this body: hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, bowels, stomach, excrement, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, lymph, saliva, mucus, fluid of the joints, urine (and the brain in the skull)."

  — MN 10

  By bones and sinews knit,
  With flesh and tissue smeared,
  And hidden by the skin, the body
  Does not appear as it really is...
  The fool thinks it beautiful,
  His ignorance misguiding him...
  — Sutta Nipata, v.194,199

  (c) Various contemplations
  Sense objects give little enjoyment, but much pain and much despair; the danger in them prevails.

  — MN 14

  The unpleasant overwhelms a thoughtless man in the guise of the pleasant, the disagreeable overwhelms him in the guise of the agreeable, the painful in the guise of pleasure.

  — Udana, 2:8

  Guarding the sense doors
  How does one guard the sense doors? Herein, a monk, having seen a form, does not seize upon its (delusive) appearance as a whole, nor on its details. If his sense of sight were uncontrolled, covetousness, grief and other evil, unwholesome states would flow into him. Therefore he practices for the sake of its control, he watches over the sense of sight, he enters upon its control. Having heard a sound... smelt an odor... tasted a taste... felt a touch... cognized a mental object, he does not seize upon its (delusive) appearance as a whole... he enters upon its control.

  — SN 35:120

  There are forms perceptible by the eye, which are desirable, lovely, pleasing, agreeable, associated with desire, arousing lust. If the monk does not delight in them, is not attached to them, does not welcome them, then in him thus not delighting in them, not being attached to them and not welcoming them, delight (in these forms) ceases; if delight is absent, there is no bondage. There are sounds perceptible by the ear... odors perceptible by the mind... if delight is absent, there is no bondage.

  — SN 35:63

  Moderation in eating
  How is he moderate in eating? Herein a monk takes his food after wise consideration: not for the purpose of enjoyment, of pride, of beautifying the body or adorning it (with muscles); but only for the sake of maintaining and sustaining this body, to avoid harm and to support the holy life, thinking: "Thus I shall destroy the old painful feeling and shall not let a new one rise. Long life will be mine, blamelessness and well-being."

  — MN 2; MN 39

  Noble friendship
  Reference is here, in particular, to such friends who have experience and can be a model and help in overcoming sensual desire, especially in meditating on impurity. But it applies also to noble friendship in general. The same twofold explanation holds true also for the other hindrances, with due alterations.

  The entire holy life, Ananda, is noble friendship, noble companionship, noble association. Of a monk, Ananda, who has a noble friend, a noble companion, a noble associate, it is to be expected that he will cultivate and practice the Noble Eightfold Path.

  — SN 45:2

  Suitable conversation
  Reference is here in particular to conversation about the overcoming of sensual desire, especially about meditating on impurity. But it applies also to every conversation which is suitable to advance one's progress on the path. With due alterations this explanation holds true also for the other hindrances.

  If the mind of a monk is bent on speaking, he (should remember this): "Talk which is low, coarse, worldly, not noble, not salutary, not leading to detachment, not to freedom from passion, not to cessation, not to tranquillity, not to higher knowledge, not to enlightenment, not to Nibbana, namely, talk about kings, robbers and ministers, talk about armies, dangers and war, about food and drink, clothes, couches, garlands, perfumes, relatives, cars, villages, towns, cities, and provinces, about women and wine, gossip of the street and of the well, talk about the ancestors, about various trifles, tales about the origin of the world and the ocean, talk about what happened and what did not happen — such and similar talk I shall not entertain." Thus he is clearly conscious about it.

  But talk about austere life, talk suitable for the unfolding of the mind, talk which is conducive to complete detachment, to freedom from passion, to cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment and to Nibbana, namely, talk about a life of frugality, about contentedness, solitude, aloofness from society, about rousing one's energy, talk about virtue, concentration, wisdom, deliverance, about the vision and knowledge of deliverance — such talk I shall entertain." Thus he is clearly conscious about it.

  — MN 122

  These things, too, are helpful in conquering sensual desire:

  One-pointedness of mind, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);
  Mindfulness, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
  Mindfulness, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

  -- "The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest" by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera

Lanka


In the book Parallel Worlds, does Michio Kaku believe in Nirvana and Genesis? I'm curious because someone translated it into Thai that the eleven-dimensional hyperspace is actually Nirvana in Buddhism. Does Michio Kaku literally mean that? What's his religion. Sorry if my question is too nonsense.

  “What is gradually emerging from the data is a grand synthesis of
  these two opposing mythologies. Perhaps, scientists speculate, Genesis
  occurs repeatedly in a timeless ocean of Nirvana. In this new picture,
  our universe may be compared to a bubble floating in a much larger
  “ocean,” with new bubbles forming all the time. According to this
  theory, universes, like bubbles forming in boiling water, are in
  continual creation, floating in a much larger arena, the Nirvana of
  eleven-dimensional hyperspace. A growing number of physicists suggest
  that our universe did indeed spring forth from a fiery cataclysm, the
  big bang, but that it also coexists in an eternal ocean of other
  universes. If we are right, big bangs are taking place even as you
  read this sentence.”

  Excerpt From: Michio, Kaku. “Parallel Worlds.” Anchor,
  2006-03-14T06:00:00+00:00. iBooks.  This material may be protected by
  copyright.

Reading more from the excerpt which you quoted,

  When I was a child, I had a personal conflict over my beliefs. My parents were raised in the Buddhist tradition. But I attended Sunday school every week, where I loved hearing the biblical stories about whales, arks, pillars of salt, ribs, and apples.

Perhaps that answers your question, "What's his religion?"

I suppose that the following helps explain why he describes the "11th dimension" as "Nirvana":

  These creatio ex nihilo myths stand in marked contrast to the cosmology according to Buddhism and certain forms of Hinduism. In these mythologies, the universe is timeless, with no beginning or end. There are many levels of existence, but the highest is Nirvana, which is eternal and can be attained only by the purest meditation. In the Hindu Mahapurana, it is written, "If God created the world, where was He before Creation? . . . Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end."

In Buddhism, "Nirvana" is I think described as a state which is:

Unconditioned (i.e. it doesn't depend on or come into being as a result of other things as its condition)
Timeless (perhaps also translated as "ever-present" or "eternal")

He's saying that the "11 dimensions" described in one of the theories of Physics has similar properties, i.e. it exists without a cause (perhaps unlike "this universe", which I take it is presumed to be embedded within those 11 dimensions, and which has a cause e.g. the "Big Bang").

There's also this sentence:

  What is gradually emerging from the data is a grand synthesis of these two opposing mythologies. Perhaps, scientists speculate, Genesis occurs repeatedly in a timeless ocean of Nirvana.

I don't think that means he literally believes in the Biblical story of Genesis. Its in a section of the chapter titled, "Baby Pictures of the Universe". I think the phrase "Genesis occurs repeatedly in a timeless ocean of Nirvana" is meant as, and should be understand as, "something-created (I guess/presume he's talkig about 'four-dimensional space-time' there) occurs repeatedly (or maybe 'fluctuates') within a timeless higher-dimensional space", and he's using pseudo-religious phraseology.

My personal opinion is that it's a pointless (meaningless and unhelpful) analogy.

A similar tendency exists elsewhere, e.g. Quantum mysticism suggests a link between quantum theory and consciousness ... whereas this guy suggests we equate his cosmological/mathematical theory with Nirvana (or with certain characteristics/descriptions of Nirvana taken out of context).

It may or may not (depending on your preconceptions) be a helpful description/analogy of 11 dimensions ... I guess it's an idiosyncratic description of his ... and I'd guess it's not a good description (not a canonical description) of the Buddhist Nirvana.


Can a being be stuck in an endless cycle of depression and suicides? Can a being be ignorant and depressed due to ignorance and commits suicide and is then reborn ignorant and depressed still and commits suicide again and again  and so on indefinitely...?

If so, is there any guarantee of it ever ending?

According to DutiyaSāriputta Sutta (SN 55.5), one of the conditions for stream entry is hearing or learning the Dhamma from someone already acquainted with it.

https://suttacentral.net/sn55.5/en/sujato

From that, you could say that get out of the cycle of suffering and narrow-minded ignorance it depends on the change of outer conditions, which may lead that person to the chance meeting a Dhamma follower, or finding casually a book about spirituality/Dhamma/Buddhism/self-help/psychology, or finding someone ready to help such depressed individual.

The mind reacts according to habitual tendencies and to the nature of the presented stimuli (that being internal or external, from the mind or from the outside). If new stimuli is presented, the chances of changing one's world view may increase, specially if the depressed individual is open to seek some help or if the wants to get out of that cycle.

As Ajahn Chah tells us in its Dhamma Talk titled "Living with Dhamma in the World":

"People who drink alcohol sometimes say, "I just can't give it up." Why can't they give it up? Because they don't yet see the liability in it. If they clearly saw the liability of it they wouldn't have to wait to be told to give it up. If you don't see the liability of something that means you also can't see the benefit of giving it up. Your practice becomes fruitless, you are just playing at practice. If you clearly see the liability and the benefit of something you won't have to wait for others to tell you about it. Consider the story of the fisherman who finds something in his fish-trap. He knows something is in there, he can hear it flapping about inside. Thinking it's a fish, he reaches his hand into the trap, only to find a different kind of animal. He can't yet see it, so he's in two minds about it. On one hand it could be an eel, but then again it could be a snake. If he throws it away he may regret it...it could be an eel. On the other hand, if he keeps holding on to it and it turns out to be a snake it may bite him. He's caught in a state of doubt. His desire is so strong he holds on, just in case it's an eel, but the minute he brings it and sees the striped skin he throws it down straight away. He doesn't have to wait for someone to call out, "It's a snake, it's a snake, let go!" The sight of the snake tells him what to do much more clearly than words could do. Why? Because he sees the danger -- snakes can bite! Who has to tell him about it? In the same way, if we practice till we see things as they are we won't meddle with things that are harmful."

(Keep in mind that eels are considered a delicacy in some parts of Thailand).

https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma2/living.html#n13

If the person becomes aware of the dangers and liabilities of living in such conditions, he may want to look for an escape of his/her suffering. In the search for escape, one's perspectives, perceptions, thoughts and worldview become open to the possibility of a better state and a peaceful life. That's when outer help is most useful.

If, on the other hand, that person is not aware of, and open to the possibility of ending that suffering, the chances of that person accepting help decrease drastically. In the fifth chapter of he Dhammapada it is written that:

A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.
Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.
Though only for a moment a discerning person associates with a wise man, quickly he comprehends the Truth, just as the tongue tastes the flavor of the soup.

https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/dp05.htm

Have a nice day!


Can you reach the substrate consciousness through visualization practices You mentioned that one can enter the substrate consciousness through the shamatha practice of cultivating awareness or during sleep, death and such. Can you realize the substrate consciousness and the luminescence and the radiance of mind through visualization practices such as the one you lead to explore the hearts desire (in motivation to power the retreat talk), through reverence, feelings of gratitude, love, exaltation of breath.

I have been listening to your talk remotely now for years and I am so grateful to have this resource to go back to often enough.

Thank you.

Here is what Alan Wallace says in 'Stilling the Mind' (p 62) - I think this speaks to your question:

"Visualizations are fine. The stage of generation is important. Yet you must still confront your mind; you have to go right through it. That is taking the mind as your path. You need to go to the very ground of the ordinary mind. This requires shamatha. You don't need vipashyana for that nor Dzogchen, nor bodhichitta. But you do need to go right to the ground of your ordinary mind and let the mind settle, unforced. When the mind is quiescent — no turbulent thoughts or emotions arising — it is relaxed, still, luminous, and free from effort. That is shamatha."

The "ground of the ordinary mind" is the substrate consciousness; and shamatha is the essential practice for realizing this ground. Of course we don't want to stop there. I understand the visualizations of the stage of generation practice as a way to keep our eyes on the real prize:  'piercing through' the substrate to realize rigpa (pristine awareness) for the sake of all mother sentient beings. This is important to cultivate from the outset, considering how attractive and seemingly ultimate the experience of shamatha will be. But we must keep going to realize our deepest aspirations. Dudjom Lingpa teaches that stopping in the substrate "does not bring you even a hair's breadth closer to the paths of liberation and omniscience."

[Sharing this without any special authority, but as a grateful fellow student of these teachings. I welcome any corrections to this answer.]


Is Goenka's "Freeflow of sensations" the same as pīti? In the S.N. Goenka vipassana tradition the meditator tries to reach a 'freeflow' of sensations on and in the body. Is this 'freeflow' comparable with Pīti?

Yes.

Free flow is loosely used for Piti. Initially it is subtle vibrations which you feel. As you practice this spreads to your body. These vibrations are pleasant.


Can Buddhism be called as Atheist, Agnostic or Theistic? I am reading this book currently called Buddhism without beliefs. In this book the author claims that Buddhism is Agnostic. Now Agnosticism is a claim that you are ignorant, or not sure whether God is there or not. I am sure that Buddhist suttas mention several gods, like Brahma etc. Also most modern scholars promote Buddhism as Atheistic, as there is no central creator. What's your take on this?

Yes, it can be called any of these three things; and it is called different things by different people, for the reasons you described.

Three further comments:

The terms (like "atheist") were originally invented and used by other cultures for other religions; for example, Socrates was (legally) accused of atheism and condemned (to death) for it -- so the distinction (between "atheism" and "non-atheism") mattered. I'm not sure how or why the distinction matters in Buddhism, unless it affects practice etc.
Buddhism as I understand it doesn't deny there are Gods (it doesn't say "there are no Gods") so it isn't atheist. But it also doesn't say "God can save you" in the way that Christianity does, or that "The purpose of life is to obey God" etc. The importance of Gods is de-emphasised, people are responsible for their own karma and their own salvation, so it isn't exactly like a Theistic religion either. The story of Siddhartha's going forth and so on is told (at least n the West) as a more-or-less human story.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's book In the Buddha's Words has chapter titles, "The Human Condition", "The Bringer of Light", "Approaching the Dhamma", "The Happiness Visible in This Present Life", which are this-worldly and human rather than other-worldly and Theistic.
Calling Agnosticism "ignorance" is a bit confusing when it's applied to Buddhism. "Agnosticism" means (etymologically) "without gnosis" or without knowledge (of God).

I might describe myself as "agnostic about God" if I have no personal knowledge, no personal experience, of God.

In the West people use "Agnostic" as a middle way between theist and atheist: "theist" means, "I believe in God"; "atheist" means, "I believe there is no God"; and "agnostic", "I neither believe nor disbelieve, I have no personal knowledge of it." (I probably wouldn't say that I'm "agnostic about Antarctica" -- I believe it exists although I haven't experienced it personally).

"Ignorance" is a term which features in Buddhism too: Avidyā (Pali: avijjā). Avijjā too means "without knowledge".

In Buddhism, though, it isn't used to mean "ignorance about whether God exists" (because, IMO, whether God exists isn't the important question). Instead it's used to refer to ignorance of dhamma, ignorance of right view, ignorance about topics like anatta (i.e. whether the self exists), anicca, and dukkha, and so on.


Is it a layman's duty to be Vegan? From a scriptural point of view, Buddha did not forbid the consumption of meat, let alone animal products etc., but what we do know is that 'Right Livelihood' tells us to not work as a butcher.

Put in modern context, do Buddhist practitioners have a moral responsibility to become vegan?

Can abuse, exploitation, commodification, torturing & unnecessary killing of sentient animals ever be morally justified in our modern day & age, where plenty of alternatives are readily available?

Once we know about the abattoir's conditions around the world, we are informed & we thereby have to take kammic responsibility, otherwise we will partake in the deaths of trillion animals, due to our demand for animal products.

From a scriptural point of view, Buddha did not forbid the consumption of meat, let alone animal products etc., but what we do know is that 'Right Livelihood' tells us to not work as a butcher.

You cannot kill or case others to kill. If another person kills independently without your mediation and you buy and consume this then it is fine.

Countries like Burma have been very much meat centric diets. Buddhism may not have survived it preached veganism.

If you sufficiently distance your self to the extent that your conscience is clear then this is sufficient.

  Once we know about the abattoir's conditions around the world, we are informed & we thereby have to take kammic responsibility, otherwise we will partake in the deaths of trillion animals, due to our demand for animal products.

Karma is volition which is acted upon. So what ever happens in the world, to which on does not contribute in volition and action, does not result in any karmic retribution.

If you can take some action to reduce deaths of animals this will definitely be positive Karma. If you are not successful at it still there is no negative Karma. At least trying would be positive Karma.


Death according to various schools of buddism How is death perceived in various schools of Buddhism? Are they all same ? What is death according to Buddhist monk and lay Buddhist? Are there references / materials by monks on death bed about death?

In the ancient Pali scriptures, the word 'death' has two meanings: (i) conventional; & (ii) ultimate. In the language of ultimate truth, 'death' refers to the psychological idea that "I" or a "person" or a "being" ("satta") dies (SN 12.2).

The Buddha taught a 'self', 'person' or 'being' ('satta') is only a mental state of craving & attachment (SN 23.2); that in reality, there is no 'being' ('satta') to be found (SN 5.10).

'Death' only happens when there is unenlightened 'self-view'. This is why the Buddha called enlightened selfless nirvana: 'The Deathless'.

  He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow.
  And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a
  sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?
  'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a
  construing. 'I shall not be'is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing
  is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing,
  he is said to be a sage at peace.

  A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die,
  is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he
  would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die?
  Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he
  long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been
  stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the
  currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'

  Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta

In enlightenment, all that occurs at what is conventionally regarded as 'death' is the five aggregates come to an end, that is all.

  Form is impermanent... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications...
  Consciousness is impermanent. That which is impermanent is
  unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to
  its end.

  Very good, my friend Yamaka, very good.

  Yamaka Sutta


Have I invented this statsitic on Theravada enlightenment? A solitary Buddha occurs in one in a million of the human population: please correct me if that's how often the vehicle occurs -- though I struggle to completely understand the concept of a "solitary" seed or fixed yana. Either way, that one million figure is -- I think -- an expression of how it is more unique than arhatship.

Or, have I invented the statistic in bold? Anyway:

  [a]s of 2016 Thailand had 39,883 wats (temples). Three hundred-ten are
  royal wats, the remainder are private (public). There were 298,580
  Buddhist monks, 264,442 of the Maha Nikaya order and 34,138 of the
  Dhammayuttika Nikaya order. There were 59,587 Buddhist novice monks.

Thailand's population is about seventy million, which works out, if you ignore 'turnover', as one in two hundred being monks.

So that, depending on how you understand the numbers in the first paragraph, suggests in monks, no less than one in a thousand are already arhats. Likewise, assuming they don't get stuck on the first step, in which case more still, about one in a hundred are stream winners.

Is that completely wrong?

Does it make sense, do you know, to say that there are e.g. three thousand sages in Thailand? Three hundred saints?

How does it compare with success in the English speaking nations?

This inference of the amount of attainments seems unsubstantiated. Those Thai monks are also split into factions where one will hold that Buddha lives in Nibbana and be in disagreement with others. All the factions can not be considered as equally valid traditions with right views, likely to produce the four types of contemplatives. There seems to be relatively little consensus on matters of doctrine among the Theravadins.

If you look at buddhist forums you should readily see how much disagreement there is and things aren't much better in the monastic circles afaik. From what i've seen there is usually a demand for conformity of views, at least in the small communities whereas the larger communities will tolerate a broader range. If one is ordained in one tradition one may or may not be considered to have a valid ordination by others.

The assumption that 1:1m can be a Buddha, if that is what you expressed, i don't know how you inferred it but we are about 7billion+ nowadays and the general consensus is that there has only been one Buddha in the last 2600 years. Furthermore nobody is expected to attain Buddhahood any time soon. Based on this alone one could assume that it is far more of a rarity than 1:1m.


It is said that arahants never dream. What are the textual sources for this claim? On various web pages relating to the Dhamma I have read the claim that arahants never dream. A few examples:

Buddhist scholar Lily de Silva writes:

  We may also note the tradition maintaining that arahants never dream, maybe because they have attained such perfect mental health that there is no necessity to release tension through dreams.

The ven. Dhammananda Maha Thera writes:

  Buddhas and Arahants never dream. The first three kinds of dream cannot occur in their minds, because their minds have been permanently 'stilled' and cannot be activated to dream. The last kind of dream cannot happen to them because they have eradicated all their craving energy completely, and there is no 'residual' energy of anxiety or unsatisfied desire to activate the mind to produce dreams.

And the Czech monk U Sarana writes:

  At that time Mahasi Sayadaw told to U Pandita that to his (Mahasi Sayadaw's) surprise, Mahasi Sayadaw had a dream. It is impossible for an Arahant to have a dream - and thus Sayadaw U Pandita knew, that Mahasi Sayadaw was not an Arahant at the time when this was said.

Surprisingly, I have not been able to find any Suttas or other textual sources for the claim that arahants never dream. Do any of you guys know of such sources? Is it in the Suttas, the Abhidhamma, the commentaries, or in a later text such as the Visuddhimagga? Thanks in advance for your answers!

Dreams are not mentioned a lot int he suttas. Perhaps you can search the vinaya instead of the suttas.
THe best there is for the suttas is ''the lack of evil dreams'', from metta

  "Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness[1], by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

  "He sleeps in comfort. He awakes in comfort He sees no evil dreams.
  http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/11_elevens/an11.016.piya.ati.htm

there is the same thing with mindfulness http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/05_fives/an05.210.hare.pts.htm

In the suttanipata, the buddha says dreams are worthless, contrary to what puthujjanas believe

  Who has destroyed (belief) in omens, in luck, the occurrence of dreams
  and other signs such, who is rid of the bane of what is auspicious,
  such a one rightly would wander in the world.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_13.html

  Whoso ’mong them strong efforts made resembling Brahma, best, he never
  did engage in sex not even in a dream.
  https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp2_7.html

  One of my followers would not cast spells, Or interpret dreams, Nor
  would they practice astrology, Prognosticate animal sounds,
  https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp4_14.html


Do thoughts influence everything? Or is this an illusion? What does Buddhism think about/or is it accepted in it that we influence everything with our (un)conscious thoughts and emotions and impressions (because these are also some form off thoughts right?) and can't not influence the universe we live in. Lately I have the fear that my thoughts influence everything around me and happening in my live. Last night I couldn't even watch a movie because I was paralyzed by the fear or thought of having a negative influence on it and making it worse. Then I came to the thought that maybe our universe is refreshing every millisecond and that everything we do or think generates another outcome.

The thought is making me crazy because this would mean we have an immense responsibility on ourselves that everything we do does has an influence. I have this fear lately sometimes to watch the live news also fearing that I might in some way influence the newsspeaker with my nervousness. I can still imagine that this all is BS and not true. But there are so many weird impressions that I've had that my awareness like when watching a movie does have an effect on the scene. Or is this all an illusion and I'm I suffering from delusions? Also does Buddhism believe in different dimensions? And also Buddhism does accept consciousness is non-local right? So it's entirely possibly that my awareness does influence a news speaker?

This is a very interesting question.

In psychological interpretation of Buddhism, our perception of reality is mediated by our mind's modeling and representational activity. In this perspective the state of our mind - our biases, preconceptions, emotional condition - form the interpretative/evaluative framework through which we perceive reality. This perception of reality then determines our reactions and choices, which lead to immediate and latent effects (karma). This works as self-fulfilling prophecy or a self-reinforcing vicious circle: negative mindstates => negative interpretation => negative action => negative effects => negative mindstates.

In ontological interpretation(s) of Buddhism the structure of reality is understood to be different from what we normally assume, and its relationship with mind is not just that of modeling and observation.

In one such interpretation, reality consists of multiple planes ("realms") between which we can shift depending on our state of mind, each of these realms looking like a complete world with its own consistent logic. In other interpretations, reality is either multidimensional or quantum, with our mind either able to change the focus along the extra dimension(s) or collapse the quantum function. In yet another interpretation there are no fixed planes as such, and whatever we perceive is assembled by our minds from some sort of multidimensional strings of energy.

As far as I know, there is no one who seems to be able to explain exactly how this stuff works... Two of my Buddhist teachers insisted that reality is literally a reflection of our mindstate. In other words, they claimed that Buddhism is not a psychological metaphor. One of them alluded to the "multidimensional worlds" interpretation and the other mentioned "multidimensional strings" - but none gave exhaustive explanation. The other Buddhist teachers I interacted with or studied under, remained ambiguous on the matter. Most of the time, the attitude I get is: "it does not matter what it is as long as you know how to navigate it."

The Buddha himself remained famously ambiguous on the question with his Safe Bet theory:

  "As you have not found an agreeable teacher, you should adopt and practice this safe-bet teaching, for this safe-bet teaching — when accepted and adopted — will be to your long-term welfare & happiness.

  If there is the next world, [karma, causality], then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world [karma, causality],
  this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.

From my personal side, I used to be an adherent of the psychological interpretation for many years, until some recent events in my life that screamed of the ontological interpretation. So now I'm a bit uncertain myself and am sticking to the Safe Bet until I can figure it out. Or I guess, I think I know the answer (it's ontological) just not ready to fully accept it yet.

In response to your concerns about your mind affecting the universe or the newsspeaker etc. I suggest that you stick to the Safe Bet and try to eliminate this worry and these negative states of mind. If there are no other dimensions, you don't want to develop a psychosis that will turn your life in a nightmare through the mechanism of vicious circle. And if there are other dimensions, you don't want to shift to a bad one by being negative, are you? ;)

I hope one day we will figure it out. Until then, let's stick to the Four Right Efforts:

  ... monks, you should apply effort toward:
  - non-arising of bad, pathological states of mind that have not yet arisen.
  - abandonment of bad, pathological states of mind that have arisen.
  - arising of wholesome states of mind that have not yet arisen.
  - maintenance and development of wholesome states of mind that have arisen.


Is Maha Brahma a GOD? In Buddhism, we can find a name called "Maha Brahma".

Is he a GOD (as per Buddha, there are no such people called GOD), or some kind of different bean?

Maha Brahma is a realm, and not “A GOD”. Any living being (including each of us) has been in all realms in this beginningless sansara. We have been at the highest (except the five pure abodes in rupa loka which can be accessed only by Anagamis or Non-Returners). One time the Buddha pointed to a bunch of ants on the ground and told bhikkhus that each of those ants had lived in a brahma loka. The sansara is that long; there is no discernible beginning. These 31 Planes of Existence  is described in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. It lays out the “blueprint” of Buddha Dhamma.

In the realm of Great Brahmas (Maha brahma) Buddha mentions about one Great Brahma, a deity whose delusion leads him to regard himself as the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe. It is in Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: To Kevatta (DN 11). Kevaddha Sutta informs one of what even a “God” does not know. Maha Brahmas, like Baka, think they’ve gone beyond anything the Buddha knows, so the Buddha has to go up to their Brahma heavens and subdue their pride, to show
them that they still have more to let go of, that there is something the Buddha himself has gone beyond but they haven’t.

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta lays out the “blueprint” of Buddha Dhamma, and in one part of it names the 6 deva realms and 15 out of 16 rupi Brahma  realms. The sutta is meant to convey the way to “see” the true nature of existence with wisdom, not with the physical eye. Only a Buddha can discover the true nature, but a human can comprehend it, once explained.

In the brahma realms, all brahmas are born fully formed without the help of a mother’s womb. Theirs is an “opapatika” birth. For example when a human dies, his body becomes inert like a log, and at the very instant a fully-formed brahma is formed in the appropriate brahma world. This brahma will have sense faculties appropriate for a brahma: only eyes, ears, and a mind. These are the indriya for the new existence. These indriya can become ayatana (a factory that produces sankharas of another birth)  at times depending on the activities of that brahma.

Male/female distinction is there only in the kama loka. In the brahma realms (higher 20 realms), there is no such distinction. Brahmas do not have dense physical bodies or sexual organs. One is born in either the 16 rupa loka realms or the 4 arupa loka realms (brahma realms) because one has given up all desires for bodily pleasures, including sex, because one has seen the value of niramisa sukha (and jhanic pleasures) that can be achieved by giving up bodily pleasures.

All brahma realms are “unisex“. Brahmas do not have dense bodies to experience touch, taste of foods, or smells. They have very fine bodies. A brahma “body” has only the most minute of matter that is much much smaller than an atom in modern science. This is why it is thought (erroneously) that there is no matter in arupa lokas. There is matter, but it is insignificantly small. The Buddha said that vinnana cannot exist without a pancakkhandha, and the pancakkhandha in the arupa loka has a rupa component, even though negligibly small.

Brahmas in rupa loka are removed from “coarse sense pleasures”; they do not have a desire for tastes, smells, or body touches. Seeing and hearing is enough for them. Brahmas in arupa loka do not even have a desire for sights and sounds. Mind pleasures are enough for them, and the presence of matter is minimal in the arupa loka. So, sense pleasures are absent in brahma loka.

Brahmas and devas can “see” humans engaging in activities (if they want to), but they do not have any liking (upadana) for such “coarse pleasures”. Their mental state is much higher, just like a human who has developed abhinna powers.  They could actually be repulsed by human bodies. Just like we do not “miss out” on the activities of worms, they are not interested in human activities. It all depends on the mindset associated with the particular bhava.

The brahmas (and also devas) can “see” without the aid of light and “hear” without the having air to transmit sound waves; their “physical bodies” do not have “eyes” and “ears” like ours. Thus they can “see” and “hear” over great distances. And they can be anywhere they wish within a short time. The closest analogy of how their “vision” works is how we “see” dreams; we don’t need eyes to see dreams. Likewise the brahmas just perceive.

See:  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html


History of refuge in the 3 jewels When was taking refuge in the 3 jewels of Buddha, Dharma & Sangha started? Was it started by the Buddha in his time or was it after him? When I mean taking refuge, I mean for a lay Buddhist and not for a Bhikku.

What is the source of the 3 refuges mantra:

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

Taking  refuge in the 3 jewels of Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha was recommended by the Buddha as providing protection from certain afflictions. It is specifically mentioned in the Dhajagga-paritta ("Banner Protection") - SN 11.3. Dhajagga-paritta is about the recollections of the Three Jewels, and is for the lay followers for protection against fear, trembling and horror. You will find it here

There are six heavenly realms, viz: Catummaharajika, Tavatimsa, Yama, Tusita, Nimmanarati and Paranimmitta Vasatti. Sakka is the ruler of the Tavatimsa Deva Loka. Although Buddhists worship and pray to Sakka to receive his blessing and protection, in the Dhajagga Sutta the Buddha says that Sakka is not free from mental defilements like greed, hatred, delusion and fear. However, it is a traditional belief among Buddhists that Sakka has undertaken to protect Buddhism.

In this discourse of the Banner protection (Dhajagga)  the Buddha introducing himself to monks said “O monks, the Tathagata who is Arahant Supremely Enlightened, is free from lust, free from hate is free from delusion, and is not liable to fear, terror, fright or flight”.(Tathagato bhikkhave araham Samma Sambuddho Vitarago Vitadoso Vitamoho abhiru acchambhi anutrasi apalayiti)

In Dhajagga-paritta  you will come to know that the qualities of the Supreme Buddha’s community of Sangha are most precious and admirable. These precious qualities were taught to us by the Awakened One himself in the Dhajagga Sutta.

In going for refuge, when we say, "Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.;  Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.;  Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi."  it is important that we know of the Supreme Qualities of the Three Jewels". Many of us know the qualities of the first two jewels, but not of the third Jewel. So let us take a few moments to contemplate and recollect the great qualities of our Great Teacher’s noble community of Sangha.

“Supatipanno” - The Noble Sangha follow the path to eradicate passion, lust, ill-will, hatred and delusion.

“Ujupatipanno”- The Noble Sangha follow the straight way, the Noble Eightfold Path.

“Nayapatipanno” “ - The Noble Sangha follows the path to realise the Four Noble Truths in order to eradicate suffering.

“Samicipatipanno” - The Noble Sangha teaches the Noble Dhamma to others, so that they too can understand the Four Noble Truths.

“Yadidam chaththari purisa yugani” - The Noble Sangha consist of four types when taken as pairs: The stream entrant, The once-returner, The Never Returner and The Arahant.

Eight individuals “Atta purisa puggala” - When taken individually, the community of Sangha consist of eight individuals:

The one striving to Enter the stage of Stream Entry Fruit
The stream Entrant
The one striving to attain the stage Once-Returner
The once-Returner
The one striving to reach the stage of a Non-returner
Non-Returner
The one striving for the stage of Arahanthood
The arahant

“Ahuneyyo” - Because they hold these great qualities, The Supreme Buddha’s community of Sangha are worthy of receiving offerings even from those residing faraway.

“Pahuneyyo” - Because they hold these great qualities they are worthy of hospitality.

“Dakkineyyo” - Because they hold these great qualities they are worthy of receiving offering from others in expectation of merits.

“Anjalikaraneeyo” - Because they hold these great qualities they are worthy of respect and worship.

“Anuttaram punchakketham lokassathi” - Beholding these supreme qualities, the Supreme Buddha’s Noble Sangha is a field of merits to both humans and deities.

May the homage be to those Noble disciples who encompass such supreme qualities!


Is Siddhartha Gautama the last recognized Buddha? Does Siddharta Gautama happen to be the last person to reach Buddhahood?

To add to @konrad01, private Buddhas don't occur when the dispensation of a Buddha is still there. Hence the last Buddha is Siddhartha Gautama.


Buddha teaches the extinguishing of suffering, what if an individual is okay with suffering? Is there any commentary on the path of choosing to coexist with suffering?
For example, some people think that suffering adds color to life, that the lows makes the highs better.
Or how some individuals find meaning in their suffering.
What does buddhism say about someone, after learning about suffering, chooses to accept it?
Also, what do you personally think about this path?

In Buddhism, the only reason why someone embraces suffering / unsatisfactoriness and chooses to co-exist with suffering / unsatisfactoriness, is due to clinging or attachment to sensual pleasures and existence (the idea to become something or somebody).
From SN 6.1:

“This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to
understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of reason, subtle,
comprehensible to the astute. But people like attachment, they love it
and enjoy it. It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific
conditionality, dependent origination. It’s also hard for them to see
this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of
all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
extinguishment. And if I were to teach this principle, others might
not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.”

This is further elaborated in MN 75:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
sensuality.

Also from the Dhammapada:

Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things
passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the
best.

This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.

Walking upon this path you will make an end of suffering. Having discovered how to pull out the thorn of lust, I make known the path.

You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds of
Mara.

And also:

Whoever is overcome by this wretched and sticky craving, his sorrows grow like grass after the rains.

But whoever overcomes this wretched craving, so difficult to overcome, from him sorrows fall away like water from a lotus leaf.


Predetermined future vs. Free will in Buddhism In Buddhism we are encouraged to make the right choices, make the right effort, keep morality etc. it feels like our future is open. Kamma also points to that direction. The future will be created according to our actions!

On the other hand, on several occasions, the Buddha spoke about the future as if it were predetermined. A few examples: Person A will become a Buddha, true Dhamma will be replaced, people will live only 10 years, Maitreya Buddha will come etc.

It can be confusing! Is the future open? Do we know that some things will happen no matter what? Are they irreversible?

I think the best answer to this is in the concept of "noble silence" which is often described when the Buddha was asked such questions.  Basically what it comes down to is, are you looking for answers to a lot of philosophical questions? If that's your main interest, then go to grad school in philosophy. On the other hand, if you're looking for guidance in a system of mental (and, sometimes, body) techniques that help you lighten up, not take yourself and your drama so seriously, and be kinder to other people, then buddhism may be able to provide that for you. As with everything else, though, there are no guarantees in life.

Now, hopefully that serves as a caveat that there isn't such a thing as a definitive buddhist answer to such metaphysical questions, (or a definitive answer, period) but I'll provide my own best shot at an answer. Free will and determinism don't have to be black and white.  You feel like you could freely choose to walk any direction you want at the next moment, but actually you can't choose to walk straight up or down. There are some choices you get to make, and others that are constrained by causes and conditions. From a buddhist perspective, walking up and down is less important than the inner psychological constraints on your freedom that occur from your own afflictive emotions (klesha). So in some sense, you could say that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to help you move farther towards free will by dissolving or otherwise getting past the inter constraints of karma in your own mind, and in your chain of dependent origination.


Mindfulness, Eightfold path, I read your message but didnt't really understand much. What do you recommend for a beginner at buddhism? I read a bit about right effort and view. Where to start? I've been meditating for about 3 years or so. What is really meant by sensual restraint? Dont get me wrong but I don't want to give up my desires and passions and preferences that I like... .

Have a nice one ;)

Wise attention is the forerunner of the Noble 8 Fold Path so cultivate it.

  Dawn, bhikshus, is the forerunner, the harbinger of sun-rise.

  Even so, bhikshus, for a monk this is the forerunner, the harbinger of the arising of the noble eightfold
  path, that is, accomplishment in wise attention.

  Bhikshus, when a monk is accomplished in this wise attention, it is to be expected that he will
  cultivate the noble eightfold path, develop the noble eightfold path.

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

You can develop wise attention by being equanimous to every sensation which is felt and noting its impermanence. For what unwise attention is see this answer.

Regarding sense restraint on each sense door results in sensations which are either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral

  i. On seeing a form with the eye,

  one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
  one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
  one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.

  ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

  one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
  one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
  one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.

  iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

  one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
  one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
  one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.

  iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

  one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
  one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
  one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.

  v. On feeling a touch with the body,

  one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
  one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
  one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.

  vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

  one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
  one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
  one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Each of these sensation should be treated as follows:

  If he feels a pleasant feeling,

  he understands that it is impermanent;
  he understands that it is not to be clung to;
  he understands that there is no delight in it.

  If he feels a painful feeling,

  he understands that it is impermanent;
  he understands that it is not to be clung to;
  he understands that there is no delight in it.

  If he feels a neutral feeling,

  he understands that it is impermanent;
  he understands that it is not to be clung to;
  he understands that there is no delight in it.

  If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

  If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

  If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

You should be careful that you do not react to the sensation with unwholesome thoughts which are craving, aversion or ignorance.

  (1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;

  (2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;

  (3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta


Mindfulness when sick? I am trying to be mindful whenever I am not too absorbed in whatever i am doing and then I got sick. Everything stopped from fast to slow motion. I had time to watch myself being mindful, but then it occurred to me what I should be mindful off? Since I am physically sick now, should I repeat my current state of mind- 'I am sick', 'I am sick', 'I am sick' and this is so depressing or should I change my frame of mind to something positive - for future well being like ' I am getting better', 'I am getting better', 'I am getting better '.

Which is right way of being mindful? Being in Present or Hope for better future!!!

Don't do either of those. When using the Mahasi Sayadaw method of noting, you should only note things that you are directly experiencing in the present. You don't directly experience sickness itself, but rather various symptoms such as tiredness, nausea, diziness, etc... Just note those individually as they come up. Or just note the movement of the abdomen or the posture, etc...


How to increase will power? What are some Buddhists techniques by which I can increase my will power? I lack will power which is basic to practice 8fold path. I don't have will power which makes me stray to be consistent on spiritual practices. Please shed light on the ways to increase will power.

Edit: If someone says "You should do AnApan to increase will power" then I need will power to do that consistently AnApan, so such answers doesn't completely help me. Please tell any alternative. Maybe some practice which gradually increases will power.

Will power is very connected with virya - energy. Notice how, when you feel inspired, what they call "on a roll" - you can do things that are normally difficult, easily applying force as needed. In the same vein, when you are depressed and demotivated, doing even the simplest chores requires lots of effort to get going.

So the secret to will power is to develop the faculty of energy (viriyindriya).

Development of energy is not directly emphasized in Pali Suttas but in some Vajrayana schools it is the main practice, esp. in higher tantras.

So, how does one develop energy? In real teacher-student situation, you learn it by watching and imitating the teacher, and from occasional very casual and often sarcastic pithy instructions. To cover all that in a single answer would be impossible, but here is a brief summary of what I was taught:

Vitakka / vicara aka autosuggestion to raise inspiration, e.g. what football/basketball coaches do. It looks silly but it works, esp. if you connect it with emotion.
Wise application of attention - avoid dwelling on "victim-perspective" topics that make you feel hopeless, focus on things you are mastering / have mastered.
Discontinue or minimize activities known to sack energy, e.g. alcohol, masturbation, facebook, arguments.
Mindfulness of the body and overall grace. Learn to always feel comfortable: walk comfortably, sit in comfortable posture, stretch enough, move gracefully etc.
Mental comfort / speed - do not rush yourself, do not beat yourself, give yourself enough respect.
Take responsibility and learn to live on your terms.
Stop seeking outside stimuli (so-called "hunting dog mind"), slow down and find the right practice right where you are, in your everyday activities.
Use Meditation as another chance to stop and get to your senses, as opposed to forcing yourself into something contrived.
Develop stronger core muscles, esp. abdomen.

Out of all these practices, the principal one, and what I will emphasize the most is living on your terms. Maybe because it was the most difficult and eye-opening to me when I learned it.

What weak-willed people do a lot is allowing circumstances or people to rush us or to force us do things we are not Okay with. Instead, we should learn to take responsibility for our lives, take a stance - and methodically live our life on our terms, step after step. If you start on a solid foundation, every subsequent action will build a solid step, and another one and another one. Do not let anyone ever force yourself go against your best judgement, nor go against your judgement because of urgency or time pressure. Do things impeccably to your own standards, look impeccable in your own eyes - and from this will come energy and strong will power.


How to deal with obstacles (with Sutta reference) Are there any Suttas that explain how to deal with (unexpected) life obstacles? It seems that in this regard Buddhism seems to be a bit passive? I might be wrong.

Please see this answer.

I have tried to explain in that answer, using Dhammapada verses, that Buddhism teaches thinking and acting in wholesome and skillful ways. And this can be applied to facing obstacles and challenges in life, which may come unexpectedly.


How is a Dalai Lama chosen? And can it be a woman? The 14th Dalai Lama is about 80 now. How will the next one be chosen or elected? Does the Dalai Lama himself decide, and has this already been decided? Are they, like the Catholics, 'voting' on candidates? Is it like the different sects take "turns", so for example now it's the Nyingmas turn to have the Dalai Lama? If someone is picked, can he refute?

And is there any chance for the Tibetans to get a female Dalai Lama?

The reincarnation of a lama isn't chosen or elected. He or she is found.

Man or woman

Historically the Dalai Lama has always been a man, but it has been my understanding that there is no rule that the next Dalai Lama can't be a woman. In fact, according to this news article the  Dalai Lama once said that

  If a woman reveals herself as more useful the lama could very well be reincarnated in this form.

This is confirmed in this interview
where the Dalai Lama:

  ... also said half-jokingly that if the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation is female, she must be very attractive. The reason is so that she will have more influence on others. If she is an ugly female, she won’t be very effective, will she?

No reincarnation

In recent years, the Dalai Lama has also mentioned that he might be the last one. According to this BBC news article:

  Whether another Dalai Lama came after him would depend on the circumstances after his death and was "up to the Tibetan people"

and

  "The Dalai Lama institution will cease one day. These man-made institutions will cease," the Dalai Lama told the BBC.

These remarks were most likely politically motivated, because China very much wants to find the next Dalai Lama so they can 'control' him/her, just like they did with the Panchen Lama.

Finding a reincarnation

Suppose the Dalai Lama decides to come back after all. When a great Bodhisattva dies he1 can control the time and place of his rebirth. This is called the Tulku system and it makes sure that knowledge from a certain lineage is passed on. After his death a committee of high-ranked lamas of the same tradition as the deceased will gather with the task to find the reincarnation. This process can take several years and the committee will generally use a variety of sources.

In the case of the Dalai Lama it's customary to start with consulting the Nechung Oracle.
If the Dalai Lama is cremated the direction in which the smoke goes is also an important sign. It's possible for a prominent lama to have a vision or dream that reveals important details that help in finding him (e.g. certain characteristics of the location). Sometimes the deceased has left clues (e.g. a letter or specific personal objects) as to where he will be reborn.

Once a reincarnation is found, he will be tested to confirm that the right person has been found. For example, the 14th Dalai Lama was found at age 2 and one of his tests was to identify which items belonged to his predecessor.

If you are interested in this, there are a few films and documentaries that show how finding a reincarnation works. For example the (somewhat) popular movie Kundun starts with this IIRC, and I can recommend the documentary Unmistaken child, but that one may be harder to find.

1 for ease of reference I will use the words 'he/him' from here on, but as I mentioned earlier it can be a she/her.


Immaterial Absorptions and cultivating wisdom Is it correct that only the 4 lower jhanas (rupa jhanas) are useful for cultivating insight (panna) because the meditator's mind is too absorbed when he enters successively the immaterial jhanas (arupa jhanas)?

In MN 70, the Buddha taught a seven-fold classification of practitioners. Depending on the various dominant faculties, the immaterial attainments are must-have to some class of disciples (ie. the "Liberated both ways", the "Body witness", etc.)..


What is the real "Human Realm" What is the real human realm,
Is it Earth or are there many other places / Planets with humans?
What are the words of Lord Buddha on this topic?

I am looking for the Theravada perspective.

The original home of human beings according to the Pali Canon is the Abhassara realm, lit. "from whose bodies are emitted rays like lightning." This is the top realm of three, next above the Brahma world, in the Form world of the devas (lit. "shining beings"), corresponding to the second jhana of meditative attainment. As a result of their increasing infatuation with sensuous pleasure, at least some of the residents of this realm "fell" into rebirth in the earthly realm, the manusyaloka. Since this degeneration was gradual, it implies that there are many "vibratory" or energetic levels of human beings in our universe, ranging from animal-like human beings with short life spans (the texts mention a minimum of 10 years) to glorious deva-like beings with long life spans and great wisdom and power (the texts say 80,000 or 84,000 years, which probably symbolize an unknown but large number; 84 is a Buddhist symbolic number representing totality). The latter correspond to extra-terrestrial civilizations and perhaps trans-dimensional beings as well. The shortest-lived non-human primate has a lifespan of 8 years (including the greater dwarf lemur, purple faced leaf monkey, bare faced tamarin, and western tarsier). This implies that primates are the degenerated remnants of human beings, rather than the reverse. Since this appears to contradict the evidence for evolution, one might speculate that human evolution was triggered by some sort of intervention, but this is going beyond my knowledge of the Pali Canon. The longest-lived human beings are genderless and do not have physical bodies, but appear rather as luminous beings who fly through the air including, presumably, interstellar space. Such "luminous bisexual spheres" are also mentioned by Plato. The comparison with UFOs, the physical existence of which cannot be denied (see Dr. Jacques Vallee, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Dr. John Mack, Dr. Karla Turner, John Keel, and others), is unavoidable.


Did the Lord Buddha say anything about magic and fortune telling? Did the Lord Buddha say  anything about magic and fortune telling? I  just want to know because in this modern world everyone is following some astrology (Fortune tellers).  People believe what ever these people say. media also giving high priority to them.

These are examples of wrong livelihood. The Kevatta sutta discusses fortune telling and magic

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as:
reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs;
interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
interpreting dreams; reading marks on the body [e.g., phrenology];
reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
geomancy; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits;
reciting house-protection charms; snake charming, poison-lore, scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore; fortune-telling based on visions;
giving protective charms;
interpreting the calls of birds and animals —
he abstains from wrong livelihood, from lowly arts such as these.