Should one who follows the Dhamma give drugs to the dying to ease thier suffering? My Christian wife is dying and the doctor has prescribed morphine and tranquilizers. She is losing her mind and the drugs may be contributing to that. I don't want her to suffer but I also don't want her mind to be in a bad state for rebirth. Is there any Buddhist scripture or comentary that could give guidance in this situation?

This is not exactly "Buddhist scripture or commentary" but it's related -- What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care -- here's an extract but you might read it all:

Taking into consideration overall well-being
(including the mental state of the patient), nurses
must balance the level of pain relief needed against
the need for alertness in the dying Buddhist. Proper
pain management can be achieved with minimal disruption of alertness by the use of the WHO analgesic
ladder. The choice of non-opioid analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) and weak opioids
should be preferred over strong opioids and neurolytic
block therapy whenever possible, with the aim of reducing adverse side effects (i.e. sedation and cognitive
impairment), thus maintaining alertness of the individual so that effective spiritual practices may continue. However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops,
cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that
may require the use of strong opiods for effective
relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible
that would support meditative spiritual practices. In
concordance with good practice and recognizing that
the individual needs of each patient will differ,
nurses should continue to monitor the need for pain
relief, and should clearly document the preferences
of such patients with regard to pain relief, particularly
during initial patient assessment regardless of the
setting (patient’s own home, hospice, hospital).

I believe the "analgesic ladder" means, not prescribing more than needed, and, increasing the prescription over time (when the need/illness increases, and as the tolerance to the drug increases, tolerance making it less effective) -- additional details here: WHO Analgesic Ladder

For some patients I think that unmanaged pain and suffering itself, may cause a "mind to be in a bad state" -- for example delirious or suicidal.

This article -- Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill -- includes a lot of sutta references.
One of these is AN 5.124 which identifies qualities of a competent carer -- they include being able to prepare medicine and knowing what's suitable and unsuitable.


What can I do regarding Non-Self After contemplating death while reading some articles on accidents, it dawned upon me (particularly strongly) that "everything" is out of our control. Everyone wants to be healthy, to have gains, not to have losses, but I recall feelings of helplessness/dejection in the inability to control when we are on the plane for example and there's turbulence and it's all in the hands of the elements, physics and fate.

I contemplated more and more, the past times when I was sick, the various times throughout when I was in the doldrums of my 31 years of life. I can literally  feel my heart has sunk as few notches. Though mentally I don't feel disturbed or weighed down, I feel overcome by the sorry fact that we (everyone) no matter how much we wished and tried our efforts, things are just out of our control, that our body, our circumstances, are all Non-self.

I would like to get to a productive state from this place. Please advise?
I feel a sense of defeated-ness acceptance regarding this Noble Truth, is there anywhere I can go from here?

The scriptures (AN 3.38) report, before his enlightenment to Buddhahood, when the unenlightened Gotama lived in three palaces, he had the vision he would get old, sick & die and this vision made him lose intoxication with his youth & life.
Then upon enlightenment, he fully realised the five aggregates that compose life (body, feelings, perception, thought function & sense consciousness) are 'not-self'; and one reason why each of the five aggregates cannot be a 'self' is because each can be subject to affliction & sickness that cannot be controlled (refer to beginning of SN 22.59).
It is reported the Buddha once taught to an elderly man that:

The body is afflicted, weak & encumbered. For who, looking after this body, would claim even a moment of true health, except through sheer
foolishness?
SN 22.1

Therefore, although Gotama's original vision of death as a youth resulted in great angst in his mind & a long experimental spiritual search, in the end, his Buddhahood was merely the full acceptance & thus being at complete peace with his original vision of inevitable decay, death & impermanence.
In your situation, the place to go is the development of meditative calm (samatha) & clear insight (vipassana) so the mind is at complete peace & freedom with illness, aging & death (rather than having discomfort with this initial vision). In Buddhism, this is called reaching the 'Deathless'.

Monks, mindfulness of death — when developed & pursued — is of great fruit & great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the
Deathless as its final end (culmination).
AN 6.20


Leg pain in retreats and even zen short sessions I've never had a problem with sleepiness, and I only get impatient when sitting on my own.

But oh that leg pain is something else.

Does anyone have any advice from a Zen perspective - not necessarily how to reduce the pain, but how to not simply hate meditation because of it (at least the half lotus position, and at least when in that position).

As you progress in your sitting and develop samadhi, leg pain will become less of an issue.  You will still experience it along with the discomfort, but it stops being such a matter of "oh-my-God-this-is-terrible-ring-the-bell-now" and instead becomes less of an immediate concern.  It's almost as if it's happening in the background while your koan or mushin becomes the center of your attention.

Think of leg pain like a tooth ache.  When you are sitting around and watching TV with your mind diffused and disordered, you are very much aware of the discomfort.  If, however, your mind is absorbed in something else - and I don't know of a single person who'd complain about their molars during sex, for instance - that pain has less command of your attention.

The important take away is to develop your concentration.  Follow the breath to its very outer limits.  Let your mind ride your exhalation all the way to the end.  If you allow your attention to break even for an instant, discomfort, thought, judgement, and opinion will arise in the vacuum.

As a side note, don't sit in half lotus if it causes you pain!!!  Use the Burmese posture where you put one foot in front of the other.  There is no sense in torturing yourself.  If you hate meditation, you won't practice it.  Zen isn't about self injury, it's about waking up.


Translation of Akkosa Sutta: Insult - ."He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse than the angry man" Listed below are three translations of Akkosa Sutta provided in access to in access to insight
Which translation has the correct meaning?
The third translation is not far from the common ethics i.e., the virtue of temperance found in most major religions of the world, but what is presented in the first two translations goes beyond that.
Accommodating an angry man sheepishly, I mean responding to him/her kindly to calm them, does no good to the angry man because they will think that they were in the right when they are angry. The short story leading to the sutta's stanza does indicate that too.
As I understand it Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is missing the key part which is present in the two other translations "He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse than the angry man"...But I may be wrong.

Acharya Buddharakkhita translation
He who repays an angry man in kind Is worse
than the angry man; Who does not repay anger in kind, He alone wins
the battle hard to win.

......

Maurice O'Connell Walshe translations
If a man's abused and answers back, Of the
two he shows himself the worse. He who does not answer back in kind,
Celebrates a double victory.

......

Thanissaro Bhikkhu translations
You make things worse when you flare up at someone who's angry.
Whoever doesn't flare up at someone who's angry   wins a battle   hard
to win.

The Sujato translation is:

When you get angry at an angry person
Tasseva tena pāpiyo,
you just make things worse for yourself.
yo kuddhaṃ paṭikujjhati;
When you don’t get angry at an angry person
Kuddhaṃ appaṭikujjhanto,
you win a battle hard to win.
saṅgāmaṃ jeti dujjayaṃ.

I have zero competence in translating Pali but my mere guess is:

Tasseva (3rd person pronoun in genitive case; genitive means having possession) tena (because of) pāpiyo (sinful)
One has a sin/sinful because of
yo (one who) kuddhaṃ (accusative case is object of the verb; is provoked; is angered) paṭikujjhati (verb; is angry in return; pati + kudh + ya);
one (yo) getting angry/provoked in return (paṭikujjhati; verb) towards anger/provocation (kuddhaṃ; object of the verb)
Kuddhaṃ appaṭikujjhanto,
When one (yo) is not angry/provoked in return (appaṭikujjhanto) towards anger/provocation (kuddhaṃ)
saṅgāmaṃ jeti dujjayaṃ
one wins a battle hard to win.

Note: for Sujato, possibly "tasseva" is in dative case, which implies "giving" or "making"; rather than genitive case, which implies "possessing".
While i cannot definitively translate the verse, my guess is the translation revolves around the 1st sentence: "Tasseva tena pāpiyo" and particularly who is the owner or maker of the "pāpiyo" ("sinful").
My guess is the person getting angry in return possesses the "pāpiyo" because it appears the "pāpiyo" ("sinful"), together with the "jeti" ("victory"), are the main subjects or outcomes of the entire verse.
Therefore, I merely guess the Acharya Buddharakkhita & Maurice O'Connell Walshe translations are the most accurate because the "pāpiyo" ("sinful") is possessed by "the person" ("tasseva") rather than possessed by Thanissaro's generalization of "things". But I could be wrong.
Often, our Soviet & European moderators are fluent with grammar and can assist, here.


Is this a grave mistake in DN22 translation? Is this a grave mistake in DN22 translation?

It appears both Ven. Thanissaro and Bhante Sujato have made a grave translation error in DN22.

  “Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment.
  “Ekāyano ayaṃ, bhikkhave, maggo sattānaṃ visuddhiyā, sokaparidevānaṃ samatikkamāya dukkhadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamāya ñāyassa adhigamāya nibbānassa sacchikiriyāya, yadidaṃ cattāro satipaṭṭhānā.

https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato

Ven. Vijithananda explain this in a diffrent way. "Attangamaya" means not "make to and end of pain and sadness" but taking them as not i,me or mine.

Even assuming attha.m could be equated to attā, it could not mean "the not taking as self", because gama here means"the going", so it would mean something like "the going to self of pain and sadness".
Also atthaṅgama is a common enough word to leave very little doubt over its meaning:

“yato kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu channaṃ phassāyatanānaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca..."
"iti rūpassa samudayo, iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo..."
“santāvuso, sattā sabbaso rūpasaññānaṃ samatikkamā paṭighasaññānaṃ atthaṅgamā..."
"ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā imāsaṃ dvinnaṃ diṭṭhīnaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca..."
“puna caparaṃ, brāhmaṇa, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṃ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati."
"yo tassā nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo..."

The entire PED section on Attha 2 is of interest:

Attha2 (nt.) [Vedic asta, of uncertain etym.] home, primarily as place of rest & shelter, but in P. phraseology abstracted from the "going home", i. e. setting of the sun, as disappearance going out of existence, annihilation, extinction Only in acc. and as ˚ -- in foll phrases: atthangacchati to disappear, to go out of existence, to vanish Dh 226 (= vināsaŋ natthibhāvaŋ gacchati DhA iii.324), 384 ( parikkhayaŋ gacchati); pp. atthangata gone home, gone to rest, gone, disappeared; of the sun (= set): J i.175 (atthangate suriye at sunset); PvA 55 (id.) 216 (anatthangate s. before sunset) fig. Sn 472 (atthagata). 475 (id.) 1075 (= niruddha ucchinṇa vinaṭṭha anupādi -- sesāya nibbāna -- dhātuyā nibbuta); It 58; Dhs 1038; Vbh 195 -- atthagatatta (nt. abstr.) disappearance SnA 409. -- atthangama (atthagama passim) annihilation, disappearance opposed to samudaya (coming into existence) and synonymous with nirodha (destruction) D i.34, 37, 183; S iv.327; A iii.326; Ps ii.4, 6, 39; Pug 52; Dhs 165 265, 501, 579; Vbh 105. -- atthagamana (nt.) setting (of the sun) J i.101 (suriyass' atthagamanā at sunset DA i.95 (= ogamana). -- attha -- gāmin, in phrase udayɔ atthagāmin leading to birth and death (of paññā): see udaya. -- atthaŋ paleti = atthangacchati (fig.) Sn 1074 (= atthangameti nirujjhati Nd2 28). -- Also atthamita (pp. of i) set (of the sun) in phrase anatthamite suriye before sunset (with anatthangamite as v. l. at both pass. DhA i.86; iii.127. -- Cp. also abbhattha.

So no, that part of their translations seems fine.


How is the Anatta (not-self) doctrine useful? My question today concerns Anatta's usefulness.

What good does it bring us to realize that the "self" (what things are
and who we are), because it is permanently changing, is therefore not real ? (that there's no "this is like that" or "I am like that" : only "this is", and "I am") ?

Personally - if this is Anatta, if I didn't get it wrong, realizing this gives me a sense of freedom (as knowing that I am born and that I die at
each moment makes me stop clinging to ideas I sometimes have about myself).

Is this what Anatta's supposed to produce ? Not-clinging to reach Nibbana ?

Thank you !

The 'self' is an idea/assumption born from craving for & attachment to things (Parileyyaka Sutta, paragraphs 9 to 11). When the things attached to pass away (due to impermanence) there is suffering because of the 'self-clinging' or 'self-identity' with those impermanent things produces the sense of 'loss'. The Nakulapita Sutta explains this very well & simply.

Therefore, yes. The purpose of anatta is to produce not-clinging to end suffering & reach Nibbana.

The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta answers your question, particularly the last paragraphs (below):

  ...all...must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality,
  thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

  O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets
  wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception,
  gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness.
  Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from
  passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge
  that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth [of self] is exhausted, lived
  is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more
  of this [self] becoming.'

  This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were
  delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this
  exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks
  were freed of defilements, without attachment.


Where is the sutta that mentions the Five Niyamas? I am trying to find Buddha's word about Five Niyamas in Sutta. Or does it exist only in commentaries?

They are not the Buddha's words, I don't think. They are enumerated and defined in the Dhammasaṅgaṇī-aṭṭhakathā (Cittuppādakaṇḍo, Abyākatapadaṃ, Ahetukakusalavipāko, Vipākuddhārakathā):

Imasmiṃ pana ṭhāne pañcavidhaṃ niyāmaṃ nāma gaṇhiṃsu – bījaniyāmaṃ utuniyāmaṃ kammaniyāmaṃ dhammaniyāmaṃ cittaniyāmanti. Tattha kulatthagacchassa uttaraggabhāvo, dakkhiṇavalliyā dakkhiṇato rukkhapariharaṇaṃ, sūriyāvaṭṭapupphānaṃ sūriyābhimukhabhāvo, māluvalatāya rukkhābhimukhagamanameva, nāḷikerassa matthake chiddasabbhāvoti tesaṃ tesaṃ bījānaṃ taṃtaṃsadisaphaladānaṃ bījaniyāmo nāma. Tasmiṃ tasmiṃ samaye tesaṃ tesaṃ rukkhānaṃ ekappahāreneva pupphaphalapallavaggahaṇaṃ utuniyāmo nāma. Tihetukakammaṃ tihetukaduhetukāhetukavipākaṃ deti. Duhetukakammaṃ duhetukāhetukavipākaṃ deti, tihetukaṃ na detīti, evaṃ tassa tassa kammassa taṃtaṃsadisavipākadānameva kammaniyāmo nāma.
...
Bodhisattānaṃ pana paṭisandhiggahaṇe, mātukucchito nikkhamane, abhisambodhiyaṃ tathāgatassa dhammacakkappavattane, āyusaṅkhārassa ossajjane, parinibbāne ca dasasahassacakkavāḷakampanaṃ dhammaniyāmo nāma.
Ārammaṇena pana pasāde ghaṭṭite ‘tvaṃ āvajjanaṃ nāma hohi…pe… tvaṃ javanaṃ nāma hohī’ti koci kattā vā kāretā vā natthi, attano attano pana dhammatāya eva ārammaṇena pasādassa ghaṭṭitakālato paṭṭhāya kiriyamanodhātucittaṃ bhavaṅgaṃ āvaṭṭeti, cakkhuviññāṇaṃ dassanakiccaṃ sādheti, vipākamanodhātu sampaṭicchanakiccaṃ sādheti, vipākamanoviññāṇadhātu santīraṇakiccaṃ sādheti, kiriyamanoviññāṇadhātu voṭṭhabbanakiccaṃ sādheti, javanaṃ ārammaṇarasaṃ anubhavatīti ayaṃ cittaniyāmo nāma. Ayaṃ idha adhippeto.


Understanding non-self, life and rebirth Blessings to all,

I have had a difficult time trying to understand what it means by "non-self". I am certainly no expert in Buddhism but I was wondering if this life we have is just some subset of this ginormous pool of energy. Let me try to be more clear with an example. Suppose there is a big lake. If I drink a glass of water from this lake, now living inside of me, this water is still water and it would not be wise for anyone to say 'no that water is me'. This water one day leaves the body and goes back to some big pool of water ( which may contain some different type energy/ vibrations by being inside of me) and may enter into an animal/ human someday. So my question again is do I think of this life that I identify myself with is also some common source of energy or element like water? Is this what non-self is? We are all part of one big source of energy? I apologize if this is a bad example but I hope I made myself somewhat clear.

Thanks!

What you have described with your water analogy is Hinduism, and not Buddhism.

Buddhism does not teach that there is no self, or that there is non-self, but rather, that all phenomena is not-self (sabbe dhammā anattā).

A very apt analogy for this can be found in the Vina Sutta:

  "Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'

  "Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'

  "In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

The lute (vina) is a stringed musical instrument similar to a cello, that you can play by plucking. From it comes music. The different parts of the lute are like the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness). Music is like the self (which is basically a mental idea). One might think that the music is located somewhere in the lute or pervades the lute.

Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self, is a thought in the mind that arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates.

Perhaps, you can look at it in this way: The musical instrument is the sentient being. The music coming out of the musical instrument is the self. The musical instrument is composed of various parts which are analogous to the five aggregates. When these parts work together, they make music. The way they work together is dependent origination.

And that is a very nice and simple way to think about not-self (anatta).


There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent? There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent? Answer from any reputable tradition.

Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality.


One Sutta / Text which covers all of Buddha's Teaching Which is the one Sutta/Text that covers all of Buddha's Teaching? I require only one book which I can carry with me and it should have Buddha's delivery in original language and its translation in English.

You'd be hard pressed to find a single sutta that covers everything.  The suttas really don't work that way.  To compound your difficulty, you'd be even harder pressed to find an English/Pāli version of any text!  If I had to pick one sutta from the original canon, however, I think I'd go with the Sāmaññaphala Sutta.  It does an excellent job of providing a bird's eye view of the gradual training in the least amount of space.  You can find the Pāli version of the text here.  It's in the Tipiṭaka under the Suttapiṭaka, Dīga Nikāya, Sīlakkhandhavaggapāḷi, Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ.  (I'd appreciate if anyone can link that directly!)  A bound copy is available here - but again, no Pāli.  Bhikkhu Bodhi also did an excellent translation of the sutta and its commentaries.  That's available here.  If you are going to spend the money, go with his version.

There are other single, bound texts that are far more detailed, technical, and honestly, I'd say more helpful.  Key among these is the lengthy Visuddhimagga written by Buddhaghosa.  Seriously, that guy spares no expense on detail.  I swear he thought he was getting paid by the word!  It also meets your requirement in that it is written in the [supposed] language of the Buddha - Pāli.  Mind, it was written several centuries after the Buddha's death.  The original text is also available on tipitaka.org.  It's under Anya, Visuddhimagga.  A bound copy of this book weighs about five pounds.  I'm not kidding.  It's not something you'd want to carry around with you.  A dual language version would be enormous!


How is re-linking consciousness reconciled with MN 38? In the essay "Buddhist Reflections on Death", V.F. Gunaratna wrote:

  The terminal thought goes through the same stages of progress as any
  other thought, with this differences that whereas the apperceptive
  stage of complete cognition known as javana or impulsion, which in the
  case of any other thought occupies seven thought-moments. At this
  apperceptive stage the dying person fully comprehends the death-sign.
  Then follows the stage of registering consciousness (tadalambana)
  when the death-sign is identified. This consciousness arises for two
  thought-moments and passes away. After this comes the stage of death
  consciousness (cuti-citta). Then occurs death. This is what happens
  in this existence.

  Now let us consider what happens in the next existence. Already the
  preliminaries for the arrival of a new being are in preparation. There
  is the male parent and there is the female parent. As explained
  previously a third factor, a psychic factor, is necessary to complete
  the preliminaries for the arising of a live embryo, and that is the
  relinking consciousness (patisandi-viññana) which arises in the next
  existence in the appropriate setting — the mother's womb. On the
  conjunction of these three factors, life starts in the mother's womb.
  There is no lapse of time, no stoppage of the unending stream of
  consciousness.

As I understand, the last consciousness of a lifetime (cuti-citta) and re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññana) are terms coming from the Abhidhamma. They explain the continuity of the stream of consciousness from one lifetime to the next. This together with bhavanga and javana (see here) explains the continuity of the stream of consciousness between thought-moments both in this lifetime and the next lifetime, and between the two.

On the other hand, MN 38 seems to imply that there is no continuity of consciousness and that consciousness arises conditionally based on dependent origination.

  The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
  pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
  by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
  wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”

  “Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”

  “What is that consciousness, Sāti?”

  “Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”

  “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
  to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
  origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
  misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
  up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
  long time.”

So, how does the Abhidhamma reconcile the concept of re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññana) with MN 38 above?

Also, even in the current lifetime, is there any real continuity of consciousness or does it merely appear so?

So, how does the Abhidhamma reconcile the concept of re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññana) with MN 38 above?

It doesn't have to because Abh. and MN 38 talked about different consciousnesses. "Consciousness" is a very broad term and require specific context for a specific meaning. And this is why the Buddha specifically asked Ven. Sati: "What is that consciousness?" in which he replied: "Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.”, ie. the senses consciousness (one that which is experienced in conjunction with the six sense media). It'd be interesting had Ven. Sati mentioned the rebirth-linking consciousness or the consciousness without feature (Viññanam anidassanam, DN11, MN49). Kinda similar to the situation with modern science where the kind of "matter" as we know only takes up 4.6% of what's out there in the universe, while the remaining 95.4% are composed of "dark matter", 23%; and dark energy, 72%. And they're dark not because they're "dark", but because we still have no clue of what they are. Another point worth noticing in MN 38 was that the Buddha didn't have issue with the "continuity" of consciousness, instead He had an issue with the "sameness" of consciousness. Hence the question He asked Ven. Sati: "Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”.


Is clinging the reason for losing interest towards certain things? We lose interest to certain things (foods, vehicles .. etc.) with time. Is clinging the reason for this ? Is this the nature of clinging ?

Are we able to maintain the interest level if we don't have clinging ? Does losing interest to do something (working on a project, studying, new year resolutions, etc.) means that I had the clinging to that thing (or end result) initially ?

We lose interest to certain things (foods, vehicles .. etc.) with time. Is clinging the reason for this ? Is this the nature of clinging ?

No, this is due to the impermanence of things (anicca).

  Are we able to maintain the interest level if we don't have clinging ? Does losing interest to do something (working on a project, studying, new year resolutions, etc.) means that I had the clinging to that thing (or end result) initially ?

It's the other way around. Interest in working, studying or new year resolutions are different forms of clinging, or grasping for that matter.

To clarify, the point here is not to be indifferent, but rather to foster equanimity.


Can someone be Buddhist and Christian at the same time? Are there any  contradictions between the Catholic Christianity and Buddhism(main stream)? Can someone be a Christian and Buddhist at the same time?

I am looking for contradictions. Would you specify the inconsistencies between the two ideas? Do these ideas logically negate each other? And besides, Are there any ritual or ceremonies in one system that are opposed in another?

From my knowledge, it night be quite difficult to practice both, but still might be possible. The Buddha had a few quotes that contradict the teachings of Jesus.

The Buddha said:

  ‘There are some monks and priests who believe that whatever pleasant, painful or neutral experience someone has, all that is due to a supreme god. I approached them and asked if they believed this and they said they did. Then I said, “So according to you, if someone is a murderer, thief, adulterer or liar, a foul-mouth, greedy, hate-filled heretic, all that must be due to a supreme god.” When someone falls back on a supreme god as the answer, there (should logically be) no will to do, no desire to do, no necessity to do this or avoid that. Such a person is confused, vulnerable and cannot honestly call themselves a true monk or priest. This is my rightful refutation to those who believe such ideas, such views.’ -The Buddha (Tittha Sutta)

The other one I know about is the following:

  ‘Why does God not straighten out the world? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, why is the whole world in such a mess? Why did he not make the world happy? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, why is there so much deceit, lies, pride and unrighteousness? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, then he must be unrighteous and cruel because it was he who made everything.’ -The Buddha (Ja. VI,208

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha makes it clear of when a teaching should be accepted:

  "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything just because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything  merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been passed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis. When you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." -The Buddha (Kalama Sutta)

Here the Buddha makes it clear that you must not believe in anything on faith, and Christianity takes a little faith, no? I am also sure that there are Bible verses, and denominations of Christianity that might not allow you to follow Christianity with other religions.

Now don't get me wrong. One could still follow the Eightfold Path that was taught by the Buddha while believing in Jesus Christ.

Right view
Right intention
Right action
Right speech
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration


Is this desire, to not be friendless anymore, healthy? I have been friendless for around 5 years. The reason I'm in this situation is due to my bad traits alone. I have actually grown accustomed to this till recently, when I became increasingly unsettled by the constant silence in my house. Usually, I've been able to shrug off this loneliness by busying myself with my studies, but lately, the strategy is not working.

This desire for friends has been gnawing at me everyday. But I've been alone for so long now that I find it hard to make friends. So my question is, is this desire healthy in terms of a Buddhist perspective? And if it's not, how do I subdue this desire?

Any desire that cannot be achieved will cause suffering. Therefore, if (for some rare reason) you are intrinsically unable to make friends, you should accept this situation rather than suffer over it.

That said, the luminous or clear part of our mind is not the same as the bad traits of the mind. If your mind is actually able to see it has bad traits then that part of the mind that can see is luminous & clear. That is why Buddhism teaches we have the capacity to comprehend, work with & change the bad traits of the mind.

The very fact that you have concern about your personal situation shows you have the trait of friendship towards yourself.

If you are uncomfortable with pursuing friendship in an ordinary way, you can find a good Buddhist centre or temple to visit & discuss your personal concerns with a monk or teacher there. The Buddhist centre can be a place where you can learn to develop better traits & friendship skills with others.

The Buddha called himself the 'Kalyanamitta' or 'Noble Spiritual Friend', who does not offer superficial friendship but the gift of skilful methods & wisdom leading to peace.


Enlightenment finding me How can a small woman in a small country who does
not  understand many of these questions, let alone
the answers, ever hope to become enlightened.

Maybe she doesn't need to understand all of that, if she can clearly see that all our problems come from the concepts held by our own mind?


What is the meaning of "gross or subtle" physical food as nutriments? In the Sammaditthi Sutta it describes the 4 nutriments, and the first one - physical food as nutriment - is said to be "gross or subtle". What is the meaning of these terms?

I read that the term for nutriment (ahara) should be understood akin to paccaya (condition). So I am guessing that "gross or subtle" has something to do with the nature of food as conditionings?

Edit: The commentary adds that "And here, in a basis that is gross, the nutritive essence is limited and weak; in one that is subtle, it is strong" and "it is the basis that dispels fatigue, but it is unable to preserve; but the nutritive essence preserves, though it cannot dispel fatigue. But when the two are combined they both dispel fatigue and preserve."

Food is manifold, Mr/mrs. Shai106.

There is food which sustains the physical body and there is food which sustains the mind. Food for the eye - consciousness, food for the ear - consciousness, nose - consciousness, thong - consciousness, body - consciousness, intellect - consciousness. These six kinds of food can be considered as subtle food.

If one for example compares the nutrition of certain gross food (normal burger) so ones joy will not last long. If one put the burger an sublime image on it, let be say "Shai106-honey burger" one would have both, the gross and the fine food and this will last long. If there is just the food of "Shai106" it does not last long. So when mind get good inter-nurished between sense and intellect, its a long lasting nourishment not so like it is if there is just one sense impressed.

That's why they do not sell cars any more but images. Not gross food but identification, so that it last long. This is but a simple practical explaining.

When we talk about moderation in food, all kinds of food are meant with it. Simply to maintain the life and not for the pleasure of it.

A straight explaining in regard of food, how to use food to abound food, can be found in the Puttamansa Sutta: A Son's Flesh

You may also, of course more in detail, read The Four Nutriments of Life - An Anthology of Buddhist Texts

Also a good talk, for your daily and practical use (since not only the food but also how to gain it is most relevant), in regard of food and livelihood, from the gross to the fine art of livelihood is: Right livelihood - The Noble Eightfold Path

In MN36 the talk is also on the matter of mental and bodily development and catches also the point.

If it should be more lit. Abhidhamma, this work might be of interest: Kalāpas – Groups of matter

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


Philosophical and Doctrinal Differences between Theravada and Zen, and its effects The difference between Theravada and Zen may be like night and day. I favour Zen over Chinese Mahayana because I don't quite prefer the Pure Land beliefs. Hence, I want to compare these two.

I already know that in Theravada, one seeks Nirvana and it is sufficient to become a Arahant which is already difficult enough to attain. However, in Mahayana, one aspires to go in the path of the Bodhisattva.

However, philosophically and doctrinally, what are the major differences between Theravada and Zen? Please elaborate.

For e.g. Zen has Buddha Nature and Emptiness which do not feature in Theravada. Compassion also features more strongly in Zen than Theravada. Zen also has Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth? On the other hand, Theravada strongly emphasizes the Four Noble Truths, Three Marks of Existence, dependent origination and the Noble Eightfold Path. I'm not sure how important these Theravada doctrines are to the Zen tradition.

How do these differences in philosophy shape the differences in mindset and world views between the two?

For example, are Zen Buddhists more compassionate towards the suffering of others, while Theravadins are more detached from, and thus more apathetic towards the suffering of others?

Another example: Are Zen Buddhists more in touch with their emotions in terms of compassion and appreciation of the Buddha Nature and Emptiness in nature and in the world around them, compared to Theravadins who may want to be detached from their emotions?

The philosophical and doctrinal differences may also influence differences in terms of practice. Any examples of this?

The difference is an entirely different canon!  Theravada follows the Pali canon whereas Zen pulls most of its philosophical underpinnings from the Mahayana sutras and its own oral and written traditions (i.e. koan collections, writings of folks like Dogen and Hakuin, etc.).  That being said, I don't know how you would begin to explore what the effect on mindset would be.  I would also wonder if it even makes sense to make that investigation.  So much depends on the practitioner and their own development along the path.  I've known practitioners of Zen who were total, intellectualizing jerks and Theravadans who were oceans of compassion.

Outside of the obvious doctrinal differences, another rather ironic difference between the two camps is the practice of meditation.  Jhanas, as described by the Buddha in the Pali canon, don't often make an appearance in Zen.  I say ironic as the word Zen itself is a twice removed transliteration of the word jhana (i.e. jhana/dhyana -> ch'an -> zen).  In practice, Zen does not emphasize or pay much attention to being in, say, the third jhana over the second.

I'm a little taken aback by your statement that Theravada Buddhism doesn't emphasize compassion to the degree Zen does.  If anything, the opposite is true.  You find all sorts of meditations on the cultivation of compassion and loving-kindness in the elder tradition (the Brahmaviharas for instance) whereas Zen doesn't take the same practical, directed approach to its development as found in the Pali canon.

Lasty, emptiness does factor into Theravada.  See the Maha and cula sunnata sutta for just two, albeit less emphatic, explorations of emptiness.

And to reemphasize, so much of this depends on the practitioner.  I don't think it's helpful to view either school as monolithic.  Setting one against the other isn't necessarily helpful or, in my opinion, even possible.


What, besides karma, determines the future? Since karma isn't the only thing that determines what happens to you, what are the other aspects?

I remember hearing a dharma talk where someone explained that there were like eight things that determined what happened to you and that karma was only one. Is there a sutta referencing this and what are those other things?

Since karma isn't the only thing that determines what happens to you what are the other aspects? Is there a sutta referencing this?

Yes, the following discourse is what you are looking for:

  On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling near Rajagaha in the
  Bamboo Grove Monastery, the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There
  Moliyasivaka the wanderer 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 said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, there are some brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of this doctrine, this view: Whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before. Now what does Master Gotama
  say to that?"

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

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

  When this was said, Moliyasivaka the wanderer said to the Blessed One:
  "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright
  what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way
  to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those
  with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One —
  through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the
  Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks.
  May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for
  refuge from this day forward, for life."
  -SN 36.21, To Sivaka


Identification of a Buddhist text written in classical Chinese or Japanese While looking for an answer to this question I found a text that contains the quote in question, but I cannot find any information about it.

Is it written in classical Chinese or classical Japanese? (The two written languages were apparently quite similar)
Is it a commentary to the Lotus Sutra as the title seems to indicate?
When was it written and by whom?
Are the divisions equivalent to the divisions of the Lotus Sutra?
Do the line numbers also point to the lines of the sutra?

It is classical Chinese written in part of Chinese character and part of Japanese kanji Character,  it is still Chinese text, I can identify it because I am a Chinese speaker.
Yes it is Lotus Sutra
Kumārajīva and Yao Qin translated an ancient book "龜茲文本" to Chinese, that is Lotus Sutra

I can only answer this, I have no information for the rest of questions


What did the Buddha mean by "the stage beyond study" in the Shurangama Sutta? The Buddha mentioned, "The stage beyond study", in chapter 5 of the Shurangama Sutta.

What did the Buddha mean by this?

Probably the word ASekkha. From Ven. Buddhadatta's Pali-English dictionary:

  asekkha : one who does not require any further training. (m.) an Arahant.


How to not to attach to the vinaya? I feel very guilty when I break the vinaya / shila. Now it became a couse for suffering. Some times I feel very bad about people who not follows vinaya.
How do I get out of this ? How to follow vinaya without attaching to it ?

We can derive some clues about how to deal with kukkuca, if we look at its characteristics:

It is a mental factor (cetasika)
It is one of the five hindrances (nivarana) during meditation
It is originating from aversion (dosa)

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kukkucca

Seeing as it is considered a cetasika, we can try to still it during meditation, and proceed to investigate them mindfully as with any mental factor.

  And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen? There is stillness of awareness. To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen.

The fact that it is based in aversion, means that we can dilute the karmic effect of the aversion by practicing metta bhavana, not least towards those who struggle with the precepts/vinayas.

  And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen? There is awareness-release [through goodwill, compassion, empathetic joy, or equanimity]. To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN46_51.html


Is there any research on physiology of deep and long meditative states (i.e. days and weeks of sitting)? I keep hearing about Theravada monks who are able to stay in deep meditative states for days and weeks on end. While I do not [yet] question ability to stay in meditation for that long, what interests me is the physiological side of things: how human beings are able to spend that much time meditating without dying of dehydration or having some issues due to blocked blood flow etc.

Has anyone seen any research on topic or can offer a proper search query for Google scholar?

Check out this article: Meditation as a Voluntary Hypometabolic
State of Biological Estivation by John Ding-E Young and Eugene Taylor.

It's a really interesting, brief read. Basically, it is a review of several studies on the physiology of meditators. It provides evidence for the case that aspects of meditation may be similar to hibernation, or "hypometabolism". For example, like some bear species are able to not eat or drink for months on end (as far as I know) and come out fine, maybe meditators are able to lower their metabolism and thus meditate indefinitely without physiological upset. Some really cool examples of people meditating underground for days, or in airtight boxes for multiple hours with no ill effects.


Who can realize the nirvana easier? Who can realize the nirvana easier?As male one or female one?

The path to nirvana does not depend on your gender but on what you follow as a human being.
Accessing nirvana is a complex thing and describing it may need pages.But,in conclusion the path to nirvana is giving up. Therefore you should understand that to "give up" things,it does not matter what your gender is.Only a person who understands the nature of human life(does not limit only to the human life, but for everything )and realize that the final result of desires and bonds only lead to the sorrow can enter into the path of nirvana.


Meditation Experiences as a beginner So I notice that I have what I consider to be intense meditation experiences as a beginner. I still consider myself as a beginner because I am not following any guidelines or books or yoga practices. Plus I get scared and stop meditating for long periods of times because of Fear of the unknown.
 But in my meditations it's just me and music or me and crystals (mostly Amethyst).
Today I was listening to a Theta Vibration YouTube video and began to notice I was going to deeper into meditation I started to have Rapid Eye Movement.  I told myself that I should not fear this and as I did I got passed the eye movement. I then started to feel my hands in a specific position and my index fingers being bent upwards toward the ceiling (not uncomfortable) I then became more blissful and serene. But my main question is,
"IS it normal to feel your hands and arms raise mere inches off the bed? (I lay down during my meditations, I notice laying down works best for me.) What is my body healing in order to be feeling what I experience as this type of levitation in my arms? I have felt this in my legs too another time. What is my body doing in this process?
Thanks in advance for any answer. I'm not sure who to talk to about my experiences.
Thanks,
Alicia

Likely there is a subtle energy blockage around your elbows & shoulders so the lifting of the arms is to allow the energy to flow out of your arms and through your shoulders.

In Buddhism, we practise meditation on the natural ordinary breathing. This also leads to purification or healing of the body; where certain energies must flow so they can be released. Limbs can move to accommodate this.


what is the last orginal quote of buddha and what is the meaning of that quote? what is the last orginal quote  of buddha and what is the meaning of that quote ?
I have read the story of Buddha that    he passed away  by someone posioning him

From the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now,
bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish.
Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.

The footnote states:

Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena
sampadetha. Earnestness (appamada) is explained as "presence of
mindfulness." Comy.: "'You should accomplish all your duties without
allowing mindfulness to lapse!' Thus did the Blessed One, while on the
bed of his Parinibbana, summarize in that one word on earnestness the
advice he had given through forty-five years."

And from another translation:

Then the Gracious One addressed the monks, saying: “Come now, monks,
for I tell you all conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on
with heedfulness!” These were the last words of the Realised One.

Regarding the alleged poisoning, you can read it here from the same sutta.


Scriptural source for the lost son story I vaguely recall reading this story before, possible from the Suttas. Can anyone tell me the scriptural source? (Not looking for modern re-telling such as those by Ven Thich Nhat Hanh.)

THE LOST SON
"A young widower, who loved his five year old son very much, was away
on business when bandits came who burned down the whole village and
took his son away. When the man returned, he saw the ruins and
panicked. The took the burnt corpse of an infant to be his son and
cried uncontrollably. He organised a cremation ceremony, collected the
ashes and put them in a beautiful little bag which he always kept with
him. Soon afterwards, his real son escaped from the bandits and found
his way home. He arrived at his father's new cottage at midnight and
knocked at the door. The father, still grieving asked: "Who is it?"
The child answered, it is me papa, open the door!" But in his agitated
state of mind, convinced his son was dead, the father thought that
some young boy was making fun of him. He shouted: "Go away" and
continued to cry. After some time, the child left. Father and son
never saw each other again."  After this story, the Buddha said:
"Sometime, somewhere, you take something to be the truth. If you cling
to it so much, even when the truth comes in person and knocks on your
door, you will not open it."
(http://viewonbuddhism.org/resources/buddhist_stories.html)

As mentioned in another answer the story as written is published in at least one book by Thich Nhat Hanh. The following is copied from Being Peace, it's slightly more elaborate than the version you posted (e.g. "velvet bag" instead of "little bag") but with many of the same phrases:

Thay doesn't attribute a source for this story.
The next story on the page of stories which you linked to, i.e. Angry Buddha, is attributed to Being Peace -- so I suppose that probably is where they found the Lost Son story too.
I gather that the Vietnamese tradition is eclectic so in theory Thay might have gathered that story from anywhere, but I think the content or 'moral' of the story suggests it probably is from the Mahayana or Zen tradition.


Any recommended monasteries in Sri Lanka that offer extended meditation retreats? Could anyone provide links and/or info about Buddhist monasteries in Sri Lanka that offer extended meditation retreats?

For those who have taken part in such retreats, how was the experience? Would it be challenging in any way for me, an American, who has never been to Asia before, to travel there/adapt to the culture?

Thank you

Please refer these links.

http://nauyana.org/

http://www.sadahamarana.org/?page_id=48

You can google for these links. Please do some background checks, before you go there. False teachers can be exists like infamous 'Pitiduwe Siri Damma'.


Emotional Release: Images Versus Dry Body Awareness I am posting because I have had for the past years, despite my attempts at resolving this, trouble feeling my emotions and sensations. You could almost say I'm numb. To remedy this problem, I've thought of engaging in two practices.

First, I thought of sensing the basic aspects of the body, in my whole body, e.g. tingling, warmth/cold, numbness, etc. This has not let to gains so far because I seemingly cannot engage in discursive or associative thought while doing this, so I just feel my sensations mindfully period.

Second, I thought of visualizing images that I free-associate with, and in this situation lust in the form of images, anger in the form of images, and memories in the form of images arise. However, I'm worried that this might involve elaboration that doesn't exist, i.e. fantasy elements. However, if this is not undoing repression, I am not sure how else to undo my emotional repression.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks.

Lack of sensitivity can occur due to using meditation techniques. Whenever a technique is used, such as watching breathing at abdomen or nose-tip, body scanning or the two methods proposed in the question, there will be a deliberate, fixed & gross intention operating in the mind to exert the mind. This 'intention'  & 'exertion' is a thought and it is this thought intention that hinders sensitivity.

To feel the body, breathing & associated feelings & emotions sensitively, the ideal practise is to simply 'let go' of all wanting & all intention. The mind must be quiet however the effort used must be a little as possible. Just sit, but very quietly.


What are Buddhist views about free will? Does the concept of free will vs determinism even apply? Is it a question with a wrong assumption? There are mainly 3 western views:

Free Will is real & I believe in it.
Free Will is an illusion but I live my life assuming it is real because it is a healthy assumption.
A compatibilist that believes in degrees of freedom & determinism cannot harm the truth of future outcomes.

My first thought would be none of these apply as they assume a self and the world works on the principles of dependent origination. Perhaps, I'm incorrect in my thinking or heading in the correct direction. It would be great to hear detailed and well-thought responses.

Free Will. Someone might say: "If all phenomena are conditionally arisen, then Buddhism is a form of fatalism, for we have no free will to control our destiny." Such a statement would not be correct. Will is volition (cetanaa), a mental state, determined ethically by its root condition (hetu paccaya). If the root is unwholesome, we can either restrain or indulge the volition; if the root is wholesome, we can encourage it or neglect it. In this exercise of will lies our freedom to guide our destiny.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.htmlThis is how there's free will in the midst of causality. At the same time, the pattern in the way intentions lead to results allows us to learn from past mistakes. This freedom within a pattern opens the way to a path of mental training that can lead to the end of suffering. We practice generosity, virtue, and meditation to learn the power of our intentions and in particular to see what happens as our intentions grow more skillful, so skillful that present intentions actually stop. Only when they stop can you prove for yourself how powerful they've been. And the spot where they stop is where the unconditioned — the end of suffering — is found. From there you can return to intentions, but you're no longer their captive or slave.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/faithinawakening.html


Why is 'dukkha' included in one of the three marks of existence? In this link and this link the Buddha says that "there is stress" (or suffering or whatever your preferred translation of dukkha is). The Buddha does not say that suffering (dukkha) is inherent or an innate characteristic of existence.
According to the Second Noble Truth, this dukkha is caused by desire or craving.
So dukkha has a cause. That cause can be removed. It's not that existence is made up of dukkha.
I understand Annicca (impermanence) and Annatta (not-self) can be said to be 'marks of existence' i.e. existence is characterized by them. But I don't understand how dukkha is a mark of existence.
It is true that under certain circumstances humans feel dukkha but there is also joy, happiness, love etc. Dukkha is not a permanent building block of human existence. Annicca and Annata are permanent or basic building blocks.
So my question is, why is dukkha said to be a 'mark' of samsaric realm or material existence?

The teachings of the Buddha are not metaphysics. They do not describe the ontology or nature of things.
The teachings of the Buddha serve one purpose only - freedom from suffering. It's purpose is soteriological, not ontological.
In "Anicca Vata Sankhara", Ven. Bodhi comments:

The most important fact to understand about sankharas, as
conditioned formations, is that they are all impermanent:
"Impermanent, alas, are formations." They are impermanent not only in
the sense that in their gross manifestations they will eventually come
to an end, but even more pointedly because at the subtle, subliminal
level they are constantly undergoing rise and fall, forever coming
into being and then, in a split second, breaking up and perishing:
"Their very nature is to arise and vanish." For this reason the
Buddha declares that all sankharas are suffering (sabbe sankhara
dukkha) — suffering, however, not because they are all actually
painful and stressful, but because they are stamped with the mark of
transience. "Having arisen they then cease," and because they all
cease they cannot provide stable happiness and security.

First we have the first noble truth that tells us that there is suffering or dukkha. This is explained in this answer.
Next, we see - sabbe sankhara anicca.
This mark of existence states that all conditioned and compounded things (both mental and physical) are impermanent.
So what? What is the connection to you?
Next, we see - sabbe sankhara dukkha.
This mark of existence states that because all conditioned and compounded things (both mental and physical) are impermanent, therefore they are a source of suffering or unsatisfactoriness, because "they cannot provide stable happiness and security." They are connected in this way.
These two marks of existence are there to show the connection from all conditioned and compounded things to the first noble truth of dukkha. In particular, they show the connection of the impermanence of the five aggregates (which are conditioned and compounded) to dukkha.
It's not there to explain the nature of reality. It's there as part of the narrative to explain the four noble truths.
The three marks of existence are mainly about YOUR existence. The marks of existence of a chair or table is unimportant.


Proper way to give metta Is it necessary to only feel subtle sensations while giving metta or is it only required to be equanimous while giving metta.

I have sometimes felt painful sensations that cannot be 'shaken away' after a sit and find it harder to concentrate on giving metta. So should one only be equanimous and carry on with the practice or leave metta bhavana to another time?

What works for you while radiating metta?

Different lineages / teachers would advice on this differently. My answer is based on what I picked from different teachers.

Before doing metha best to to do a bit of breath meditation and insight meditation. Come to the stage that you have Piti or Passaddhi or at least you feel comfortable. Then wish that other share your peace and happiness. Keep wishing your self and others to be well and happy. Ideally keeping your attention around your mouth. Lips touching or above the upper lip and base of your nose. Also try to bring out a mild smile (this generally relaxes tension) as this will influence your mood. Also in the process if possible try to calm the fabrications, i.e., realise the speed and length of your breath from start to end.

This should not a mere recitation of words. You should wish from the bottom of your heart. In the process uproot your defilements to make your mind pure.

One of the objective of Metta Bhavana is the reduce the defilements based on aversion, dissolving ego as well as the hindrance of ill will, especially towards other beings. So you should be mindful when doing it that aversion does not arrive and also you are not in any discomfort as this also sometimes lead to aversion and tension (which intern creates new unwholesome fabrication and conditioning). Doing this after breath meditation and awareness meditation can help the cause in identifying 1) defilements arising based on aversion 2) any hidres arising due to enmity or any pre conceived notion of the person. Always be aware of the metal factors arising during the meditation and if they are unwholesome try to tame them by being aware that they have arisen and the sensations they bring up and then the dissolution of it.

Also when you think of some one keep a note of how thoughts proliferate and what feeling this brings up. You think about a friend you might then remember some other incident with them. All this creates feeling and sensations when you react to them. Try to be equanimus. Similarly when you think about a foe or even an attractive person. Also then you think about animals or other life forms, you might experience emotion, feelings and sensations. Suddenly you might remember a rat who ate your favorite piece of furniture. Or the fear of a snake when you think of this type of animals, or the disease they spread if it is a cockroach or rat. Then these thoughts arise you mind make a contact followed by reaction and sensation. Keep focused on this element. The sensation this causes trying the be equanimous about the sensation and realising the sensations have the 3 marks of existence. Also notice how your are reacting or sensation that are created with perception of an entity / being. Look at the feeling when you recall incident or people who attacked your ego or what ever you call me, mine, etc. and realise how ego is hurting you. Also realise how your react when remeber someone praises you or has been benevolent to you. Also look at how perceptions about an entity / being also contributing to stress in the process. Look at mental image -> recognition -> reaction -> sensation -> craving -> clinging ...  Try to see the dependent origination, factors of enlightenment and 4 noble truths at work even through Metta meditation. When practiced in the right way Metta can take you far.

Meditation based on the Four Sublime States help expand upon the type of defilements which to reduce through these meditations.

If you feel any discomfort take this into awareness while radiating Metta. Keep your attention on these parts which hurt. Also be mindful of perspiration while doing it.

Also refer to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett%C4%81
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrn_metta.pdf
http://www.dhammasukha.org/metta-barebones-booklet.html (very good guide)
http://www.dhammasukha.org/forgiveness-meditation.html (very good guide)
http://www.dhammatalks.org/mp3_guidedMed_index.html
http://www.vridhamma.org/en1992-02
http://www.vridhamma.org/en2008-08
In simple words, how are body sensations linked to moods and feelings? (Un related but helpful in advance stages of any meditation)


Allow myself to rock or sway while meditating? I have noticed that sometimes, almost unconsciously, my body begins to sway forward and backward ever so slightly when I'm sitting in meditation (actually, kneeling - I sit zazen on a bench). It does not seem to be in phase with any of my rhythmic body functions (e.g. heartbeat, breathing).

There are times when I consciously cease the swaying, but other times when I allow it to continue. Or even help it a little bit. It seems to add somewhat to the depth of my meditative state and is mildly pleasant.

My question is thus: should I just let it be (after noting it)? Should I help it? Should I put a stop to it? I do not have enough familiarity with The Official Rules & Regulations Of Practicing Buddhists to know, and I do not have an instructor/advisor to pose this question to. Hence my post here.

I found this related question, but this person seems to be doing it intentionally and in response to physical pain. One of the answers here also notes that it may be in response to conditioning, but I don't feel that's the case here. A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness

Let me try to approach this from 2 different angles.

I'm a physiotherapist and first I would like to approach this from an anatomical and physiological standpoint.

It sounds to me like you might be lacking some core strength and that resulting in you swaying in your meditation. It could also be that you have some tight muscles around your pelvis and back which is creating muscular imbalances. The balances can cause pulling and tightening in different directions when standing, sitting or lying in certain postures. Muscular imbalances are quite common and not dangerous although if they are allowed to persist over long durations of time they can lead to more serious problems such as limited range of motion, body pain, mal-alignment which again can lead to other diagnoses. Let's not get into this here.

If it's relevant now or becomes relevant you are welcome to contact me on my mail: harshani85@gmail.com and I will take a look at you either via Skype or you can sent me a video. I will give further instructions about that if you need it.

For now I will give you some strengthening exercises for your lower back and core muscles + some stretching exercises for your hip flexors  (m. iliopsoas) since they are often a problem because of too much sitting down. If they are or become tight they can limit range of motion in the spine and external rotation in the hip by creating an increased internal rotation in your upper legs which again will lead to mal-alighment in your spine which will affect your standing, sitting and lying posture.

As you might have heard before the core is our force-generating center. It is very important to have a strong core in almost all activities that one do in ones everyday. A strong core means that one is physically centered. The standing, sitting and lying postures will improve greatly as will many other activities in ones daily life.

The core consists of the following muscles; m. transversus abdominis, m. rectus abdominus, internal/external obliques, lumbal portion of m. erector spinae. Some people count also mm. gluteus, m. quadratus lumborum and m. iliopsas. I will not give exercises for these muscles but only the most important muscles which is m. erector spinae, m. transversus abdominis, m. rectus abdominus and mm. internal/external obliques.

I would like to give you these exercises. They can be a bit difficult to understand when only viewing a photo so I have found this video for you that goes through some of the exercises. I want you to try them all out and find the ones that work best for you. Try to pick 3-4 exercises.

I want you to do 1-3 sets with 10-15 repetitions in each exercise. 1-3 sets meaning that if you have a good day you can do 3 sets and if you are tired or not in the mood you can do 1-2 sets. That way you can regulate it yourself.
You should train these exercises 3-4 times a week. Keep 1 day between sessions for rest.

That was the strengthening exercises now to the stretching exercise for the hip flexor muscles, m. iliopsoas. See this photo. If you cannot do that I want you to do like this instead. You should do 3 sets of 60 seconds on both legs. You can do longer and more sets if you like but this is minimum. This exercise you can do everyday.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me on my mail or write here and I will try to help out.

Now I would like to approach this from a theravada buddhist perspective with basis in vipassana meditation practice.

In vipassana practice we want things to come forth so we can study them. We do not want to interfere with them since that can create attachment or aversion towards the phenomena. By trying to help the swaying or stop the swaying you are really masking/camouflaging the impermanent, unsatisfactory, oppressive and insubstantial nature of the 1st aggregate, the form aggregate.

I believe it's best to just let the swaying be. Observe it. Note it. Observe that you have really no control over the body. The body is oppressive and ungovernable. It is not subject to ones will and by realizing that you can see both impermance, dukkha and not-self.

So in short. Don't interfere with the phenomena. Just observe them diligently and you will come to realize the 3 signs of existence.

As Mahasi Sayadaw has said; "the yogi (the meditator) will come to realize that there is just an object arising and mind arising to that object and no third besides. Third besides is here meaning a self".

Unfortunately I cannot remember where he says that so I cannot quote it.


What is the (middle length) sutta, where Buddha exposes a monk, who has an ignorant view of non-self? In one sutta a monk was teaching, that there's something that is behind our existence, that is permanent (opposite of non-self). Buddha asked for this explicitely, got confirmed, and corrected the view. Which sutta it is?

Possibly MN 38, where the monk held:

At one time the Lord was staying near Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in
Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. Now at that time a pernicious view like
this had accrued to the monk called Sāti, a fisherman's son: “In so
far as I understand Dhamma taught by the Lord it is that this [same;
identical; <a
href="https://suttacentral.net/define/ana%C3%B1%C3%B1a" rel="nofollow noreferrer">anañña]
consciousness itself runs on, fares on, not another."

Note: I chose the translation of I.B. Horner to avoid the contradictory eternalism of the other translators, who use words such as "transmigration" or add words that do not even exist in the sutta, such as "round of rebirths".


Praying to God - What are the consequences? I was raised in a Catholic environment, however I'm adding more and more Dhamma in my life, currently I spend much more time with Buddhists practices than Catholics.

the point is that I still keep the habit of praying to God before going to sleep (and before flying too), but if I'm not mistaken this is seen as something bad in Buddhism (wrong view/attachment to rituals)

Can someone explain what are the bad consequences, from a Buddhist's perspective of praying to God? If any.

How you should consider what do to depends on your situation. Have you converted to Buddhism? Do you believe in an all powerful God? If you haven't converted to Buddhism and still believe in a God and are just adopting Buddhist practices because you find that they give you wellbeing I wouldn't worry about it too much. But if you are trying to work out the full path to awakening according to the teachings of the Buddha then there could be a problem.

If you have decided to strive for enlightenment according to the Buddhist path then belief in a God is problematic because it is in conflict with the teachings that all things apart from Nibbana are impermanent, incapable of giving true happiness, and are non-self. So if you believe in an all powerful God and pray to him that will reinforce that belief and interfere with developing right view.

Apart from interfering with right view and thus delaying the attainment of enlightenment until such view is corrected, I can't see any direct consequences. Belief in God can lead some people to be heedless thinking that God will look after them and everything will automatically turn out all right, and still others sometimes give up their consciousness to their concept of God, but the actual belief in the existence of God itself isn't going to create bad Karma directly or anything.


What is Prana according to Buddhism? According to Buddhism, does flora contain prana? Is this a cosmic energy that is set in earth, nature? Do organisms contain that energy?

In Theravada Buddhism, we call it pāṇa, which is just the Pali cognate of the Sanskrit prāṇa. The word itself just means breath, though it has connotations that come from Hinduism, regarding the concepts of life essence, soul, energy, etc. The PED gives some idea of how it is used in Buddhism:

Pāṇa [fr. pa+an, cp. Vedic prāṇa breath of life; P. apāna, etc.] living being, life, creature D iii.48, 63, 133 S i.209, 224; v.43, 227, 441 (mahā -- samudde); A i.161 ii.73, 176, 192; Sn 117, 247, 394, 704; Dh 246; DA i.69 161; KhA 26; ThA 253; PvA 9, 28, 35; VvA 72 DhA ii.19. -- pl. also pāṇāni, e. g. Sn 117; Dh 270. <-> Bdhgh's defn of pāṇa is "pāṇanatāya pāṇā; assāsapassās' āyatta -- vuttitāyā ti attho" Vism 310.
 -- âtipāta destruction of life, murder Vin i.83 (in "dasa sikkhāpadāni," see also sīla), 85, 193; D iii.68, 70, 149 182, 235; M i.361; iii.23; Sn 242; It 63; J iii.181 Pug 39 sq.; Nett 27; VbhA 383 (var. degrees of murder) DhA ii.19; iii.355; DA i.69; PvA 27.  -- âtipātin one who takes the life of a living being, destroying life D iii.82; M iii.22; S ii.167; It 92; DhA ii.19.  -- upeta possessed or endowed with life, alive [cp. BSk. prāṇopeta Divy 72, 462 etc.] S i.173; Sn 157; DA i.236  -- ghāta slaying life, killing, murder DA i.69;  -- ghātin   âtipātin DhA ii.19.  -- bhu a living being J iv.494  -- bhūta=˚bhu M iii.5; A ii.210; iii.92; iv.249 sq. J iv.498.  -- vadha=âtipāta DA i.69.  -- sama equal to or as dear as life J ii.343; Dpvs xi.26; DhA i.5.  -- hara taking away life, destructive M i.10=iii.97; S iv.206 A ii.116, 143, 153; iii.163.

In Theravada Buddhism this is as far as the concept goes, and it is only conceptual; there is no sense of an actual "spirit" or "energy" living inside of the body that can be called pāṇa; it is only the concept of a living, breathing being that is described as pāṇa.  As the Visuddhimagga explains:

Breathing things (pāṇa): so called because of their state of breathing (pāṇanatā); the meaning is, because their existence depends on in-breaths and out-breaths.
Vism. IX.54 (Nyanamoli, trans)

In Tibetan Buddhism, though, there seems to be more of a recognition of the existence of an energy flowing through the body, a "psychic wind" (Tibetan: rLung), so to speak:

Some of the different usages of the term lung include:

the psychic winds (sanskrit: prana) that travel in the internal channels, or nadi (Sanskrit) of the subtle body and are manipulated in certain Vajrayana yoga practices.
specifically the five psychic winds that are a manifestation of the Mahabhuta. These five are the lifeforce that animate the bodymind (Sanskrit: namarupa) of all sentient beings and are key to certain tantric Buddhist and Bon sadhanas and Traditional Tibetan medicine.
to the vayu and prana of ayurvedic medicine.
as a component of the term for a type of prayer flag, named after the allegorical Wind Horse (Tibet: lung ta).
a type of tantric buddhist empowerment that involves the transference of spiritual power from master to augment or refine that of the disciple through the recitation of scripture or song. This oracular transmission received aurally defines Mantrayana and Ngagpa traditions and provides them with their nomenclature.
the "reading transmission" of sutrayana texts, in which the entirety of the text is read aloud from teacher to student.

-- Wikipedia, Lung (Tibetan Buddhism)

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche devotes an entire section of his book "The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep" to the topic of prana.
In answer to your auxiliary questions, it again depends somewhat on which tradition you follow, but I think the consensus is that only sentient beings share the quality of prana, however it is understood.


How to avoid doing things that suck the energy out of you? A recent answer on this site was as follows.

  To make a strong commitment, you want to cultivate right effort by making a continuous effort, by hanging out with wise spiritual friends, by balancing energy with concentration and by not doing things that suck the energy out of you like reacting to your arising defilements, eating too much and getting lost in mental proliferation.

I would love an explanation, specifically, about the part in it which I highlighted in bold (i.e. about "sucking energy" and "reacting to defilements").
My questions include:

What are all the things that "suck our energy" ?
Why does reacting to defilements suck our energy ?

Everything else people want to add about this subject will be welcomed.

This is one of the things you learn from a live teacher, not usually found in books. Briefly, few of the main points I was taught, in no particular order:

ego - a lot of energy is spent on defending the self-image, rationalizing, finding excuses etc.
negative/pessimistic thinking - another major energy hog is thinking of the kind "things are wrong and are impossible to fix", excessive focusing on the issues and bad news.
masturbation and sexual activity - orgasm is traditionally considered a major point of energy loss.
non-spartan lifestyle - relaxing into one's weakness for sensuous comfort.
having no agenda - allowing other people, things, and circumstances drive you around.
inner conflict - blaming or judging oneself non-constructively.
doubt - anxious wavering back and forth.
not taking responsibility - organizing one's action around other people's approval and acceptance instead of taking ownership of one's choices.
alcohol - consumption of alcoholic beverages.
low energy food - food that is spoiled, expired, frozen and reheated, over-processed, lifeless, and generally bad quality.
posture - an important factor of energy loss is a posture and gait that moves the body weight off the center of the feet and too much towards the toes or the heels.

I will add more points here if I remember any.


Why is 'attention' ('manasikara') included within 'nama-rupa'? In respect to Dependent Origination, the Pali suttas state:

  Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro - idaṃ vuccatāvuso nāmaṃ. Cattāri ca mahābhūtāni catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya rūpaṃ. Idaṃ
  vuccatāvuso rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ idañca rūpaṃ - idaṃ vuccatāvuso
  nāmarūpaṃ.

  Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form
  derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality.

Alternate translation:

  Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention: This is called name. The four great elements and the form dependent on the four great
  elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called
  name-&-form.

Why do we think 'attention' ('manasikara') is included within 'nama-rupa'?

Note: I personally do not have a definite answer to this question, apart from personal speculation therefore I have asked the question for people to think about & answer.

There is this hierarchy in the teaching. One such is in the Nama…..  of the  rupa (material phenomena) & nama (mental phenomena).  Nama is broken down into Vedana (feeling) , Sañña (perception),  cetanā (mental activities),  Passa (contact) , and manasikāra (mental advertence). Buddha placed Passa & Manasikaara to the end for a reason. For the three things: feeling, perception and volition (vedana, sañña, and cetana) to be born contact must be there. Dependent on contact only manasikāra (mental advertence) happens.

Vedanā, saññā, cetanā multiple series of mental events are rapidly arising and passing away from moment to moment. Only if contact happens -  Passa paccaya vedanā, saññā, cetanā….  with vedanā as condition, Tanhā arises.  Passa (Pāli) is a Buddhist term meaning "contact" or "touching”.  Dependent on contact only manasikāra (mental advertence) happens.

In the case of an arahant the manasikāra is in accordance with the Dhamma. They live in the timeless present. For an Arahant in reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. For him it is only “Passa”, whereas for you and me, it is ‘sampassa’ (san+passa).

“San’ is basically the term for “good and bad things we acquire”. When we are thinking about an experience in the past or worrying about a future event, it all happens in the present moment. They are all activity of nāma-rūpa happening only in the present. From this ‘sampassa’ (san+passa) comes Ayonisomanasikāra.

Thus Manasikāra simply means ‘attention’. This in essence is the ability to be aware of the activity of the senses and the origin of mental phenomena, as it happens. The activity of the six senses. (1) Eye and forms (objects), (2) ear and sounds, (3) nose and odours, (4) tongue and tastes, (5) body and tactile objects, (6) mind and mental phenomena (mind objects). This happens both in you and me, as well as in Arahants.

In Arahants there is cetanā. In you and me it is san+ cetanā.  There is a distinction between sankhara and abhisankhara. Sankhara involves everything that we do to live in “this world”; these include breathing, walking, eating, etc. Even an Arahant has to be engaged in sankhara until Parinibbana or death. The prefix “abhi” means “stronger” or “coarse”. Sankhara become abhisankhara by engaging in the “wheeling process”. The sansaric process or the rebirth process is fueled by abhisankhara.


When is it love? When is it attachment? I have this misunderstanding about love and attachment as they relate to one another. It's hard to put in words, so I'll try with some examples first.

My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return. While love where you need or want something from the other person (like for example, expect that other person to make you happy, or you want to control the other person in some way, or try to change them to be more of how you would want them to be, etc) is actually attachment.

One example of true love I can think of is love for your children. You love them unconditionally. You understand they are their own person, with their own dreams, aspiration, thoughts, etc, so whatever they do, good or bad, you support them, help them, etc. You don't try to change them, or influence them, or impose your ideas on them, or have them accomplish the things you couldn't (e.g. I couldn't go to med school, but my child will), etc. No matter what happens, you love them because they are your children, and you love them no matter what they do.

Taking that further, even in the presence of death, I still can understand love (at least I think I do). Everyone dies. Your children might die. And even if you love them and will miss them if they are gone, or suffer after they are gone, that suffering doesn't linger. You continue to love your children even after they are gone (or at least the idea of them or the memory of them).

But here is another example. You love your partner. You think you love them like in the example above. But then they cheat on you with some other person. If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that... I think. If being with someone else makes them happy, you should be happy for them, right? But in most relationships, you expect from your partner that they don't cheat on you, or to behave in a certain way. When that expectation is broken, you suffer. Arguments start, resentment, maybe violence towards that person. Is this because of attachment to the person and not love? Because we expect them, and demand, that they behave in a way that doesn't hurt us or make us suffer, that we are attached to the idea that your partner is only ours to have?

So I guess, my question is this: What is love and what is attachment in a relation with your partner? What happens to love and attachment when they cheat with someone else? (for most of the people I know, death is less painful than being cheated upon; suffering caused by death eventually heals, but being cheated upon lingers for much longer).

Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?

When is it love?
There's Buddhist doctrine about the brahmaviharas which are three different kinds of love ...

I hope you're well
I don't want to hurt you
I rejoice in your virtue/success

... plus equanimity as the fourth.
If you loved your partner unconditionally, you would be OK with that
In the old days before "no-fault divorce" people (in Anglophone countries) used to sue each other for adultery: and the alleged "damage" used to include Alienation of affections.
I think the theory was that if your partner was adulterous then you'd be receiving less affection from them -- an affection which should have been, as their spouse, rightfully yours.
And I think that contradicts your premise, i.e.

My understanding is that love is something you give away without expecting anything in return.

I think another Buddhist theme is that, you do things because they (actions/intentions) are morally right or virtuous. Conversely you don't do things just because you feel like it (e.g. presumably shouldn't hurt people if or because you feel angry).
Because we expect them, and demand, that they behave in a way that doesn't hurt us or make us suffer, that we are attached to the idea that your partner is only yours to have?
I guess that -- expecting behaviour -- might work if you can form a contract, have a meeting of minds, with a sane and reliable partner.
Conversely some people (sometimes children) don't like conforming to other people's expectations.
With such a one, unreliable, a possible winning strategy might be (I don't know if this is applicable to you, feasible, or Buddhist -- but based on experience) if they ask e.g., "What do you expect me to do here?", reply, "I don't expect you to do anything. You can do..."
Then provide a safe environment, where they can't easily hurt themselves. And the necessities of life. And age-appropriate toys or tools. And good friends, some enjoyable group/social activities -- role models.
I think that behaviour/misbehaviour is partly conditioned/dependent -- if somebody is seeking some liberation then perhaps it's wise to ensure their environment is moral, safe, sane, unoppressive and with opportunities for them to be or to become good friends themselves.
Can you truly love someone with no attachment so that no matter what they do, you do not end up suffering?
I think so if you're semi-enlightened.
You suggested already that you can have children without their causing your suffering.
If I know children, they'll transgress in various ways, large or small -- and you're probably supposed to interact with them and correct their behaviour -- maybe without stopping-loving them though.
There's some doctrine here about choosing a spouse or partner, for what that's worth -- preferably one who is equal.
I think that a or the key to "not suffering" is to behave ethically. There's a sutta Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1) which begins ...

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"
"Joy has etc.

I equate that "freedom from remorse" with non-suffering -- "I do not regret it".
See for example Sīlānussati
In context I think that an example of sīlānussati might be Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) where the buddha seems to be happy.
In my experience that happiness might be in retrospect, i.e. good behaviour now leads to "joy" later.
See also What is the basis?


Kalachakra Tantra (translation of the original text) Where can I find the English / Chinese translation of the Kalachakra Tantra? (not commentary) Thank you.

This footnote suggests you might be looking for "Kilty, G: Ornament of Stainless Light, Wisdom 2004".


What is "Devputra Mara"? Tripitaka talks of four kinds of Mara. It says that to begin with there were 3 attempt of mara to stop Buddha ...

First in Skandha mara (self view)
Then Klesh mara (Desire, hate and ill will)
Finally Mrityu mara ("now you going to die")

... and when all attempts failed, he appeared in person. May be that being Buddha talk of Devputta Mara. Devputta literally means 'son of God'!
The natures of the first three maras can be known or understood from the general meaning of their names; but what about the "Devputra Mara"?
How to identify him? What are its characteristics?
If the first three are 3 obstacle of evil forces, to stop one from achieving enlightenment or liberation, I am asking the fourth one!
Did Buddha said about the Devputra Mara in detail? Does he says about him and give caution to not to fall for his trap?

Deva,
Devaputta means Deva by birth, one with a lot of merits, enjoying pleasant things, your-kind's largest trap, here in the realm of internet, in union with Maras host.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release from this wheel]


What are the main arguments in favor of the Anātman view over the Ātman view? The main difference (I know) between Buddhism and Hinduism is that the first defends Anātman theory whereas the second defends Ātman theory.

What are the main arguments in favor of the Anātman view over the Ātman view?

The idea of Atman tends to be defined as having three characteristics:

permanent
controllable
satisfactory

When it is any of those things, it can be seen as Atman.

In SN 22.59 the Buddha explains that neither form, feeling, determination and consciousness have those characteristics:

  Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus."

  "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?"
  — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful
  or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is
  impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be
  regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No,
  venerable sir."'

note: I've translated it as: "Unsatisfactory vs satisfactory"; the quoted text translated it as "Painful vs Pleasant" and I've also seen "stress-full vs stress-less." I hope the point is clear.

It's also something that becomes apparent after meditating and following the path, when the Buddha asks Annanda, what the 10 perceptions gained by mindfulness of in - and out-breathing are, he answers pertaining to non-self:

  "And what is the perception of not-self? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, aromas are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactile sensations are not-self; the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self.' Thus he remains focused on not-selfness with regard to the six inner & outer sense media. This is called the perception of not-self.

On a more secular note, Sam Harris, who has been inspired by Buddhism and tried meditation, talks about this realisation as well:

  Occasionally, a breakthrough did occur: In a moment of seeing, for instance, there would be pure seeing, and consciousness would appear momentarily free of any feeling to which the notion of a “self” could be attached. But then the experience would fade, and I couldn’t get back there at will. There was nothing to do but return to meditating dualistically on contents of consciousness, with self-transcendence as a distant goal.

I believe that those are the main argument in favour of the Anatman view:

1) understanding that experience is changing , uncontrollable and unsatisfactory

2) Seeing in meditation that when one is mindful, no sense of self arises.

thus concluding that there is nothing that one can say about:

"This is me, This is mine, I am this."


References to descriptions of the formless realms in the suttas (or other Theravada texts) For example in Wikipedia it mentions: "The inhabitants of these realms are possessed entirely of mind". Also, "They do not interact with the rest of the universe".
In "In the Buddha's Words" (Bhikkhu Bodhi) it mentions "The lifespans ascribed to these realms are
respectively 20,000; 40,000; 60,000; and 84,000 great eons".
I'm looking for that kind of descriptions of the formless realms but in the suttas (or other source Theravada texts).

...They enjoy it and like it and find it satisfying. If they’re set on that, committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of the dimension of infinite space. The lifespan of the gods of infinite space is twenty thousand eons.

...If they’re set on that, committed to it, and meditate on it often without losing it, when they die they’re reborn in the company of the gods of the dimension of infinite consciousness. The lifespan of the gods of infinite consciousness is forty thousand eons.

...The lifespan of the gods of nothingness is sixty thousand eons. ~~ AN 3.116 ~~


Discernment vs. judgement in the labeling meditation To watch the mind, as far as I understand, is to simply watch the mind without judging it. But there is a method, which teaches us to note sad when we are sad, dislike when we dislike something, happy when we are happy, etc..

How is this mental labeling different to judgemental mind?

Will this indirectly train someone's mind, to become more judgemental of oneself and others?

I guess the big difference between mentally noting vs judging what you are experiencing is the degree of objectivity. Noting helps you to perceive your experiences with clarity, which should in turn allow you to gain wisdom through insight into the nature of all experiences/phenomena. For example, if you are experiencing sadness and you note, "sad" you remain impartial. In this way, you clearly observe and experience the feeling of sadness. Your field of experiential perception remains unhindered by inner conflict (reacting to the sadness, rather than just noting it) and you are able to understand the ultimate reality of your sadness. This, applied to all experiences, should also allow you to develop equanimity, one of the seven factors of enlightenment.

Conversely, if you experience sadness and mentally oppose the sadness, you fail to remain objective through your experience and hinder your ability to perceive and learn about/come to understand your experience. This obviously prevents equanimity but, perhaps more importantly, prevents one from clear comprehension of events (such as a sad state of mind) and thus prevents insight into the nature of such events.

So, the "mental-labeling" technique, as described by the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, is actually intended (and more likely than not) to help one become LESS judgmental to oneself and others.

/\