Responsibility in Buddhism If nothing can be considered 'myself' or 'mine', if nothing is in my complete control (take volition for example), how can people be held responsible for their thoughts, words and deeds, if they are by definition not in charge?

Your question is a variation of the question, "if there is no self, then who is responsible for actions?"

The Buddha rubbished the notion that there is no self doing anything, in the Attakari Sutta:

  “Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There
  is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”
  (“Natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro.”)

  “I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How,
  indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself
  — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you
  think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or
  beginning an action?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings clearly
  discerned?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer.

  “What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion ... is
  there an element of effort ... is there an element of steadfastness
  ... is there an element of persistence ... is there an element of
  endeavoring?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings
  clearly discerned?”

  “Just so, Venerable Sir.”

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

There is a self (the self-doer), but this self is impermanent, conditioned and compounded. It arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates, and ceases when the five aggregates cease. By breaking down a violin to its constituent components, you cannot find something called music. Similarly, by breaking down the five aggregates, you cannot find anything called the self. The self, like music, depends on the inter-working of other components, that are themselves dependent on other things. The self, like music, is not non-existent. Please see this answer for more details.

There is such a thing as the concept of wholesome thinking in Buddhism. Being virtuous, one reaps material benefits (see Ittha Sutta) and is also lead towards enlightenment (see Kimattha Sutta).

So, how can a lay person cultivate a wholesome way of thinking that would lead him towards becoming virtuous? AN5.57 holds the answer:

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

And what about a noble disciple?

  “This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
  owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
  origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
  the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
  that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
  their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
  kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
  whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
  this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
  and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
  and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

By reflecting on the notion that all beings are owners of their kamma (and inherit the results), the noble disciple cultivates a wholesome thinking that results in renunciation.


How is the "manifestion" (pātubhāvo) of the earth element the arising (uppāda) of suffering? The translations of SN 26.9 sounds unusual to me; which are as follows:

Yo kho, bhikkhave, pathavīdhātuyā uppādo ṭhiti
abhinibbatti pātubhāvo … pe … jarāmaraṇassa  pātubhāvo; yo āpodhātuyā
… yo tejodhātuyā … yo vāyodhātuyā … yo ākāsadhātuyā … yo
viññāṇadhātuyā uppādo ṭhiti abhinibbatti pātubhāvo, dukkhasseso
uppādo, rogānaṃ ṭhiti, jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo. Yo ca kho, bhikkhave,
pathavīdhātuyā nirodho … pe … jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo; yo āpodhātuyā
nirodho … yo tejodhātuyā nirodho … yo vāyodhātuyā nirodho … yo
ākāsadhātuyā nirodho … yo viññāṇadhātuyā nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo,
dukkhasseso nirodho, rogānaṃ vūpasamo, jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo”ti.
Mendicants, the arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element is the arising of suffering, the continuation of diseases, and the manifestation of old age and death. The cessation of the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element is the cessation of suffering, the settling of diseases, and the ending of old age and death.
SN 26.9

Since the 2nd Noble Truth and Dependent Origination explain suffering arises due to craving, attachment & becoming, how does the "manifestation" of the mere physical elements, per the above translations, manifest as the arising of "suffering"?

The genius student can memorize and understand a big/maximum data each studying, so, the sutta is long. But, if the student is not too much smart, he can memorize and understand a little/minimum data each studying, so the teacher have to teach the sutta for him in short form and maybe incomplete paṭiccasamuppāda's process.

Because, in the oral study system, we memorize one sentence/paragraph (=each sutta) from the buddha or the tipitaka-memorizer (arahanta). Then we study/ask/practice/comprehension follow that memory, until we perfectly understand it (professional). If we still not enlighten after that. We will go to memorize the other lesson more, again. We will loop it until we are the tipitaka-memorizer, too. This is the tipitaka tradition. We still doing follow this tradition, for 2600 years.

So, it is already described itself, if you read the previous sutta. They were sequenced by paṭiccasamuppāda.

Let's see:

13.4.1 (30) Catusso — Four Elements = kevala(ssa) dukkhakkhandha(ssa) = rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda, upattibhava/jāti/jarā/maraṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.

13.4.2 (31)/13. 4. 3.(32) Pubbe — the satisfaction (assāda), danger(ādīnava) and the escape (nissaraṇa) on account of the earth element.

Assāda = 60 piyarūpa-sātarūpa, in saccapabba of Sutta. Dī. Ma. mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta, which are objects of taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda:

  Bodily phenomena in the world are pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.

Buddha said assāda as somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda in these 2nd and 3rd sutta, 13. 4. 2. (31)/13. 4. 3.(32):

  Whatever pleasantness and pleasure arises on account of the earth element, that is the satisfaction in the earth element.

So, above quote showed assāda as 60 piyarūpa-sātarūpa which come to salāyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, then let somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda arise, then let taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda arise.

But the way to escape "kevala(ssa) dukkhakkhandha(ssa) in paṭiccasamuppāda" showed  in these 2nd and 3rd sutta, 13. 4. 2. (31)/13. 4. 3.(32), too:

  “ That the earth element is impermanent, unpleasant and a changing thing is the danger (ādīnava) in the earth element. Taming the interest and greed for the earth element and dispelling the interest and greed for the earth element is the escape(nissaraṇa) from the earth element.

13.4.4 (33) Yo no cedaṃ –– If There Weren’t, is then if the practitioner can not realize the danger (ādīnava) in the earth element to escape (nissaraṇa) it, then there are the interest and greed (taṇhā/upādāna-paṭiccasamuppāda) which attaching somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda. (And that sukkha/somanassa-samphassaja-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda taking the earth element at kāya/mano-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda together with kāya/mano-samphassa-paṭiccasamuppāda as well. Also, that  kāya/mano-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda are rūpa/nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda, which is "mano pubbaṅgamādhammā".) So, buddha showed somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, taṇhā/upādāna-paṭiccasamuppāda, and upattibhava-paṭiccasamuppāda in 13. 4. 5. (34), 13. 4. 6. (35):

  “Bhikkhus, he who does not delight (taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda which attaching somanassa-vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda) in the earth element (mana-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda's object) does not delight in unpleasantness(kevala[ssa] dukkhakkhandha[ssa]). He that does not delight in unpleasantness, I say, is released from unpleasantness.

Then the buddha presented the effects, jāti/jarā/maraṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, of "he who does not delight in the earth element does not delight in unpleasantness. " from 13. 4. 5. (34), 13. 4. 6. (35) into 13. 4. 7. (36) Uppado — Arising:

  “Bhikkhus, the appearance(upādo=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), being (ṭhiti=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), arising (abhinibbatti=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda), and rebirth (pātubhāva=jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda) of the earth element is the appearance of unpleasantness, the continuance of ailments and the manifestation of decay and death.

Please notice, abhinibbatti and pātubhāva are used as the synonym of jāti-dukkha-ariyasacca to describe "jāti" in saccapabba of Sutta. Dī. Ma. Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta, too. So, they are connect together.


Does truth of emptiness imply that nothing existent ever ends? Can emptiness be understood as a conservation law? In other words, is it true that to posit a true end to any existent is to necessarily presuppose that it truly existed before it ended? Another way of saying it, to posit that with death and the break up of the body that a person truly ended is to presuppose that the person truly existed in the body beforehand?

Doesn't viewing the true destruction of a chariot presuppose that the chariot truly existed in the first place?

Doesn't viewing the true destruction of the body presuppose that the body truly existed in the first place?

Can an illusion ever truly end? Or does illusion necessarily give birth to subsequent moments of new illusion?

To my understanding a person is an impermanent ever changing phenomenon. That the person is like an illusion that continues from moment to moment in this life. If that is so, then how is death different? Doesn't supposing a true end for an illusion-like phenomenon necessarily imply that someone has mistaken the illusion for something real? Is this one consequence of the equation emptiness === form?

Like the first verse of Nagarjuna's Madhyamikakarika, Prasangika refute the four extremes of production. Nagarjuna says:

  Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a
  cause, does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

What is produced is not truly produced (in the sense that it is not inherently produced), and what ceases does not truly cease (in the sense that it does not inherently cease). There is (conventional) production from another, but not inherent (or true) production from another... and there is no production from itself, be it truly/ultimately or conventionality.

You say:

  To my understanding a person is an impermanent ever changing
  phenomenon. That the person is like an illusion that continues from
  moment to moment in this life. If that is so, then how is death
  different?

It's a great question. Death is different in that the mental continuum separates from the body. There is no such separation before death (except in rare cases of powa etc.) That is how death is different from the constant changes that occur in life. Even though no aggregate stays the same from one moment to the next, there is usually no such separation (of the mind stream from the body) before death.

In addition, since the aggregates belong to the same continuum, we can impute the same name on them although they have changed. It is what we do when we look a picture of us at age 10 and say "Look! It's me when I was ten."


Can rebirth-linking conciousness (patisandhi-citta) actually be rooted in knowledge? With dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) underlying much of the doctrinal aspects of the Buddha's teaching - and all formation having concomitance to avijja as condition, is it correct to assume that all mundane consciousness regardless whether they are wholesome or unwholesome in root occur with ignorance as a condition.

Specifically with regards to rebirth-linking consciousness. Is birth not dependent on the existence clinging and the desire of being (due to ignorance)? If truly a rebirth-consciousness is rooted in knowledge - wouldn't the momentary access and concentration suppress ones desire to cling and thereby not result in a rebirth-consciousness at the cessation of a beings bhavanga if the final consciousness is truly rooted in knowledge.

Follow on Question:

With regards to the arising of great wholesome cittas associated with knowledge and one of its great resultant consciousness performing the four functions that leads to a triple rooted rebirth consciousness: does this mean that the tihetuka beings born of this superior rebirth consciousness is at the point of (re)birth sotapanna. If a rebirth-linking root of knowledge is perquisite for the development of absorption (as stated in the Abhidhamma), can most worldings even cultivate samadhi much less investigate and eventually realize direct knowledge

The first link of paṭiccasamuppāda is “avijjā paccayā saṅkhārā” (conditioned by ignorance, formations arise). Analyzing this from the perspective of the Abhidhamma:

Ignorance is moha concomitant with the 12 akusala cittas
Formations is cetanā (volition) in the 12 akusala cittas, cetanā in the 8 kāmāvacara kusala cittas, cetanā in the 5 rūpavacara kusala cittas and cetanā in the 5 arūpavacara kusala cittas (these are the kamma that have the potential to create rebirth, both unwholesome kamma and wholesome kamma)

The second link of paṭiccasamuppāda is “saṅkhārā paccayā viññāṇaṃ” (conditioned by formations, consciousness arise). Analyzing this from the perspective of the Abhidhamma:

Formations are defined as part of the first link
Consciousness is the 32 lokiya vipāka cittas (sense-consciousness, receiving, investigating and all the life-continuum cittas); does not include the kamma-creating cittas, the supramundane cittas or the functional cittas

So your assumption that "all mundane consciousness regardless whether they are wholesome or unwholesome in root occur with ignorance as a condition" is not correct.

You are correct that birth is dependent on the existence clinging and the desire of being (due to ignorance). However, this does not imply that the specific kamma-creating citta which generates rebirth into an existence contains a root of ignorance. If this were true, then there could only be rebirth in the Woeful Planes.

The fetters, the things that bind one to saṃsāra are latent and do not arise in every citta.

Rebirth-consciousness is a life-continuum citta. Jhānic states are kamma-creating cittas (not life-continuum).

@Amansa, you seem to be conflating things from the macro-view (paṭiccasamuppāda) with things from the microscopic-view (Abhidhamma) and this may be the source of your confusion. I suggest that you start with reading the Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (page 295 - 298 analyze paṭiccasamuppāda).

Follow on Answer

What causes rebirth with three wholesome roots? Superior three-rooted wholesome kamma (See page 214 of Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma). Three-rooted wholesome kamma arises when a wholesome intention arises together with understanding. Superior means supported before and after by other wholesome kamma.

If I offer food to a monk, that is wholesome. If I offer food with an understanding that this is a meritorious deed, then this is three-rooted. If I offer food reluctantly, or regret later, then this is inferior (not qualifying as superior). If I rejoice before and after the offering and the offering is done with understanding then superior three-rooted wholesome kamma is created.

If this superior three-rooted wholesome kamma plays the role of rebirth-linking at the end of my existence, then the next life will have a life-continuum citta containing three wholesome roots (maybe human, perhaps even deva). A being whose life-continuum citta has three roots has the potential to attain jhāna and sainthood. A being whose life-continuum citta does lacks three roots cannot attain jhāna or sainthood in that lifetime.

Having a life-continuum with three roots is a minimum requirement for jhāna and sainthood. Actually attaining jhāna requires developing the accumulations to temporarily supress the five hindrances. Actually attaining sainthood requires developing the accumulations of the pārami.

In my opinion, a being whose life-continuum citta has three roots is likely to be “spiritually inclined”. In other words, they want to develop the accumulations. In my opinion, a being whose life-continuum citta does lacks three roots is unlikely to be “spiritually inclined”, more likely to be hedonistic, so they don’t have the motivation to develop accumulations.

I believe that there are many, many humans whose life-continuum citta has three roots. Based on the fact that you are asking these questions, I suspect that your life-continuum citta has three roots. But having a life-continuum citta with three roots is only the starting point. Spiritual development is necessary to build accumulations for jhāna or sainthood (and this takes a lot of training).


Do Buddhists put any stock in feng shui, particularly crystals? My question relates to the view of and position on feng shui harmony by Buddhist traditions in general, and specifically in gemstones (which some believe have physical/metaphysical properties). How do Buddhists regard feng shui; at any rate, practically speaking, would a belief in the Chinese philosophical system by the meditator  potentially enhance his or her meditation practice? My understanding is that Buddhism is not a belief system but rather an education, and I lean towards an integral philosophy which integrates in a pragmatic way the best each culture and tradition has to offer, so I would appreciate answers without a binary, dualistic perspective, unless of course Buddhists are wholly antagonistic towards feng shui, then I can accept that as accurate.

My question relates to the view of and position on feng shui harmony by Buddhist traditions in general

On a first impression of feng shui (which I know almost nothing), they seem unrelated.

As far as it concern disposition of things in space through some kind of theory and not with ethical and religious doctrines, there is no relation. In that respect, feng shui is unrelate to Buddhism as much as architecture is unrelated to it.

In other words, the metaphysical aspects of feng shui and its theory being correct or not will only provide one with a correct or incorrect understanding of its domain (as much as a physics theory will only provide one with a correct or incorrect understanding of its domain).

  and specifically in gemstones (which some believe have physical/metaphysical properties).

That might be more controversial, as might be seen as lucky charm or similar.

The problem with lucky amulets, I think, is that they add to the explanation of why something -- otherwise unrelated -- good or bad happened: say, because one was wearing (or not) such amulet. Therefore, wearing an amulet start to become a religious practice, something one does for his or her good fortune and spiritual well being. Then, it slowly obscures the ethical nature of the mind (specifically, of intention), and the laws of kamma, ultimately substituting real practices (meditation, study, striving for good/virtuous behavior) for mere usage of amulets -- it is so much easier after all.

As a religious practice, then, it might figure as Wrong View, specifically "attachment to rites and rituals". In Buddhism, the rituals, carry its own usefulness and practical purposes, but have no spiritual value by themselves. However, attachment to them is considered very harmful to oneself, likely because rituals may end up substituting the real practice  (by looking like it's something important), and because clinging to it opens the door to all sorts of bad mental qualities.

Now, reading about that feng shui energy, Qi, I found the following:

  The retention or dissipation of qi is believed to affect the health, wealth, energy level, luck and many other aspects of the occupants of the space.

The claim to affect physical health might be OK (and we are all too familiar with invisible things to the eye that actually exist and causes harm) but luck, as I discussed above, might be problematic.

  How do Buddhists regard feng shui;

I imagine chinese buddhists probably dig it.

  at any rate, practically speaking, would a belief in the Chinese philosophical system by the meditator potentially enhance his or her meditation practice?

"enhance meditation practice", in Buddhism, is understood as something that is effective in bringing one closer to permanent destruction of suffering, to nirvana. This may involve, for instance, attaining absorption concentration (jhana), but ultimately is concerned with:

understanding and seeing the rising and cessation of body/materiality, feeling, mind and dhammas.
penetrating the three marks
eradicating the ten fetters (belief in a self, doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings, attachment to rites and rituals, sensual desire, ill will, lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth,
lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm,
conceit, restlessness, ignorance [of the four noble truths])

  My understanding is that Buddhism is not a belief system but rather an education, and I lean towards an integral philosophy which integrates in a pragmatic way the best each culture and tradition has to offer, so I would appreciate answers without a binary, dualistic perspective, unless of course Buddhists are wholly antagonistic towards feng shui, then I can accept that as accurate

While Buddhism doesn't fit well as a "belief" (in general, it does not promote faith and the act of believing to any distinguished role as in other religions, though some schools assign more importance to it), there are beliefs, however provisional. Its virtue lies not in absence or presence of beliefs, but in instrumenting one with skills to investigate and see clearly beyond deceitful appearances. Thus, the full responsibility to not be fooled by one's mind and the world rests entirely in oneself.


What is Nirvana? What is the practice leading to ultimate happiness in the light of one's own experience? What is the path or practice leading to ultimate happiness in the light of one's own practice which has lead you to achieving true happiness?

I will jump into the fire of people's objections to posit that there is no achieving of true happiness. My intention is to reveal the truth that does exist beyond the bounds of our human expectation of ending suffering and attaining some new state or place where happiness is forever.
Zen does not look to attain or achieve a state but to awake to what is here. The Buddha replied when asked who he was: Awake. Any path can lead to awakening. The Buddha clearly defined the Middle Way, but it is not the only way. Even Buddhists who followed false teachers found awakening.
The intention is the key. If we intend to promote ourselves and our elusive and illusive personal self, we are bound to fail.
So to relate this to the Buddha's message here are the principles of the eight-fold path. Right intent or intention is here among them.
http://www.buddha101.com/p_path.htm

  The eightfold path is Right Understanding, Right Intent, Right Speech,
  Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and
  Right Concentration.

Note that right does not mean right as opposed to wrong. Right can mean when things go in the flow or without resistance (same page further down)

  The meaning of Right has several aspects, and includes an ethical, and
  a balanced, or middle way. When things go "right", we often experience
  a special feeling inside which confirms that this is the correct
  decision or action.

Further down the same page about intent

  Right Intent:

  The second step on the Eightfold Path is Right Intent. This is the
  step where we become committed to the path. Right Understanding shows
  us what life really is and what life’s problems are composed of, Right
  Intent urges us to decide what our heart wants.

  Right Intent must come from the heart and involves recognising the
  equality of all life and compassion for all that life, beginning with
  yourself.

  Right Intent means persistence and a passion for the journey. Setting
  out to climb a high mountain means you must understand the lay of the
  land and the pitfalls, the other team members, and the equipment you
  need. This is similar to Right Understanding. But you will only climb
  the mountain if you really want to and have a passion for the climb.
  This is Right Intent. The mountain we climb here is our journey though
  life.

  To summarise, Right Understanding will eliminate ignorance. With Right
  Intent and correct understanding, we then remove desire, which in turn
  causes the suffering defined in the Four Noble Truths.

I rest here and leave it to those interested to find any other quotes of interest on that page. Thank you for the question.


Does the universe ever end? I have meditated and come to the conclusion that the world never ends, that conciousness goes on infinitely. This was ok when I felt I had free will, when I believed I was helping other people, when I thought that even what was apparently nonsense had purpose and when I felt like I could at least to some degree affect the feelings I have and those of others; to make things better for everyone.

But sometimes I feel like I can't, like everything is predestined and there's no control over anything. Like we're all trapped in a giant hamster wheel that runs around and around forever with no exit.

What is the correct way to view this problem?

(Also, you probably need an 'eternal return' tag.)

There were fourteen questions to which Buddha remained silent. The universe is eternal,  The universe is not eternal.. were two of them. Read the following sutta.
MN 63 - Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya
One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the Buddha and demanded that He explain these questions to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follow if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe, whether it is eternal or not eternal etc. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings.
Another Sutta to read in this context is AN 4.45  -  Rohitassa Sutta: To Rohitassa

Once I was a seer named Rohitassa, a student of Bhoja, a powerful skywalker. My speed was as fast as that of a strong archer—well trained, a practiced hand, a practiced sharpshooter—shooting a light arrow across the shadow of a palmyra tree. My stride stretched as far as the east sea is from the west. To me, endowed with such speed, such a stride, there came the desire: ‘I will go traveling to the end of the cosmos.’ I—with a one-hundred year life, a one-hundred year span—spent one hundred years traveling—apart from the time spent on eating, drinking, chewing & tasting, urinating & defecating, and sleeping to fight off weariness—but without reaching the end of the cosmos I died along the way. So … ‘I tell you, friend, that it isn’t possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one doesn’t take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.’”
[When this was said, the Blessed One responded:] "In this very one-fathom long body along with its perceptions and thoughts, do I proclaim the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world."
When the Buddha uses the term “world” or “cosmos” (loka), his primary meaning is the cosmos as experienced in terms of the six senses. As with the other factors of dependent co-arising, there is no need to study the cosmos “out there” behind our experience of the senses. It is enough simply to understand the cosmos as directly experienced for that experience to be brought to an end.


Did Buddha Return to Extreme Asceticism? Subject sounds simple, but let me explain why I'm asking. So Gautama joined the ascetic lifestyle and lived it to the most extreme. Then it dawned on him that he would eventually die never finding out the cause/solution to suffering.

Accounts I've seen then vary: He then got up and went begging in a village, other accounts say a farm boy with cattle found him and offered him food, and then there's that story of Sujata with the rice milk which Siddhartha accepted. Going a little further on the last account, he divided the rice milk into 49 potions for the next 49 days, after which he got up and went to the Bodhi Tree where he attained enlightenment. Usually the different stories I read have one or a mix of these events.

Now here's where I'm confused. By this point, the Future Buddha had tried extreme mortification, realized that wasn't working, returned to eating to sustain his life, went under the Bodhi Tree, then makes the vow to not leave again until he finds the answer, EVEN til his body is dried and shriveled. How does the Middle Way operate in this part of the story? Isn't he just returning to that previous practice he renounced? What am I missing here?

I suppose my analysis of Buddha's life is probably disorganized, but there are certain events and the order in which I find them that I cannot reconcile and make sense in my mind. If anyone can better explain to me this, that would be most appreciated.

PS
I've asked this elsewhere, and am getting some help, I'm just expanding the search.

By this point, the Future Buddha had tried extreme mortification, realized that wasn't working, returned to eating to sustain his life, went under the Bodhi Tree, then makes the vow to not leave again until he finds the answer, EVEN til his body is dried and shriveled.

The ascetic practices he did were the methods he thought would lead to some spiritual attainment. He thought that not eating and making his body weak could have some benefit.

Going to the Bodhi tree and not leaving is not a method. He didn't think that the act of not leaving the shades of a certain tree was a particularly interesting practice on its own merit.

The vow is interpreted not as asceticism, but as resolution or commitment. Whether he really meant that he would die under the tree we can't tell, but by the time he took food, it's clear that he was giving up the idea of trying to inflict pain in his body as a means to spiritual progress. Finally, it's clear that the practices he undertook under the tree were not ascetic in nature.


How does practicing restraint and performing actions of merit purify the mind? I just don't understand how morally good actions, can reliably change the state of mind positively over time, in the case where the mind state is negative. For example, let's say there was a hypothetical girl who wanted to purify her mind, but was always agitated, resentful and frustrated. How would practicing the five precepts, make her calm and peaceful?

Well, it seems obvious to me now, but it wasn't always, that our immoral impulsive behavior, both of possessive type and of repulsive type, comes from emotional hangups, so giving in to those hangups feeds them, or creates circumstances that feed them indirectly. So, if this immoral behavior comes from the mind, then by managing behavior we learn to control what?

Anyone who tried the precepts knows they are impossible to keep without paying attention to one's mind and emotions. Precepts force us to control our external behavior, which requires controlling our mind, that's it. No magic.


Is there any kind of stress and suffering the Buddhas medicine would not help? Often my person comes accross certain "disclaimers" in regard of the use of Dhamma-Practice, the medicine of the Buddha, his therapy, saying, like just read again here in an answer:

  "The Buddha did not deal with this kind of suffering. Modern mindfulness centers have therapists who understand this kind of suffering."

So coming from such kind of predication, my person would like to ask:

What is the fundation and/or the possible reason of such a claim?
What kind of suffering it should include? and
Where to find possible references in the teachings of the Buddha for such?
Are there any instances where either he or his disciples (with approve) encouraged to seek for diverent ways to cure certain suffering?

In the Virecana (Tikicchakka) Sutta (AN10.108):

  "Monks, doctors give a purgative for warding off diseases caused by
  bile, diseases caused by phlegm, diseases caused by the internal wind
  property. There is a purging there; I don't say that there's not, but
  it sometimes succeeds and sometimes fails. So I will teach you the
  noble purgative that always succeeds and never fails, a purgative
  whereby beings subject to birth are freed from birth; beings subject
  to aging are freed from aging; beings subject to death are freed from
  death; beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair
  are freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair. Listen &
  pay close attention. I will speak."

The Buddha claimed above to be a doctor who treats the disease of suffering of samsara and all its symptoms: birth, death, aging, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair.

From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

  "A nurse endowed with five qualities is fit to tend to the sick: He is
  competent at mixing medicine; he knows what is amenable or unamenable
  to the patient's cure, taking away things that are unamenable and
  bringing things that are amenable; he is motivated by thoughts of good
  will, not by material gain; he does not get disgusted at cleaning up
  excrement, urine, saliva, or vomit; and he is competent at
  instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the sick person at the
  proper occasions with a talk on Dhamma. A nurse endowed with these
  five qualities is fit to tend to the sick."

He treats the general disease of the suffering of samsara, but not the specific diseases of the body like diabetes or malaria or even neuropsychological diseases.

So, if you need specialized treatment for a specific disease, you should see the doctor who is specialized in that area. The Vinaya quote above implies that the nurse should know how to mix medicines and be competent to treat the disease in question.

In this question, you can see that sometimes apparent psychological disorders actually originate from physical ailments. That's why medical doctors are still needed to treat them. Buddhist teachings do not treat all diseases because that is not their objective.

This answer is also relevant here. In DN16, the Buddha experienced dysentery:

  And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

So, although he had attained Nibbana, he could still experience dysentery and all its pains. However, he was unperturbed by it because suffering had indeed ended for him due to him having attained Nibbana. And after his passing away, suffering does not continue in a new life.

So what does this show? The Buddha's cure or medicine of Nibbana ends the suffering of samsara, but it does not end dysentery as a physical disease. For curing dysentery, please see a medical doctor. To cure all suffering permanently through Nibbana, please see the Buddha's teachings (which is same as seeing Dr. Buddha according to Vakkali Sutta).

The medical doctor only treats a temporary disease. If the treatment is successful, you get cured, but you could still get another disease later. But that's the point, for neuropsychological diseases and other medical diseases, you should get treated by a doctor, but to end all suffering permanently, you should seek Buddha's treatment. If you are suffering from severe pains, it's very hard to meditate isn't it? It's easier to get a doctor to treat it first, then you can meditate better.


Mahayana - Advaita - Theravada realisations Mahayana claims that the realisation of Nirvana in Theravada is dual while Mahayana is non dual.

I have read that Advaita (the universal consciousness theory) is the same as Mahayana.

Does that mean that Mahayana claims that the universe is unreal, and that Everything is consciousness -- which means that the universe (and the time and space existing in it) is illusory, and exists only from the Point of view of the separate self but not in reality?
Or are they not as extreme as Advaita, but instead only claims that time do not exist (except) in our minds -- but Everything is consciousness -- or is there difference between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta?

I want to learn both paths and then use both for my benefit. From what I have read the realisations are not the same and I would really like to understand the both realisations.

Thank you for your patience and your energy

Mahayana claims that the realisation of Nirvana in Theravada is dual while Mahayana is non dual.

In Theravada, Nirvana is defined as the ending of greed, hatred & delusion or the destruction of craving. In Theravada, in Nirvana, all phenomena, internal & external, including Nirvana itself, are viewed as without an inherent "self". In Theravada, in Nirvana, everything, including Nirvana itself, is viewed as mere "elements" ("dhatu"). In follows notions of "dual" & "non-dual" are not relevant to Theravada Nirvana. Theravada Nirvana acknowledges there are "internal" ("ajjhattika") and "external" ("bāhirā") phenomena (refer MN 148, for example). MN 1, for example, clearly says "oneness" ("ekatta") is not Nibbana.

  I have read that Advaita (the universal consciousness theory) is the same as Mahayana.

"Mahayana" is the "Great Vehicle"; formulating teachings for the largest audience of people of different dispositions. Mahayana took many Hindu notions, such as "advaita" & various deities, and transformed them into so-called "Buddhist" & "Vajrayana" doctrines of "non-duality" & "Bodhisattvas" (such as Tara, Yellow Jambala, Medicine Buddha, Avalokiteśvara, etc) to appeal to a wider audience of people.

In Hinduism, the word "advaita" means "non-secondness" and has its roots in "idealist monism" (refer to link). Mahayana, including influenced by Chinese Taosim, adapted "advaita" to be "non-duality" or "oneness", such as in Hsin Hsin Ming sutra.

  Does that mean that Mahayana claims that the universe is unreal, and that Everything is consciousness --

This might definitely be the case in the Yogachara school. Apart from that; best to ask the Mahayana gurus such as Andrei Volkov. As an adherent of Pali Buddhism, I do not waste my time with Mahayana, such as with Narjaguna & The Heart Sutra, which I regard as having wrong views.


Is it only humans who can understand Buddhism? If Buddhism is a general theory of understanding the cycle of attachments, is it possible that any other 'wise' enough creature could achieve the same thing?

In the Visuddhimagga English translation,  a creature who can understand this theory is called 'a wise man'.

In the Visuddhimagga Sinhalese version,  a creature who can understand this theory is called as a creature with 'Trihethuka Pratisandi'. i.e. Tri (three) + hethuka (caused by factors) + Pratisandi (birth): 'A birth caused by three factors' (Pali: tihetukapa.tisandhi).

Actually, the restriction has nothing to do with being a human; it has, as the Visuddhimagga notes, everything to do with the rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi). Nor does it relate to "understanding Buddhism" per se, but rather attainment of samatha jhana and nibbana. Only a being who is reborn with all three of the wholesome roots - non-delusion (amoha), non-greed (alobha), and non-anger (adosa) can attain absorption (jhana), the path (magga) or fruition (phala).

Types of beings that may be born with these three roots are humans, angels (deva) and gods (brahma). Animals, ghosts and hell beings are not.

For more information, here's a good summary of the types of rebirth based on number of roots:

http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/abhidhamma-in-daily-life_2/d/doc3181.html


Lack of Grasping of the Object of Meditation I asked a question previously about the object of meditation being faint. Perhaps I'd like to reformulate my question more specifically as I still encounter these kinds of problems, and I will provide the sensations I experience.

When trying to meditate on the breath at the aperture of the nostrils, the breath is not present and cannot be felt, no matter how much I try to arouse attention. It could only be slightly felt at the level of the abdomen. When I try to visualize any object, this object is usually extremely faint and transparent almost. I have the impression my mental agitation is feeble, but also that the clarity of my mind is very dull.

I'm wondering what could be the causes of this. Is it a too weak concentration? Too weak mindfulness? Is it a kind of lethargy and dullness?

How can I remedy to this? Of the possible solutions I've read about I understand arousing attention (which I have difficulty doing), applying certain antidotes as the perception of light or enlivening the mind, or perhaps some other solution I don't know about. Perhaps changing the object? I'm actually unsure of any of these solutions.

Greatest thanks.

Meditation is non-doing.  However, you must prepare and devote time and space to this "non-doing."  That preparation is infact an act of doing in an effort to partake in an act of non-doing.  What is in the process of being done has a goal.  The goal is to partake in an endeavor of what is not being done.  Meditation by it's very nature creates a paradox for the participant.  The answer is to relinquish the paradox.  How does one do this ?  The act, or non-act if you will, must at first be recognizable.  Then there is a calling to fuse the act and the participant into one state of beingness. How does one transmute?  If you were to focus on the 5 strengths that might be of some use.  Conviction, persistence,mindfulness, concentration and discernment can create a looping effect in the mind whereby the one meditating can constantly reflect on how each strength effects not only the current state of mind but also the relation of the 5 strengths themselves.   The distraction of the mind becomes the essence of the meditation.  In order to break through the thraldom of the senses and the inertia of conceptualized thought patterns the mind needs to be distracted.  To have a goal in meditating is not the answer.  To be able to transmute the energy of who and what is currently proclivitating in and around us into what is our true nature is meditation.  I hope this helps.


Can contemplation of the four noble truths lead to penetration of them? Like can  you gain insight into the four  noble truths by contemplating them? In this sutta the Buddha says that "your duty is the contemplation"  and then goes into the four noble truths http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.048.than.html.

Contemplate here doesn't mean thinking about it intellectually. Sure we all have to think about it first but real insight happens when you realise it through direct experience.You have to experience the four noble truth not churn it through your head back and forth trying to get a sense of it.This is like contemplating how a mango tastes a hundred times Instead of just picking up the fruit and tasting it.


How to stop reverberations running in mind? And why they are in the first place? Like, there is song which I don't want, constantly reverberating in my mind. I've two questions.

Why it I reverberating in first place?
How to get rid of it?

Not an answer from texts, but from my own practice: what I noticed is that certain songs start playing in my head when my "subconscious" mind (which is pretty conscious these days, but usually sits in the background) wants to communicate some concern or sentiment to the rest of "me". So it starts playing some song with a certain message in its lyrics. I swear I'm not making this up, noticed many times. And most of the time the message is pretty obvious and is related to some suppressed concern that bothers me.

In order to stop it playing, I just have to stop ignoring it and acknowledge receiving the message. Think about the issue. Then the song stops.


What is the motivation for the list of 5 deadly sins? I'm particularly interested in if there is any evidence in the sutras (or commentaries or anything old) that explains this peculiar list of transgressions (the Ānantarika-karma):

patricide
matricide
killing an arhat
injuring a Buddha
creating schism in the saṅgha.

1 & 2 & 3 are already against the first precept. 3 & 4 are hard to do even if you wanted to for lack of suitable arahats and Buddhas to kill or injure.

I've come to suspect that this is just a formula for expressing that schism is really bad. But this formula appears in many places, often without much other reference to schism. (for example ordination,

It is said that our current situation is the result of our karma collected over countless of lifetimes. That means that many of old-forgotten deeds sowed the seeds which ripened only after many lifetimes.

The 5 deadly sins are listed separately to highlight the fact the the results of those action will be immediate - killing a parent will definitely prevent one from reaching an arhat state in this life and the person will surely be reborn in a lower realm straight after death and will spend a long time over there. (see for example third  and fourth reference).

It has been already stated in one question that in order to attain enlightenment one does not need to purify all the bad Karma. Indeed, one of the greatest Yogis of all time, Milarepa, before finding his spiritual teacher killed 35 people and some sources even claim that all of them were his relatives. Regardless of those deeds, with the help of his guru he achieved full enlightenment in the same lifetime. If he had killed his parent though, this would have never taken place.


How to prolong the abiding in a Brahmavihara? Buddha has encouraged the practisioners to abide in the four Brahmaviharas.(Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upeksha)
I have experience of Upeksha or Equianimity. After doing sitting meditation both Zazen and Anapana Sati my mind automatically enters into feeling of Equanimity albeit for small duration of 10-15 minutes, I feel calm and tranquil.
However, when I feel Equanimity it seems like its impermenant, the mind changes after sometime. So how do I prolong this feeling of Equanimity?

I've practiced metta by wishing for all beings to be well & happy, happy in the highest sense of the word in particular and thus utterly victorious. I don't do it blandly, i tend to do it in verse and most enthusiasticly.
Basically i hold that the Metta Sutta isn't just a poem but is actually a guided meditation and i train analogically;

This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace: ... https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html

Abhidhamma has this analysis;

And how does a monk dwell with mind accompanied by loving-kindness, suffusing one direction? Just as (he), seeing, may love a lovely, pleasant person; in the same way he suffuses all beings with loving-kindness.
Therein what is loving-kindness? That which in beings is loving, act of loving-kindness, state of loving-kindness, loving-kindness that is mental freedom (from ill-will). This is called loving-kindness. https://suttacentral.net/vb

When settled well in the first jhana i stop contemplating and will rather just sit mindful.

If even for the time of a finger snap, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu pursues a mind of goodwill, he is called a bhikkhu who is not devoid of jhāna, who complies with the Teacher's teaching, who acts according to his instruction, and who does not eat the country’s almsfood in vain. How much more, then, those who practice it frequently! https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/01/an01-053.html

As for developing mudita i do it analogically to metta in order to rejoice in the progress of others towards the goal of awakening & good fortunes but mostly towards liberation.
I focus on the good deeds & qualities of the past, those in the here & now and those to be inevitably performed & cultivated in the future.
When cultivating metta i wish for all beings to be successful and when cultivating mudita i rejoice in their progression towards the goal.

And how does a monk dwell with mind accompanied by altruistic joy, suffusing one direction? Just as (he), seeing, may have altruistic joy for a lovely, pleasant person; in the same way he suffuses all beings with altruistic joy.
Therein what is altruistic joy? That which in beings is altruistic joy, act of altruistic joy, state of altruistic joy, altruistic joy that is mental freedom (from jealousy). This is called altruistic joy.

Ie i will think about the beings in various states and that even the hungry ghosts and beings in hell will inevitably leap onward, having payed their debt they too will be merit-makers, of them currently paying their debt & getting reformed and of them having been merit makers in the past.
I think about the virtue of other beings and it is pleasant to think about so one can be happy on that basis. The simile i would give is if you have a child learning to walk and you rejoice in his progress towards the goal.
Similarly to metta i do it well into the first jhana.
Analogically, compassion i practice by perceiving the failures & stumbling of beings along the path to success & victory, the difficulty & crookedness of the path so hard to walk and the road so unforgiving and paved with pain.

And how does a monk dwell with mind accompanied by compassion, suffusing one direction? Just as (he), seeing, may have compassion for a miserable, wicked person; in the same way he suffuses all beings with compassion.
Therein what is compassion? That which in beings is compassion, being compassionate, state of being compassionate, compassion that is mental freedom (from cruelty). This is called compassion.

Compassion is probably the easiest to understand but it is difficult to grasp what is suffering in definitive sense of sankhara-dukkhata;

Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering.[1] What three? Suffering caused by pain,[2] suffering caused by the formations (or conditioned existence),[3] suffering due to change.[4] It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated..." https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.165.wlsh.html
“Just as even a tiny bit of urine, or spit, or pus, or blood still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger snap.” https://suttacentral.net/an1.316-332/en/sujato

When we see the suffering of those who are dear we are moved to help however we can, in particular by helping ourselves in order to help others and to help others in order to help ourselves.
On equanimity

And how does a monk dwell with mind accompanied by equanimity, suffusing one direction? Just as (he) seeing, may have equanimity for a person who is neither pleasant nor unpleasant; in the same way he suffuses all beings with equanimity.
Therein what is equanimity? That which in beings is equanimity, act of equanimity, state of equanimity, equanimity that is mental freedom (from distraction). This is called equanimity.

Equanimity imo is best practiced by seeing others as yourself by focusing on beings being comprised of the 6 elements, with mind-element being illuminous but generally stained by defilements and vision obstructed by dust in the eyes. When one understands the doctrine of self as being untrue, the perception of equanimity is quite easy to attain by practicing in tune with external elements (see mn 62).

"Rahula, develop the meditation in tune with earth. For when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind. Just as when people throw what is clean or unclean on the earth — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the earth is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable & disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.062.than.html

This too one can do well into the first jhana by contemplating and when settled into one can switch to anapanasati to go up and to the fourth jhana based on the air element.
As to how to make the pleasant abidings last longer, it is a trial & error thing. Check this sutta (towards the end) http://www.yellowrobe.com/component/content/article/120-majjhima-nikaya/302-upakkilesa-sutta-imperfections.html


Can a bad karma happen just only with a thought without any physical or verbal action? Do we collect bad karma just only with an instant thought without any physical action or verbal action?

Yes, from multiple suttas we see that karma can be done by way of the mind and intentional thoughts only. In fact, according to the first verses of the Dhammapada, the mind precedes all mental states. It's more important than words and actions.
From Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.

From Mahakammavibhanga Sutta:

After doing an intentional deed to be experienced as pleasant by way
of body, speech, or mind, one feels pleasure. After doing an
intentional deed to be experienced as painful by way of body, speech,
or mind, one feels pain. After doing an intentional deed to be
experienced as neutral by way of body, speech, or mind, one feels
neutral.”

From Bhumija Sutta:

"When there is a body, pleasure & pain arise internally with bodily
intention as the cause; or when there is speech, pleasure & pain arise
internally with verbal intention as the cause; or when there is
intellect, pleasure & pain arise internally with intellectual
intention as the cause.

From Kamma Sutta:

And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with
speech, or with the intellect. This is called new kamma."


Retaining courage during mediation Everyone in this little community is awesome, and the people contributing have helped me in the path tremendously. Thank you.

My question is this, how can a person remain calm and courageous during sessions? When meditating, I've been reaching very intense states that become hard to handle. I've been getting the sensation that I am melting into this state of pure love. I get scared because it's just so unbelievably intense, and feel that the fear that arises is a hindrance. Have any of you experienced this? If so, what did you change that allowed you to handle it?

The fear is instinctual (due to the ego fading/dissolving/melting somewhat). This instinctual fear can only be endured with composure & with the full acknowledgment it will pass. After the mind has experienced the impermanence of the fear a few times and is fully confident the fear will pass, the fear will no longer be a hindrance because it will be easily passed through.

If the mind thinks about/rationalizes the fear too much, the concentration will be lost. You have answered your own question, since the only real method is composure & courage.

From the Pali suttas:

  What if I, in whatever state I'm in when fear & terror come to me, were to subdue that fear & terror in that very state?' So when fear &
  terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I would not stand
  or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth until I had
  subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was
  standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would keep standing
  until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
  while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand up or walk. I would
  keep sitting until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
  terror came to me while I was lying down, I would not sit up or stand
  or walk. I would keep lying down until I had subdued that fear &
  terror.

  Bhaya-bherava Sutta: Fear & Terror


Why are Buddhist concepts so difficult? Why are Buddhist concepts so challenging for people to understand? What do people who  understand know that  average people don't know? What are some of the barriers to the understanding of Dharma? What facilitates understanding of Dharma?

They both "are" and "are not" difficult to understand?

For example I just told my mum what the four or five precept are, starting with "no killing" -- because when we met in the morning we agreed that it had been a full moon overnight, and I mentioned it's a Buddhist holiday world-wide on full moon days, and she asked how Buddhist celebrate -- so I explained the five and the eight precepts, that monks have 227 rules, that lay people practice 5 all the time, and practice 8 on holy days, to be like monks -- some lay people practice the 8 all the time, many practice just on holy days (like, Christians go to church on Sundays, while Christian priests go to church every day).

She said she wouldn't be able to remember 227 rules -- I told her that people are trained, before and after ordination! -- and that for lay people, there are only 5.

The 5 are easy to remember! "No killing", "no lying", "no sexual misconduct", etc. I think those are easy to understand, someone will do that anyway even without being Buddhist.

And after that: generosity, kindness, reserve, maybe prudence, good social behaviour. Not rocket science, amirite?

And then the noble truths and so on.

I find two or three big difficulties. Two are linguistic:

Some people or texts use words like "mindfulness" without explaining them, like I'm supposed to know already what they're talking about, but perhaps the word means something different to each person. Normally when you learn a word like "cat" or "dog" it might be with reference to an example (of a cat or dog) -- demonstrating "mindfulness" isn't so easy, it's a bit intangible/abstract or requiring definition, and/or examples.
My mum at least won't put up with Pali. Couldn't you explain it in English? :-) Not that she's never learned another language, but it isn't easy (to do so) and why should she.

The third of course are the real difficulties, i.e. what you might call Mara or something ...

... which I'd also know as: ignorance, foolishness, lack of discipline, bad habits, rationalisation ('voice of temptation'), and what not -- projection, identification -- denial -- and what might be understood as logical mistakes such false dilemmas, faulty generalisation. Also lack of energy, lack of joy, and so on ...

... these (like "the seven factors of enlightenment" and so on) are, kind of, the diagnoses or prescriptions of the Buddhist teaching. I guess they're "difficult" in the same way as it's "difficult" to be doctor! Different beings, seemingly with different problems ... and the general advice doesn't always work for them, and "concepts" can be difficult to convey (perhaps especially at moments when people think they have real problems).

We're not all trying to be full-time doctors though, maybe, so, perhaps it's not that difficult?

Or maybe it doesn't seem as difficult as it used to, when you're relatively well, "not so bad".

I'm a bit mindful of this advice I got from MatthewMartin, the last time I asked about this topic -- How to explain what Buddhism is? -- one bit of it was,

  If someone really has no problems, that's great, they are Enlightened! The historical Buddha (According to Stephen Batchelor's retelling) said as much on his death bed, when he asked if anyone had any questions left, no one did, so he said, well you all must be enlightened then. People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).

You may or may not agree, I think it helps me to reconcile the difficult Buddhist concepts with the daily life of people who aren't overtly Buddhist.


Keep motivation to stick on one meditation practice :Ven. Mahasi Saydaw Practice : Ven .Mahasi Sayadaw

I have been practicing meditation " in daily life " for a week . I felt more relaxed and also noticed  having a thought of "intention"  before most of my actions of body .

But now I feel that I'm losing the interest of doing mediation practice but to go back again on reading or listing to Dhamma talks .( mostly due to having the thought of finding a "better practice" )

And now I'm feeling the same delusion I had before and stress .

I would like to to know how could I get my motivation back to stick with one method of meditation practice ?

Some advice by Ajaan Fuang here:

  § Many were the times when people would tell Ajaan Fuang that — with
  all the work and responsibilities in their lives — they had no time to
  meditate. And many were the times he'd respond, "And you think you'll
  have time after you're dead?"

  § "If you're single-minded about whatever you think of doing, you're
  sure to succeed."

  § "You can't plan the way your practice is going to go. The mind has
  its own steps and stages, and you have to let the practice follow in
  line with them. That's the only way you'll get genuine results.
  Otherwise you'll turn into a half-baked arahant."

  § "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."

  § "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."

  § A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."

  § The seamstress, after practicing meditation with Ajaan Fuang for
  several months, told him that her mind seemed more of a mess than it
  was before she began meditating. "Of course it does," he told her.
  "It's like your house. If you polish the floor every day, you won't be
  able to stand the least little bit of dust on it. The cleaner the
  house, the more easily you'll see the dirt. If you don't keep
  polishing the mind, you can let it go out and sleep in the mud without
  any qualms at all. But once you get it to sleep on a polished floor,
  then if there's even a speck of dust, you'll have to sweep it away.
  You won't be able to stand the mess."


Why does Milinda step into Nagasena's trap? Referring to the discussion between Milinda and Nagasena:

Why King Milinda does not consider all together - pole, axle, wheels etc. - his chariot? Normally one defines a chariot a means for transportation consisting of pole, axle, wheels, etc. This would be the correct answer to Nagasena's question what the chariot is.

Instead, when pressed by Nagasena he names chariot only a designation, a description, an appellation, a name. That is, Milinda rejects the correct answer. Now Nagasena has an easy time to defend the Buddhist principle of anatman.

If I remember correctly, the traditional interpretation of this is that a pile of components on the ground is not the chariot either.

I suppose in modern language we could say that "Chariot" is a designation for the function that depends on the right configuration AND on the external supporting factors like the road, the horses, the gravity, the driver, the passengers etc. Plus, if individual components of the chariot are replaced with functionally equivalent but non-identical ones - the new chariot is neither the same nor different. Furthermore, the wheels etc. are only designations for things that can perform function of a wheel etc. - not to those particular wheels.

So the functional nature of the chariot arises from a number of functional conditions coming together - for which "the chariot" is only a label.

A similar illustration can be found in Vajira Sutta:

  So you believe there's "a being"?
  -- this is a view of Mara.
  In a pile of mere components (sankhara)
  no any such "being"'s found.

  Just as they say 'chariot'
  of an assemblage of parts,
  So they'll call "a being"
  the mere heap of components (skandha).

The key word here is "an assemblage" or in another translation "when the parts are rightly set". So that's why they are saying that the chariot is not all its parts together either - because the parts by themselves do not produce a function (of a chariot, a being etc), the right combination (of conditions) does.

But on the other hand, there is no "secret sauce" either - nothing apart from the factors and components that would set things in motion:

(from Viticcha Jataka)

  The Ascetic tried to catch him in his words: "What is the Ganges? Is the sand the Ganges? Is the water the Ganges? Is the hither bank the Ganges? Is the further bank the Ganges?"

  But the future Buddha said to him: "If you take exception to the water, the sand, the hither bank, the further bank, where can you find any Ganges River?"

The "neither found in any individual part, NOR in the pile of parts, NOR apart from the parts" thesis is probably constructed after canonical Buddha's line in which he shows how such phenomenon as the "Tathagata" can neither be found in the five skandhas ("piles") nor apart from them:

(From SA 105)

  [The Buddha] asked again: "How is it, Seniya, is bodily form the Tathāgata?"

  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha asked again]: "Is feeling … perception … formations …
  consciousness the Tathāgata?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata distinct from
  bodily form? [32b] Is the Tathāgata distinct from feeling … perception
  … formations … consciousness?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata in bodily form?
  Is the Tathāgata in feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?"

  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is bodily form in the Tathāgata?
  Is feeling … perception … formations … consciousness in the Tathāgata?"

  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."
  [The Buddha] asked again: "Seniya, is the Tathāgata without bodily
  form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?"
  [Seniya] replied: "No, Blessed One."

In my understanding, all of this is a finger trying to point out the fact that reality underlying conventional expression can never be exhaustively described, that our attempts to represent the reality is always an exercise in isolating individual factors and reassembling them into a model, like projecting a multidimensional figure on a two-dimensional surface - with a label (nama) stamped on top.

From taking our models seriously ("reifying" them) comes trying to make them our base, leaning on them, identifying with them, attaching to them - but because our models are merely designations for the fluctuating soup of factors - to assume them to be stable is an inherently faulty assumption - and from this comes dukkha. When we see reality as reality and models as models, we can stop confusing the two, stop getting attached to models, stop trying to establish our base in a model - so from this right vision (of the ineffable reality and the modeling activity) comes baselessness and from this baselessness comes cessation of nutrition of old dukkha and non-production of new dukkha.


How can one overcome agitation developed by not sitting regularly? This one is for the lay meditators.

Although i think there is a component of sloth and torpor involved in the situation. There are other factors too. At times for me breakage of a sila makes it hard for me to sit. And if this cycle is not broken it can take days to come to mindset to start sitting again and to convince myself it's ok to start from scratch.

Does anyone else encounter this problem and how do you deal with it?

The effects of meditation are similar to the effects of brushing your teeth: If you don't brush your teeth for one day nothing will happen but if you do for one week... you will suffer the consequences in the dentist, so what I'm saying is that what you lose for not meditating will have a price in the future specially when you face a bad situation, stress and aversion will come stronger, you are losing a precious opportunity of improving awareness and becoming a better and stronger human being.

Make it a priority, meditate for 10 minutes if you don't have much time, but do not let lazyness wins this battle, do it for yourself and your own well being!


jhānas, Zen, and how to practice concentration meditation I've read about the jhānas which one can experience from concentration (samatha) meditation. I have been practicing some form of mindfulness, breathing meditation, but have not experienced a state of absorption that is characteristic of the jhānas. I know that the jhānas cannot be experienced only by reading about them, however, the insight from my meditation practice alone has not brought me to them.

From my perspective as a novice practitioner, it makes sense to look to the Zen (derived from the word dhyāna) branch of Buddhism for guidance on the subject of meditation:

  In the process of deepening meditation, one can roughly identify three
  distinct stages: the stage of concentration, the stage of meditation,
  and the stage of absorption.

  This dualistic relationship is broken gradually as the practitioner
  moves into the stage of meditation. The ego-conscious activity is
  gradually lessened, and the barriers it set up for itself will
  gradually be removed. When the practitioner enters the stage of
  absorption, the dualistic framing of the mind will be removed such
  that the mind starts structuring itself non-dualistically. There will
  be no separation or distancing between an object of the mind and the
  activity of the mind itself.

I don't have the budget for every book on Zen Buddhism, but I have read all the Zen books on Kindle Unlimited (the content is mostly history, terminology, and sitting accessories). What books are there that go into depth on Zen/samatha meditation practice?

A true Jhana master, Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw:

Breakthrough in
SAMATHA MEDITATION
Knowing and Seeing (4th revised edition)

And if you can purchase this book, I highly recommend it:

Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw

It's written by actual students of the Venerable Pa Auk, who actually succeeded in developing the Jhanas: very clear and concise, with practical advice.


Why is the Buddha described as trackless? In the Dhammapada, within the Buddhavagga section, the Buddha is described as being trackless.

  By what track can you trace that trackless Buddha of limitless range,
  whose victory nothing can undo, whom none of the vanquished
  defilements can ever pursue?

  By what track can you trace that trackless Buddha of limitless range,
  in whom exists no longer, the entangling and embroiling craving that
  perpetuates becoming?

I find the notion of the Buddha being trackless very evocative. But at the same time I'm not sure exactly what it points to. Can someone help me unpack that a little. What qualities of the Buddha does trackless point to?

This is actually a mistranslation of the verse; Buddhist Legends by Burlingame is a bit better:

The Buddha, unlimited in power, the trackless.
By what track can you lead him?

In order to understand this verse, it might help to see the context; the Buddha is using poetry and imagery. Here's the Pali leading up to the verses in the commentary (it's about Mara's daughters):

puna māradhītaro “uccāvacā kho purisānaṃ adhippāyā, kesañci kumārikāsu pemaṃ hoti, kesañci paṭhamavaye ṭhitāsu, kesañci majjhimavaye ṭhitāsu, kesañci pacchimavaye ṭhitāsu, nānappakārehi taṃ palobhessāmā”ti ekekā kumārikavaṇṇādivasena sataṃ sataṃ attabhāve abhinimminitvā kumāriyo, avijātā, sakiṃ vijātā, duvijātā, majjhimitthiyo, mahallakitthiyo ca hutvā chakkhattuṃ bhagavantaṃ upasaṅkamitvā “pāde te, samaṇa, paricāremā”ti āhaṃsu.
tampi bhagavā na manasākāsi yathā taṃ anuttare upadhisaṅkhaye vimuttoti. atha satthā ettakenapi tā anugacchantiyo “apetha, kiṃ disvā evaṃ vāyamatha, evarūpaṃ nāma vītarāgānaṃ purato kātuṃ na vaṭṭati. tathāgatassa pana rāgādayo pahīnā. kena taṃ kāraṇena attano vasaṃ nessathā”ti vatvā imā gāthā abhāsi —

Burlingame translates this as follows:

Said the daughters of Māra again, “Many and various are the tastes of men. Some like maidens, others like women in the prime of life, others like women who have reached middle life, while still others like women who have passed middle life. We will tempt him in various forms.” So one after another, they assumed the forms of women of various ages, creating by supernatural power each a hundred female forms. And in the guise of maidens, women who had not yet given birth to a child, women who had given birth to one child, women who had given birth to two children, women who had reached middle life, and women who had reached old age, they approached the Exalted One six times and said to him, “Monk, we would be your humble slaves.”
But neither did the Exalted One pay any attention to that, but remained free, even as though the elements of being had been utterly destroyed. [197] But when, after that, they did not retire, the Teacher said to them, “Depart; what do you see, that you strive thus? Such actions as these should be performed before those who have not rid themselves of the lusts and other evil passions. The Tathāgata, however, has rid himself of the lusts and other evil passions. Why will ye try to bring me into your control?” So saying, he pronounced the following Stanzas,

The Buddha's answer in the verses includes the following statement:

taṃ buddhamanantagocaraṃ,
apadaṃ kena padena nessatha.

The actual literal translation is:

That Buddha whose pasture is limitless;
pathless, by which path will you lead?

The line is in regards to the imagery of a creature not limited by fences, thus with unlimited gocara (lit. pasture). Such a creature cannot be led anywhere, since it is not possible to contain them.
So, the mistranslations are as follows:
gocara should be "pasture", not "range" (it loses the imagery, if nothing else) and certainly not "power"
nessatha should be "lead", not "trace"

So, what is the actual meaning?
The commentary says:

kena padenāti yassa hi rāgapadādīsu ekapadampi atthi, taṃ tumhe tena padena nessatha. buddhassa pana ekapadampi natthi, taṃ apadaṃ buddhaṃ tumhe kena padena nessatha.
By what path - whereas those for whom there is even one path out of [all path] starting with the path of lust, them you may lead by that path. But for the Buddha there is not even one path; that pathless Buddha - by what path will you lead?

The meaning is clear; while it is possible to lead ordinary worldlings on by means of the carrot or the stick of defilements, there is no leading on of enlightened beings who have no such defilements.
A creature with a defined pasture can be led because of fences and ropes. A creature with a limitless pasture (like the Buddha) cannot be so led. The idea is then of not being drawn by defilements and thus with no definable path that mara can limit or goad one down.
Ultimately, it's just poetry (ancient poetry at that), and should not be taken literally. A proper understanding of the use of the word pada might require a knowledge of Maghadese colloquialisms 2500 years ago.


Which aggregate appears before...perception or feeling? Do you first feel the touch (pleasant, unpleasant or indifferent) or do you first identify it? Or is it all at the same time?
Is the order of aggregates always the same for all the senses?

The same terms are often used at a "microscopic-view" level, at a "day-to-day-view" level and at a "macro-view". This leads to a lot of confusion.

According to the Abhidhamma, feeling / sensation / experience (vedanā) and perception / recognition (saññā) arise simultaneously in every Thought Moment (cittakhaṇa). The Abhidhamma looks at things at a "microscopic-view" level.

The Suttas (MN 18 is an example) describe how sensing leads to thinking. At this "day-to-day-view" level, vedanā (part of the sensing process that is the same for everybody) leads to saññā (start of the thinking process; a subjective process influenced by latent defilements leading to distortion of perception).

The aggregates are a way of describing what constitutes a being (what a being is or what a being does). This is the "macro-view" level that describes the nature of existence. The aggregates do not have a sequence (they are not describing a process), so vedanākkhanda (feeling aggregate) and saññākkhanda (perception aggregate) arise simultaneously.


Why do people pretend or show off? Why do people pretend or show off? For example:

Show off their new girl friend

Show off their new job, on Facebook and their friends circle

Show off a new dress

Show off a new iPhone
"show off" -- i.e. "boastfully display one's abilities or accomplishments

"Envy feeling" --
is this ego?

Puthujjanas love 2 things

sensuality
being told that they are good people, precisely for craving sensuality. If nobody tells them they are virtuous for craving sensuality, they build a little story in their head where they are good people for craving sensuality.

puthujjanas who crave sensuality will tell other puthujjanas who have good items and fame that they are good people.  Everybody wins, according to those people.

It gets even worse. The western humanists even say that envy of wealth will make people compete, for jobs for instance, and by making people compete, they will produce and buy good quality goods and services but for cheap, as long as the people who run their republic will break monopolies. Those people call this progress.

When those people want to feel compassionate, they will mix their cravings for sensuality with some social fight they found. For instance, they love to organize concerts where they will listen to songs for several hours, exactly like when they want to be purely entertained, but in order to feel righteous (and not selfish like when they feel when they get entertained), they say that they organize this entertainment not be  entertained but to ''make society aware of'', or ''in the name of'', or ''denounce'' some situation that they call ''unfair'' like some misery of some people living far away from them (like in third world countries).
This is the best life for puthujjanas: they get all the entertainment they crave and they feel like good people making a change in society, when all they do is listening to music then going back home...

Puthujjanas who break the 5 precepts do exactly the same thing.


Examples of early Buddhist art I was reading that early Buddhist art doesn't actually depict the Buddha. Instead it shows an empty space, a dharma wheel or a footprint where you would expect the Buddha to be shown. It was only later (maybe 1st century CE?) that the Buddha was represented in art. I would be really interested to see any examples of this kind of art. Could anyone post some links or the images themselves of this kind of early Buddhist art.

One of the oldest Buddhist stone structures in India is the Great Stupa at Sanchi, and it has a lot of stone reliefs that have this kind of thing. Here's one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanchi#mediaviewer/File:Sanchi_Carving.jpg


Most frequent realms for post-human rebirth I read the following extract from the book "The Workings
of Kamma", produced by the Theravada monastery "Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw"

  Rebirth in the human world is always because of wholesome kamma. None-
  theless, among the great majority, the uneducated ordinary people, conscious-
  ness is rooted predominantly in greed, hatred, and delusion. Only occasionally do
  wholesome consciousnesses arise. And among the uneducated ordinary people,
  delusion is very deep. That is why, when human beings pass away, they are al-
  most always reborn either in hell, the ghost world, or the animal world.

I have several problem accepting these views. Of course, what i am about to say is very subjective and i certainly do not claim to be an enlightened being and know everything.

The first is that i believe that there is a powerful continuity between rebirths. So my personnal and subjective understanding is that when we look at a person, we can easily guess what type of person he was in a previous birth. Most importantly, the level of virtue, intelligence, strong tendencies, evolve very little from life to life for most people as they don't engage in serious self-study or self -improvement and indulge in their pre-existing tendencies. So the current level of consciousness exhibited by ordinary people should reflect their previous level of consciousness in their previous existences. Which means that human birth doesn't require more positive kamma than what most people exhibit. Some of them might have produced better karmas in the past. Some of them might have produced worst karma in the past. But overall, we should grossly be able to determine the level of virtue necessary for human rebirth by observing humans.
Otherwise, this makes no sense, at least to me.

Also, animals are described as experiencing mostly greed, hatred, delusion. I think this is seriously off.
Animals are instinct driven and regularly obey their instincts, but many of them are often peaceful and detached. Would you say a wild horse experiment greed, hatred, fear on a constant basis? Yes they sometimes do and act like animals are supposed to. But this is a minor part of their lives. Many animals are peaceful and worry-free, even though their lives are harsh and short. Turtles are another exemple of a peaceful animal which can live longer than humans.

Would experienced buddhists agree with the passage quoted, and if yes, what arguments would they provide to change my analysis?

Then the Exalted One,
taking up a little dust
on the tip of his finger-nail,
said to the monks:

"Now what think ye, monks?

Which is the greater,
this little dust I have taken up
on the tip of my finger-nail,
or this mighty earth?"

"Greater, lord, is this mighty earth.

Exceeding small
is this little dust taken up
on the tip of the Exalted One's fingernail:
it cannot be reckoned,
it cannot be compared therewith.

It does not come to the merest fraction
of a part of it
when set beside the mighty earth, -
this little dust taken up
on the tip of the Exalted One's finger-nail."

"Just so, monks,
few are those beings that are reborn among men:
more numerous are these beings
that are reborn other than men.

What is the cause of that?

It is through not seeing four Ariyan truths.

What four?

The Ariyan truth of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the arising of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the ceasing of Ill,
the Ariyan truth of the practice that leads to the ceasing of Ill.

Wherefore, monks, an effort must be made to realize:

'This is Ill'.

'This is the arising of Ill.'

'This is the ceasing of Ill.'

This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of Ill.'"

—http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.56.061-070.wood.pts.htm

and the suttas that follow.


Scientific Problem solving and Wu Wei I am a mathematician, and I often find myself obsessing over the problems that I'm trying to solve.

While I have made incredible progress over the last 6 months with my practice. I find myself suffering, sometimes for a few days in a row, because of my obsessive thinking towards the problem. It's as if my entire consciousness became the problem and that I could not find any relief until it was fixed.

I enjoy getting consumed by what I do, I also know that being consumed AND remaining grounded is much more powerful. Any tip? / similar experiences?

This is something I face too. I work in the IT industry building automation systems.

This is my own opinion on the matter. I think most people, including me bias toward a belief that being consumed or obsessed by something (some call it passion) gives great outcomes. This is correct. However; I believe far more intelligent people exist who are able to achieve much greater results while remaining detached. How this can be achieved is a tricky subject and might be out of scope of this forum.

For example, the Buddha himself knows all sciences that should be known. Ven. Sariputta was highly intelligent. All of them practiced detachment and still remained sharp and more intelligent.

So, maybe practicing dhamma might help us.


What are: Lamrim, Dzogchen, Mahamudra Could someone provide a brief (good-SE-answer-size) description of the three terms: Lamrim, Dzogchen, and Mahamudra. Specifically, are they different examples of one particular thing, are they progressive or parallel stages, etc. Also, if there was a way to "map" them against  other traditions (e.g. "Lamrim is similar to the Visuddhimagga" etc) that would useful. I've read about all three using the usual sources (Wikipedia etc) but it's like wading through mud trying to get a clear picture.

Lamrim is a genre. It is a genre of spiritual literature that gives a thorough overview of the whole teaching, methodically progressing from somewhat crude and primitive concepts of basic levels, to more sophisticated and nuanced perspectives of the higher levels. Each school usually has their favorite lamrim text or two (one for beginning students, one for advanced students and teachers), but if you read them side by side they are all pretty similar in content and sequence, the biggest difference being that of depth and tone. It is not uncommon for a lamrim text to take form of a condensed poem for easy memorization, which then requires a commentary text to hydrate the meaning back to a comprehensible shape.

In Theravada, the idea of stages of the path is not very developed. I'm not talking about levels of mastery of one technique like the 16 stages of Vipassana (there are such texts in Tibetan Buddhism as well, but they are not lamrim) but rather the epic levels that almost completely supersede each other's frameworks, such that the concepts very important at one level look rather naive at subsequent levels.

It is hard to call Visuddhimagga a lamrim text, for two reasons. First, because its scope is limited to what in a lamrim text would be about one sixth of the full path. Second, because it delves very deep into topics that in Tibetan schools usually belong in specialized meditation texts.

The lamrim progression is roughly:

"folk Buddhism", with emphasis on faith and basic morality, six worlds, karma
the kind of stuff that's studied in Theravada: 4 noble truths, samatha, vipassana etc.
mahayana stuff: bodhisattvas, paramitas
hardcore madhyamika philosophy
the (lower) tantra levels. Yidam generation and energy yoga.
mahamudra and dzogchen
dzogchen is sometimes separated into its own level above mahamudra

Mahamudra is an advanced-level set of teachings in New Translation schools (Kagyu, Sakya and Gelug). In simple words we could say Mahamudra is the level where we finally get direct experience of what Buddhism is actually about, with no beating around the bush like on the previous levels. That said, for but the most talented students Mahamudra is incomprehensible without the foundation of the previous levels, plus practicing it requires a kind of deep emotional stability that can only be developed through the previous levels.

Dzogchen is a very advanced-level set of teachings in the Old Translation school (Nyingma). In some sense it is very similar to Mahamudra, but it tends to be even more abstract. This is because Dzogchen speaks entirely from the perspective of enlightened Buddha, unlike Mahamudra which still has residual flavor of the student attitude.

If you need a parallel with Theravada, I suppose we could roughly put Mahamudra at the level of Fourth Jhana and Dzogchen beyond Fourth Jhana. I guess I could also say that the practice of Mahamudra and especially Dzogchen is not that dissimilar from Zen although the style is obviously rather different.


Time and duration to meditate I think I somewhere read that the Buddha said that when you meditate (on breath) for 30 minutes in the morning and in the evening, you will be accompanied by happiness and peace throughout the day. Is that true and if yes, can you tell me the sutra? Thank you!

There are three considerations: getting into meditation, establishing connection with (whatever it's called), and maintaining connection.

First, to get into meditation you need to be careful not to scare yourself. If you start too rough on yourself you may end up secretly hating it. So all my teachers always said, start gentle and enjoy, little by little. Maybe 15 mins at a time, once a day. Then maybe 20.

Second, to establish connection with (I still don't know what it's called, but you'll know it once you get there), you need to have a good long meditation session. Maybe 90 minutes. Something like this. This is how long it takes to actually get deep. You don't need to have every meditation session be that long, only when you really feel like it. But it is important to do it a few times, until you catch the right feeling (state? mood?)

Then, once you have it, and feel it remain with you even in postmeditation, you need to maintain it. This typically takes about 30 mins twice a day. Or 45-60 mins once in the morning. Something like this.

These are my numbers. Everyone is different, so I'm sure a bunch of people here will have different opinions. But here it is anyway.


Is there a harmful side to mindfulness as it is practiced in Western materialistic/capitalistic cultures? Is there a harmful side to mindfulness as it is practiced in Western materialistic/capitalistic cultures?

Clearly the modern mindfulness movement has been very successful, but I'm wondering if that's at the expense of losing its spiritual core. And it concerns me that what we are left with is just another kind of narcissistic solipsistic selfishness. Is there any validity in my concerns, or am I worrying about nothing?

The Mindfulness practice that is taught in a secular fashion in the West is based on the Buddhist Satipaṭṭāna-vipassanā practices, but it is a bit different. For one, in Buddhism, vipassnā is meant to be practiced within a certain framework of Buddhist thought and forms only a small part of the overall practice. Second, the "nonjudgemental awareness" you find in secular Mindfulness is something you won't find in the Buddhist Satipaṭṭāna practice. In the discourses the practitioner is instructed direct the mind away from unskillful states and direct the mind towards skillful mental states, so there's definitely an evaluation going on. See Bhikkhu Analayo's "Satipaṭṭāna: The Direct Path to Liberation" text for an in-depth discussion on this.

As a result of the above, the experiences of Mindfulness practitioners can only be loosely connected to what we find in the Buddhist texts. In the discourses, the awareness of impermanence is said to lead to this:

“Bhikkhus, when the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated, it eliminates all sensual lust, it eliminates all lust for existence, it eliminates all ignorance, it uproots all conceit ‘I am.’" - SN22.102

Buddhist meditators who practice is within the traditional framework certainly experiences these things (it takes a good deal of concentration - i.e. calming of the mind - to get to this point), but do Mindfulness practitioners do as well? And if they do, is that really what they hoped to get out of it?

Most practitioners of Mindfulness do it with the expectation of receiving benefits for their everyday lives. But in Buddhism Satipaṭṭāna practice has usually been the domain of monks and nuns living an ascetic lifestyle. The texts never claim, to my knowledge, that it would make a person more ready to go through the hustle and bustle of a daily layperson's life.

According to Guy Armstrong, a meditation teacher at Spirit Rock, for a while he found that could not relate at all to the Buddhist texts with regard to this meditation practice. But later after his practice deepened and his emotions stabilized, he realized that he was practicing for "emotional healing" but the Buddhist texts were not aimed at that purpose.

So in summary, the secular Mindfulness practice taught in the West today, while having origins in Buddhism, is a 1)slightly different practice and 2)aimed at a different purpose.


Is there a fate worse than oblivion? Is there a fate worse than oblivion?

To forget, to be forgotten is there  … Chant for anti-nothingless?

The opportunity afforded by human life is rare and precious. To embrace oblivion as a human would be...sad.

SN56.47

  “Mendicants, suppose a person was to throw a yoke with a single hole into the ocean. And there was a one-eyed turtle who popped up once every hundred years.
  What do you think, mendicants?
  Would that one-eyed turtle, popping up once every hundred years, still poke its neck through the hole in that yoke?”

  “Only after a very long time, sir, if ever.”

  “That one-eyed turtle would poke its neck through the hole in that yoke sooner than a fool who has fallen to the underworld would be reborn as a human being, I say.

Also see DN23 on Nihilism:

  Nihilism

  Seated to one side, the chieftain Pāyāsi said to Venerable Kassapa the Prince:
  “Master Kassapa, this is my doctrine and view:
  ‘There’s no afterlife. No beings are reborn spontaneously. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds.’”

  “Well, chieftain, I’ve never seen or heard of anyone holding such a doctrine or view.

  For how on earth can anyone say such a thing?


How to get rid of "Ego" I have a Girlfriend that I met few years back. She loves me a lot,she is quite brilliant from her childhood, and now she is working in a big firm. I am working in a smaller firm than her. When we were in college, it seems we will not fight ever, but after we got passed and she got placed we are having a lot of fight. She sometimes says some bad words to me, that i can't handle.But i don't want to fight anymore, but I think I've ego problem. Every time i think not to fight but finally we ended up with big fight. What are the practical measures in Buddhism to get rid of such ego inside one's inside. Thank you.

More than ego, it could be the high level of stress involved in working for a big company.

In any case, Marananussati meditation would be a good start for both of you.

  "The disciple who devotes himself to this contemplation of death is
  always vigilant, takes no delight in any form of existence, gives up
  hankering after life, censures evil doing, is free from craving as
  regards the requisites of life, his perception of impermanence becomes
  established, he realizes the painful and soulless nature of existence
  and at the moment of death he is devoid of fear, and remains mindful
  and self-possessed. Finally, if in this present life he fails to
  attain to Nibbana, upon the dissolution of the body he is bound for a
  happy destiny."   -Visuddhimagga

Another reason could be the wanting to control each other. Have a cordial discussion with her and come to a solid understanding of each other's expectations. As long as you two don't exceed that framework, don't try to control each other too much.

Come to an agreement on how to resolve issues. Make a determination with her to always use kind words and wisdom to find a solution rather than disrespectful words and emotional thoughts.