The Final Moment of the Buddha's Realization “Siddhartha Gotama sat for one last time under the pipul tree with the adiṭṭhāna that he would not get up till he became realized. He battled the beautiful as well as the ugly and fearful illusions of Māra successfully that night and at the same time had very profound insights into Reality, the final one being that into paticcasamuppāda which destroyed the last vestiges of avijjā and Gotama became the Buddha, the Tathāgata, ‘Thus Gone’.”
It was a momentous event!
I want to understand this profound moment and, therefore, have some questions:

What happened to Gotama when he became the Buddha? Of course, as Buddhists we understand that there was no self at all to begin with, but that was not experientially realized till asmi māna, one of the last fetters, dissolved. So, Gotama did not realize nibbāna because that would mean that his ‘I-am-ness’, his māna, continued into nibbāna, which is unacceptable. Should we say instead that ‘there was realization’, an impersonal phenomenon, as the asmi-māna vanished? Could we say that this realization entailed an ontological shift from the puny, illusory self to the unconditioned Nibbāna? But then wouldn’t that still be some kind of eternalism?

Or:

Did Gotama, the conditioned, illusory self ‘die’ at the time of his realization and the nāma- rūpa, that it once was, continued by the sheer force of its unspent past karma which on exhaustion then led to Parinibbāna of this psycho-physical being? Was the Buddha this nāma- rūpa that, metaphorically speaking, ‘translated’ the unconditioned Reality for puthujjana like us and made it possible for us to tread the path for its realization?  But then what happened at Parinibbāna? What remained? Nothing? Doesn’t that sound like annihilationism?

Or:

Did at Parinibbāna, with the extinguishing of the final vestiges of conditioned being, the Unconditioned shine in its brilliant, impersonal glory? Beyond Being and Non-being? Beyond anything that can ever be understood? Or would that be mere linguistic gymnastics?

I want to understand what actually happened!

Your question somehow seems to superimpose onto Buddhism the Hindu Advaitin idea of an illusory self merging into God the Ultimate Reality, except that instead of God, you have Nibbana. Buddhism is different.
Eternalism and annihilationism
There is no eternal self. That would be eternalism. If we associate the self with the mental idea of Nibbana, or eternal consciousness or God or Ultimate Reality etc., that would be eternalism, a false view. In MN 38, we read that Sati made this mistake of associating consciousness with the self and assuming it to be eternal or unconditioned.
It is also wrong to say that there is no self at all, or that the self gets destroyed at death or at Nibbana. That would be annihilationism.
Quote from the Acela Sutta (This comes from here but the full text can be found here).

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" (S.
XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

According to the Attakari Sutta, it also doesn't make sense to say that there is no self-doer at all. It is obvious that you can will your hands and legs to move and they will move.
What is the self?
The self is just an idea of the mind that is dependently originated based on conditions and is impermanent. The "birth" (jāti) nidana of dependent origination is the birth of the idea of the self. Snp 4.14 calls this the thought "I am the thinker". This mental idea of the self is reborn from moment to moment i.e. it's changing dependent on conditions.
In the Vina Sutta, we read the analogy of the lute, where different parts of the lute work together to create music. But if you take the lute apart into pieces, you cannot find music. Similarly, the mental idea of the self is constructed by the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations, by the process of dependent origination. If you take them apart, you cannot find the self. Music here refers to the self (atta), which is what becoming (bhava) and birth (jāti) is about.
According to the Khemaka Sutta, even a stream enterer already fully understands this (i.e. no longer has self-view), but he still has conceit (the self-habit or self-obsession). He KNOWS that "I am the body" or "the body belongs to me" are false views, yet he still FEELS that "I am the body" or "the body belongs to me". That's the difference between self-view and self-habit. Please also see this answer.
In fact, the stream enterer still has seven of the ten fetters. The non-returner would still have all the higher fetters, namely, desire for material existence, desire for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness and ignorance.
What is Nibbana?
Next, what exactly is Nibbana? It's not an Ultimate Reality or Truth or God.
Nibbana is a mental object to be experienced by the mind. It is that which is experienced by the mind when it is free from defilements.
From this answer, we read:

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
it.

From AN 9.34:

Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, Nibbana is bliss!
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since
nothing is felt?”
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s
blissful about it.

Final moment of realization
So, what happened at the final moment of the Buddha's realization?
From MN 36:

“When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid
of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the destruction of the
taints. I directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is suffering’;…‘This
is the origin of suffering’;…‘This is the cessation of
suffering’;…‘This is the way leading to the cessation of
suffering’;…‘These are the taints’;…‘This is the origin of the
taints’;…‘This is the cessation of the taints’;…‘This is the way
leading to the cessation of the taints.’
“When I knew and saw thus, my mind was liberated from the taint of
sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of
ignorance. When it was liberated there came the knowledge: ‘It is
liberated.’ I directly knew: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has
been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming
to any state of being.’
“This was the third true knowledge attained by me in the last watch of
the night. Ignorance was banished and true knowledge arose, darkness
was banished and light arose, as happens in one who abides diligent,
ardent, and resolute. But such pleasant feeling that arose in me did
not invade my mind and remain.

It's basically the destruction of all ten fetters, the last being ignorance. Ignorance is uprooted by enlightenment, the complete understanding of how it all works. Also uprooted are the underlying tendencies, which are deep-seated habits, hard to be removed.
The buddha became free from rebirth (of the mental idea of the self) and also free from death, i.e. the death of the self. To be deathless, i.e. to not experience the death of the self, because the mental idea of the self is no longer constructed by dependent origination.
When ignorance has been destroyed, craving (a habit of reification) no longer arises from feeling. Without craving, there is no clinging, becoming and birth of the mental idea of the self.
From Khemaka Sutta, we read that the cleaned cloth of the non-returner still has the scent of the self that needs to be finally smoked out, by complete enlightenment:

"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a
washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then
rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean &
spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye
or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it
away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual
scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.
"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

Parinibbana
Then what is Parinibbana?
Well, there is such a thing as clinging aggregates. According to this answer, for a living arahant, when ignorance is uprooted, this breaks dependent origination, that ends craving, clinging and suffering. In the chain of dependent origination, clinging aggregates would also cease.
The living arahant according to Iti 44, attained nibbana with fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa), meaning the non-clinging aggregates are still functioning like glowing embers, although the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased.
Parinibbana is when the non-clinging aggregates stop functioning. This is nibbana without fuel remaining (anupadisesa) according to Iti 44.
For a living arahant, the music has stopped, but the lute remains. One day, even that will be destroyed. The five clinging aggregates is like a lute vibrating with music, while the five aggregates not subject to clinging is like a silent peaceful lute.
Although I said music, it's more like noise. When the noise stops, you have peace. That's the living arahant's mentally cognized peace of nibbana.
What happens after Parinibbana?
From Yamaka Sutta:

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."
"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling...
Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which
is inconstant is stressful (suffering). That which is stressful has
ceased and gone to its end."

Change of perspective
A change of perspective is needed i.e. rebirth, birth, death, and parinibbana should not be linked to any permanent consciousness or identity. The first noble truth is that there is suffering. It's not there is my suffering or your suffering but simply there is suffering. This also relates to anatta (not self).
Also, think about the core teaching, sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self. There is no permanent consciousness or identity or individuality or self in all phenomena.
There is suffering, and it arises because of the mental idea of the self, that arises because the mental idea of the self was constructed by the mind-body phenomena (the five aggregates) through the process of dependent origination, due to ignorance.
Suffering is connected to the mental idea of the self through papanca (reification). This is explained in this answer.
Craving itself is a habit of reification. The self is also a result of reification.
The rebirth of the mental idea of the self from moment to moment is sustained by craving.
When ignorance is uprooted, reification is stopped, craving ceases, which then causes the mental idea of the self to be no longer constructed, and thus suffering is ended.
The key defining feature of the Buddha's enlightenment is not about no more self or no more craving, but rather, no more ignorance. Ignorance is the root of it all.
Please also read SN 12.20 about self-view:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’


Can Right View be interpreted as scientific fervor? The first in the eightfold path talks about having a right view of things. Or as wikipedia puts it,

  The purpose of right view is to clear one's path of the majority of
  confusion, misunderstanding, and deluded thinking. It is a means to
  gain right understanding of reality. Right view should be held with a
  flexible, open mind, without clinging to that view as a dogmatic
  position. In this way, right view becomes a route to
  liberation rather than an obstacle.

Isn't the purest way to interpret reality the way of science ? Can I interpret the first of the eightfold path as scientific fervor ?

I don't think things like rebirth would gel well with a scientific view point. Also since there is no scientific evidence to rebirth, would believing in it make my belief dogmatic or narrow minded maybe ?

Sounds like Wikipedia is suffering from some Buddhist fervour of its own... ;)
Can I interpret the first of the eightfold path as scientific fervor ?
Right view has nothing to do with fervour; it refers to one's outlook or point of "view". The word "diṭṭhi" literally means "way of seeing". As the commentary explains it:

sammādassanalakkhaṇā sammādiṭṭhi
The characteristic of seeing properly is right view.
(DN-a 6.5)

In Theravada Buddhism, right view is of five kinds:

1. Right View Regarding Karma (kammassakatāsammādiṭṭhi)

“And what is accomplishment in view? Here, someone holds right view and has a correct perspective thus: ‘There is what is given, sacrificed, and offered; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings spontaneously reborn; there are in the world ascetics and brahmins of right conduct and right practice who, having realized this world and the other world for themselves by direct knowledge, make them known to others.’ This is called accomplishment in view."
AN 3.117 (Bodhi, trans)

The Buddha calls this type of right view "affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions" (MN 117)

2. Right View Regarding Insight (vipassanāsammādiṭṭhi)

And how does right view come first? One understands wrong view as wrong view and right view as right view: this is one’s right view.
MN 117 (Bodhi, trans)

The commentary explains that this is the understanding one gains along the path of the three characteristics (impermanence, suffering, non-self).

3. Right View of the Path (maggasammādiṭṭhi)

“And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path? The wisdom, the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, the path factor of right view in one whose mind is noble, whose mind is taintless, who possesses the noble path and is developing the noble path: this is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path.
MN 117 (Bodhi, trans)

4. Right View of Fruition (phalasammādiṭṭhi)
The right view of fruition is the same as the right view of the path.

5. Right View of Reflection (paccavekkhaṇāsammādiṭṭhi)

“When I knew and saw thus, my mind was liberated from the taint of sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of ignorance. When it was liberated, there came the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ I directly knew: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’
MN 4 (Bodhi, trans)

This refers to the knowledge that comes after attainment of enlightenment upon reflection of the path and fruition.

Further, Ven. Sariputta equates right view with knowledge of the four noble truths:

“And what, friends, is right view? Knowledge of suffering, knowledge of the origin of suffering, knowledge of the cessation of suffering, and knowledge of the way leading to the cessation of suffering—this is called right view."
MN 141 (Bodhi, trans)

Since there is no scientific evidence to rebirth, would believing in it make my belief dogmatic or narrow minded maybe?
However you come to the understanding that rebirth is a fact of life, that understanding is considered right view, insofar as it is in line with the truth. If you believe that at death the mind ceases, or that at death the same mind that existed before death continues on, both of these are wrong view.
As according to the quotes above, right view can be "affected by taints" if it is simply belief that happens to accord with reality, or it can be "noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path" if it is acquired through observation and understanding.
Rebirth really isn't a big mystery; it is simply the fact of existence that is perfectly open to reasonable scientific investigation that everything in the universe arises and ceases, and that certain arisen phenomena spawn further arisen phenomena in an unbroken causal chain. That this ceases at death is wrong view (ucchedaditthi); that this constitutes a lasting, continuous entity is also wrong view (sassataditthi).


What does the Abhidhamma say about impermanence? I understand the state of changing (impermanence) mentioned in Buddhism, but I have also heard that another more complex version (of the doctrine of impermanence) exists in the Abhidhamma.

I would also like to know about how impermanence work when it comes to the physical body?

I would be thankful if someone could point to a few sources to learn about it, and maybe summarize it in an answer.

Please mention if I can use this knowledge to my personal practice, and if it is possible then how to do that.

i meant the change that happens in milliseconds

I guess the following is what you heard?

Theravada abiddhamma formalizes "an experience" (thought process) in 17 discrete moments ("thought moments", cittakkhanas), or 17 cittas. An example from Abhidhammatha Sangaha ( Chap. IV - Compendium of the cognitive process):

While this is not a presentation on impermanence per se (nor it's about physical body) it's is an abbhidhamma topic that attempts to discriminate something in its detail.

It's not clear how long such a process or any of it's steps last; some say it's much much less than a millisecond.


How to Study the Suttas? I practice the Theravada tradition. There are a lot of suttas, and I don't know how to go about studying them. Can I please get some pointers or guidelines on how I can study them? For example, which suttas to start with, or maybe some kind of overall introduction on the suttas, or perhaps a technique in studying the suttas.

I recommend the book In The Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi. It is an anthology or selection of translated suttas from the Pali canon. It is also thematically and systematically arranged. You can look at the Table of Contents on the Amazon page I linked. It is 512 pages long, which is quite alright. PDF version here.

I quote from the Preface:

  In an ongoing series of lectures I began giving at Bodhi Monastery in
  New Jersey in January 2003,1 devised a scheme of my own to organize
  the contents of the Majjhima Nikaya. This scheme unfolds the Buddha's
  message progressively, from the simple to the difficult, from the
  elementary to the profound. Upon reflection, I saw that this scheme
  could be applied not only to the Majjhima Nikaya, but to the four
  Nikayas as a whole. The present book organizes suttas selected from
  all four Nikayas within this thematic and progressive framework.

  This book is intended for two types of readers. The first are those
  not yet acquainted with the Buddha's discourses who feel the need for
  a systematic introduction. For such readers, any of the Nikayas is
  bound to appear opaque. All four of them, viewed at once, may seem
  like a jungle—entangling and bewildering, full of unknown beasts—or
  like the great ocean—vast, tumultuous, and forbidding. I hope that
  this book will serve as a map to help them wend their way through the
  jungle of the suttas or as a sturdy ship to carry them across the
  ocean of the Dhamma.


During insight meditation During meditation consciousness of ear nose eye tongue body sensation have disappeared. No sensations for a while  and start emerge of thoughts. When  see the thoughts  clearly there are spaces between them. Suddenly came up a light. Then breath appeared. What is the experience? Is it stream winning?Is the vinnanaya have experience?

I'm not qualified to say for sure what is happening. But some of what you describe sounds like "the knowledge of arising and passing away", which occurs when your mind clearly perceives the rise and fall of every experience. It may result in blissful, ecstatic feelings, lights, and a powerful religious conviction.

Try to remain aware that these are temporary, conditioned phenomena and not "The Truth", although it may feel like it. It is a very important discovery, but it is not the last discovery, and you may soon also experience painful and fearful feelings, too. Be careful of feelings of extreme joy or extreme fear or despair, and be aware that both extremes will pass.


Controlling one's sexual thoughts How does one control one's thoughts? ESPECIALLY the uncontrollable desires related to sexual drive which are built deep into our conscience. Answers are DEEPLY appreciated.

Part 1

The nature of the mind is to produce thoughts. Your question about controlling thoughts seems to imply an act of force.

  Very well then, my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are
  cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent
  people can understand the meaning of what is being said.

  — MN 24

It is similar to asking how does one make a cobra non-poisonous? Sure, one can remove its fangs temporarily until they grow back, but then is it still a real Cobra? If we forget to remove the fangs as and when they grow back, the Cobra will suddenly become dangerous when we least expect it to be, and it will remember the cruelty we inflicted upon it and will have cause to bite.

Taking drugs, or alcohol, or indulging in pleasures and entertainment or even staying busy with a career and family often allows people to temporarily ignore their thoughts, but it always ends in getting bitten by the thoughts when they least expect it, and thus misery endures.

Far better to learn how to not get bitten by the Cobra.

The Buddhist path to not getting bitten by the Cobra is divided into prajna (wisdom), sila (ethics), and samadhi (concentration). It has eight parts, which are also called the Noble eightfold path.

Know that the Cobra always remains poisonous, and how it gets its poison

i.e. understand reality as it is, and whence it gets its fangs from (wisdom)

Don't give the Cobra reason to bite

i.e. don't commit acts that produce poisonous thoughts (ethics)

Learn to leave the Cobra alone

i.e. practice meditation and mindfulness. (concentration)

Part 2

Buddhism or meditation is not a pill one takes and immediately becomes free of thoughts. Learning to not get bitten by thoughts also takes lots of time and patient and wise effort.

The lotus cannot flower without the mud, so it certainly does not help the lotus if it hates the mud. Don't hate the mind that produces sexual thoughts, or develop aversion towards yourself for having them. Nirvana is not obtained by hating Samsara.

Instead, learn that this is natural, but you can slowly learn to handle it. Develop a desire for Nirvana, and practice with a teacher.

Monks often battle sexual thoughts after decades of being celibate, and this isn't because they are ignorant or stupid. It is a tough challenge, but one worth pursuing and succeeding at.

A lot depends on why you want to control those thoughts, and your time line to achieve it in. Some people decide that it's too much to attempt at one go, and remain lay Buddhists who don't take vows of celibacy.

Sexual thoughts that result in a breaking of the precepts on sexual misconduct are more dangerous, and can be treated more easily.

Seeing the suffering of the person who is the victim of the misconduct and developing compassion for them is a very effective way to control this.

For example, if one is cheating on one's spouse, reading an internet forum where partners who get cheated on express their suicidal emotions, can for example be very sobering and shake one up to resolve to never do it.

Watching a hard hitting documentary on sex workers, and their conditions, and listening to them speak of their psychological issues, again often leading them to commit suicide can make one resolve never to visit one, and so on.

I recall a Dharma talk by Ajahn Chah who uses the same Cobra analogy.


What are the differences between Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism? I am primarily interested in following the teachings of Mahayana. Mahayana refers to the path of the Bodhisattva, a person capable of achieving Nirvana, a state in which the practitioner is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth, but instead chooses to save other beings from suffering.

Zen and Tibetan Buddhism are two different schools of Mahayana. What is the essence of these two paths, and how do I determine which path to follow in order to become a Bodhisattva?

From my experience, the biggest diff is in the amount of rational explanation.

Tibetan teachers and texts are much more inclined to giving a step by step logical rational reasonable conceptual framework. Zen teachers and texts speak to direct experience, using spur of the moment analogies and play on words.

Judging by the very fact that you asked this question, you seem to be inclined towards the Tibetan style. (It seems to me if you were a good Zen material, asking this kind of question would not even occur to you. You would not trust anyone's opinion and would be inclined to try both and find out for yourself.)

And judging by how you mentioned "essence" and your practical tone, I suspect Kagyu may be a good lineage for you.

If you are interested in differences between Tibetan schools, you may want to see this answer.


Are the results of positive Kamma good from a Buddhist's perspective or good from a "Samsaric's" perspective? When making good Kamma, there is a clear Buddhist element on it, for instance: If you give food to a Paccekabuddha you will receive greater benefits, suppoting the Sangha creates more merit than supporting another organized group.

However, when receiving the vipaka (consequences) of the good Kamma, things get confuse... some results of good kamma are wealth and beauty, things that will only make it harder for one to renounce the world, things that essencialy create attachment, so looking from that side, I believe one can argue that the results of good Kamma in the human realm have nothing to do with Buddhism, being born as a humble person, in a poor Buddhist country, not necessarily beautiful, would be a better result from a Buddhist's perspective!

So, are the results of good Kamma something dangerous and misleading? Or did I misunderstood it? Is it dangerous to create a lot of positive Kamma constantly? Any discourse mentioned it and how to deal with it?

Are the results of good Kamma something dangerous and misleading?

Positive karma, conditioned by ignorance is dangerous and misleading because it helps to extend the samsara . Good and bad karma appear in dependant origination in two places as Formations (Saṅkhāra) and Being (Bhava).

Formations are divided into meritorious (Puññābhisaṅkhāro), demeritorious (apuññābhisaṅkhāro), and imperturbable (āneñjābhisaṅkhāro) deeds or volitional actions of body, speech, and mind which is a cause for Consciousness.

  Tattha katame avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā? Puññābhisaṅkhāro,
  apuññābhisaṅkhāro, āneñjābhisaṅkhāro, kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro,
  cittasaṅkhāro

  http://tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/abh02m.mul5.xml

Being (Bhava), which conditioned by clinging, can be further divided as kammabhava and upapattibhava. Kammabhava is again meritorious, demeritorious, and imperturbable (Jhana) things we do. Here, Kammabhava is a cause for Upapattibhava (different realms) and Birth.

  Tattha katamo upādānapaccayā bhavo? Bhavo duvidhena – atthi
  kammabhavo, atthi upapattibhavo. Tattha katamo kammabhavo?
  Puññābhisaṅkhāro, apuññābhisaṅkhāro, āneñjābhisaṅkhāro – ayaṃ vuccati
  ‘‘kammabhavo’’. Sabbampi bhavagāmikammaṃ kammabhavo

  http://tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/abh02m.mul5.xml

From dependant origination, it is evident that the meritorious acts or good karma (conditioned by ignorance and clinging) and there results play vital roles in turning the wheel of life and extending our samsara.

Any discourse mentioned it and how to deal with it?

In MN 9 Sariputta thera mentions about Formations and how to deal with it,

  "When, friends, a noble disciple understands formations, the origin of formations, the cessation of formations, and the way leading
  to the cessation of formations, in that way he is one of right view...
  and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
  "And what are formations, what is the origin of formations, what is the cessation of formations, what is the way leading to the
  cessation of formations? There are these three kinds of formations:
  the bodily formation, the verbal formation, the mental formation. With
  the arising of ignorance there is the arising of formations. With the
  cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of formations. The way
  leading to the cessation of formations is just this Noble Eightfold
  Path; that is, right view... right concentration.
  "When a noble disciple has thus understood formations, the origin of formations, the cessation of formations, and the way leading to the
  cessation of formations... he here and now makes an end of suffering.
  In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has
  arrived at this true Dhamma."

  MN 9

about Being and how to deal with it,

  "When, friends, a noble disciple understands being, the origin of being, the cessation of being, and the way leading to the cessation of
  being, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this
  true Dhamma.
  "And what is being, what is the origin of being, what is the cessation of being, what is the way leading to the cessation of being?
  There are these three kinds of being: sense-sphere being,
  fine-material being and immaterial being. With the arising of clinging
  there is the arising of being. With the cessation of clinging there is
  the cessation of being. The way leading to the cessation of being is
  just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right
  concentration.
  "When a noble disciple has thus understood being, the origin of being, the cessation of being, and the way leading to the cessation of
  being... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a
  noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true
  Dhamma."

  MN 9

Because of this, I believe it is better to be born in a place where you can hear the Dhamma, rather than extending the samsara by doing positive or negative kamma.


Should you meditate with a timer? I currently do 15 minutes of meditation every morning. I use a stop watch. I see some people do more like 30 minutes. I was wondering how they kept track of time. Or is it roughly 30 minutes? I find that if I don't use a timer, I find myself thinking to myself during meditation, "I wonder if it has been about 15 minutes" and it seems distracting. I've tried meditation without a timer, but I guess the question is when do you feel you should cut it off?

Use a timer for the following reasons.

Worrying about whether your session is done is a distraction.  A timer will free you from this.
A resolution to sit for X minutes may not work.
Even if the resolution does work, you could end up mistaking that for progress.  Don't laugh -- people mistake side effects of practice for the goals of practice. They'll ask if meditation can improve their grades, lead to particular hallucinations, etc...
There's no harm to using a timer. After all, group meditations also use a timer, it just happens to be a human who hits a chime.  There's nothing magical about people that makes chimes hit by them any less disruptive than those generated by an electronic device.


Websites with the Chinese canon translated into English? Are there any websites that have an English translation of the Chinese Buddhist canon, similar to what is available for the Pali canon at accesstoinsight.org and suttacentral.net?

Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

The following might be of some value:

http://www.bdk.or.jp/english/english_tripitaka/publication_project.html and / or http://www.bdkamerica.org/blog/free-pdf-versions-many-volumes-bdk-english
http://84000.co/ - this is from Tibetan sources
http://lapislazulitexts.com/ (http://lapislazulitexts.com/tripitaka)


Telepathic Communication, do Buddhists Believe in it? I know that Buddhists practice compassionate mediation by wishing to free first their loved ones from suffering, than their friends and than the people they have trouble with. Is this only for the individual practicing or can the practice actually reach the object too? (ie. friend)

ps: There is recent scientific evidence for ESP or telepathic communication but did the Buddhists monks know this whole time? thanks.

It is a well known super power attained by advanced meditators. You can find references to such powers in the stories of the Buddha, and in biographies of well known monks.

Kevatta Sutta:

  "Kevatta, there are these three miracles that I have declared, having
  directly known and realized them for myself. Which three? The miracle
  of psychic power, the miracle of telepathy, and the miracle of
  instruction.

In the Theravada tradition the Visuddhimagga is well known for speaking directly about mastering the occult powers, and in the Madhiyamika tradition (Tibet) the path of the Bodhisattva requires learning to see into the minds of others so they can be helped.

Accounts from recent times, such as the biography of Ven. Acharya Mun Bhuridatta Thera include incidents where he communicated with other monks living elsewhere.

Ajahn Chah's telepathic powers: https://youtu.be/mPIJhO8ipgs

The Buddha forbade speaking about or giving importance to powers with good reason, so in general accounts are not first person, but third person where a monk (usually) talks about witnessing another's powers.


How is the "self" able to recognize the interplay between the cognitive process and "desire"? I read in Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts by Bhikkhu Bodhi that "cognition is subservient to wish", and "in subtle ways concealed from ourselves our desires condition our perceptions":

  The Buddha teaches that cognition is subservient to wish. In subtle ways concealed from ourselves our desires condition our perceptions, twisting them to fit into the mould they themselves want to impose.

Can the practice of insight meditation reveal this deception of the "self", and, if so, how does the process work?

I found the introduction a strange way to encouraging people to go for Refuge, i.e., on the basis of a "human situation is similar to an iceberg"; since this is going to Refuge on the basis of ignorance or blind faith.

In my reading of the Pali scriptures, generally people go for refuge for reasons such as a clear awareness of their personal suffering or dissatisfaction or in their clear awareness of the virtues & liberation of the Buddha.

For those cognizant of their own suffering & dissatisfaction, the Buddha pointed to craving & attachment as the causes of that suffering and pointed to the Noble Eightfold Path as the method to develop mental tranquility & liberating insight.

In short, it is self-clinging that causes suffering. If you are suffering, you should be able to see it is the mind's own selfishness, self-obsession, possessiveness, etc, that is causing & manifesting the suffering.

~~~~

Further, the article is confusing because it gives the impression the 'self' creates desires and desires create perceptions.

In reality, ignorance & feelings condition perceptions, which in turn condition desires, which in turn condition attachment & the sense of "our self". That is why the Buddha called feelings & perception the 'citta sankhara' or 'mind conditioner' (MN 44).

The "self" does not create desires. It is desires that create the "self". It is feelings of pleasure & pain that create desires. The Buddha made this reality very clear in the Phagguna Sutta, in the Parileyyaka Sutta & in many other places.

Imagine a small new born baby. The baby has has no idea of 'self'. It has no concrete perceptions. A new born baby is an organism subject to the painful feelings of hunger & discomfort. From these painful feelings of hunger & discomfort come primal desires for relief. The parents of the child feed it food & give it comfort, from which the mind of the child experiences pleasant feelings. From these pleasant feelings it develops perceptions of "milk is good", "breast is good", "mother is good" and, eventually, as its brain/mind matures, perceptions of "my mother" & my father".

Therefore, the original source of perception is painful & pleasurable feelings rather than desire.

~~~~

Attempting to see through the "deception of the self" is a difficult way for a novice to approach the path. This is similar to attempting to climb a tree from the top.

"Self" is certainly a deception however the path begins by seeing the deception of desires (in that worldly pleasures cannot bring lasting & true happiness). If the mind cannot see the deception of worldly pleasures & desires, it will struggle to develop the clear concentration (samadhi) meditation which serves as the basis for the insight meditation (vipassana) that can see through the deception of the illusory 'self'.

In short, when the mind is clear, it can start to examine the arisings & nature of the 'self' thoughts. There is actually no special method. One must simply meditate in quietude & stillness.


Any praise of shred-paramis by the Sublime Budddha? What does one know or think: Is there any praise of shred-parami (perfections in appearing modest) by the Sublime Buddha, such as in out-fit, outwardly appearing, using of such stuff, and if why? If not why?

To give an idea in a samples of certain "modesty":

Better to catch fishes with the hand instead of catching with high tech, yet still after meat.
Better to wear recycling garments then new, yet still after look.
Better to drive an old car then a new one, yet still after comfort.
Better not to cut hair and let it grow, yet still after appearing certain.
Spreading "I am content with an old camry" to sign out modesty and swifting to rave as soon conditions make it possible.

[note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks but for gaining release from the wheel of hypocrisy and corruption]

How long do $500 shoes last? Do they make you look smart or stupid for buying them? Clothing is a communication. People dress to their personal desires and look for those in the people they put around them. So if you dress a certain way you project. People who want a friend or sucker or someone to complement them in some way. That's the issue of clothing. You are your environment and the people you surround yourself with. I dress like a regular person on the poor side. I have honestly and Carring and supporting friendships that have an intimate understanding of each other. Before I was a Buddhist I was flamboyant and attracted drama and suffering. Cause and affect are the same you see. Clothes make the man but the man picks the cloths. Find the middle way.


Should you practices the noble eightfold path all at once or master is separately? I read in a book while I'm studying the path, that you should practice the path all at once. It can't be separate. That seem to me like a very large task. Is this true.

When you first learn to drive a car, do you learn how to start the car on one day, how to accelerate on the second day, how to brake on the third day, how to turn the steering wheel to the left on the fourth day and how to turn the steering wheel to the right on the fifth day? No. It doesn't make sense. You have to learn and develop these steps altogether in tandem, and practise them together.

Another example is this. When you learn to cook, would you learn to cut vegetables on one day, then learn how to wash ingredients on another day, then learn to boil on another day, then learn to simmer on another day and so on? No. Instead, you learn and practise them altogether at once by trying to cook a certain recipe. By practising them together, you slowly deepen your cooking skills. You would then expand to add frying, broiling, baking, steaming, poaching, sauteeing etc. to your techniques, but you would practise them together in one recipe.

Similarly, in the case of the Noble Eightfold Path, you would have to first cultivate Right View (the forerunner of the path) by learning the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma). Then you would start developing Right Resolve, and decide to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and practise the five precepts (which form the core part of the virtues - Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood).

As you deepen your progress into Right View by studying more of the Dhamma, you then increase your knowledge of the virtues (Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood) and try to practise them with more fervour. That's more of Right Resolve and Right Effort being applied.

As you deepen your contemplation of the teachings, you start cultivating Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and then go into the meditation practices. These meditation practices would then lead you to better understanding of the Dhamma through first hand experience, which is improving the Right View once again. If you stumble into the five hindrances during meditation, you may need to deepen your practice of the virtues once again. This of course again is applying Right Resolve and Right Effort towards making progress in meditation and cultivation of wisdom.

So, every step helps the other. You can't practise only one of them at a time. But of course, learning the Dhamma and practising virtues tend to come before meditation, in general. This is just as in the case where you need to start a car and accelerate, before braking, but you would anyway do them in one session of driving, with repetition of all the steps as needed, to take you to your destination.

Even if you have not tried to meditate, if you continually reflect and ponder upon the teachings (that you have studied) and see how they match your experiences in life, you would still begin to understand the teachings from first hand experience. Then meditation could still progressively come later.


Did Buddha ever say how to overcome shyness? In AN 9.5, the Buddha said that whoever is endowed with the four powers has left behind the fear of embarrassment in assemblies. Is this the same as shyness? If not then did the Buddha ever say how to overcome shyness?

  There are, monks, four powers. The power of wisdom, the power of energy, the power of an unblemished life and the power of benevolence....Now, monks, a noble disciple endowed with these four powers has left behind five fears: the fear for his livelihood, the fear of disrepute, the fear of embarrassment in assemblies, the fear of death and the fear of an unhappy future destiny.

  AN 9.5

I would say yes, these powers include the overcoming of shyness. You are no longer meeting other people but just yourself in other guises. Also, your mind is not weaving fantasies about what people are thinking about you. Also, you have nothing to hide, no sense of superiority or inferiority and if you are sufficiently skilled no sense of personal involvement in the situation.

Maybe a little shyness is a good thing but a Buddhist has excellent defenses against being crippled by it. A good Buddhist knows he or she is an idiot and is not surprised when others think so. I'll let you know later whether this is also true for arhats and buddhas.


What is exactly Avijja -- and how to uproot it? To most of the questions about Nibbana, the easiest answer is "Avijja".

But what exactly this Avijja? Improper attention, ignorance?
What are we ignoring, and then what's the fact that we should not ignore or we should look in the world?
How can we uproot it?

I know Avijja can be easily answered in few words (e.g. with definitions, or some other synonyms) -- but why I'm asking this question is, it says that uprooting Avijja is the path to Enlightenment.

If we take an example:

If someone "ask how to be a mathematician?", an answer would be (I'm limiting the answer set in a way to explain the question), "you need to learn addition / subtraction, integration, differentiation, etc."
So what I'm asking is like "how to be enlightened?", an answer is "uproot the Avijja".
So now I'm asking "what is Avijja?" like "what is addition?".
I'm not expecting an answer like "the action or process of adding something to something else." Instead I'm expecting an answer like, how it is taught to us in elementary school (like using Abacus).
Because for Buddhism most of us are like children -- if not we are Arhat by now.

Please I just try to explain the answer with these stories, but not to offend anyone. With Metta, I'm expecting a detailed answer from the wise people in the community.

Maybe you've heard of the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

  In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice.

But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.

Also you can say that the monkey's suffering originated with his ignorance of the trap.

Knowing how the trap works, i.e. gaining insight and wisdom into the nature of reality, is the way to overcome ignorance.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)


Buddhism to change the world According to Buddhism, should one change oneself or change the world and why.

The Buddha did not intend monks to participate in politics, as seen in DN 2:

  "Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these —
  talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and
  battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents;
  relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women
  and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead;
  tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future],
  the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things
  exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as
  these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

However, the Buddha did intend for lay people to participate in constructive nation building, in accordance with the Dhamma in DN 16:

  At that time the Venerable Ananda was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable
  Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent
  gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that this is so."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse
  peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees
  nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their
  ancient constitutions?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
  esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to
  listen to them?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting
  women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
  esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the
  city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due
  offerings as given and made to them formerly?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that
  they do not deprive them of their offerings."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."


Was the Buddha Humanist? Humanism is defined as,

  Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

Would you say that the teachings (the Dhamma) of the Buddha are 'humanistic' in character, and if so - why?

I have heard many people using "humanist" in connection with the teachings. To me the teachings look more introvert with a guidance in social navigation in human society - a form of adaptive camouflage to avoid conflicts - but certainly not for humanistic purpose. To me it is seems more like the Buddha was teaching at a universal level including all mass.

But I might be mistaken, hence the question.

Whether or not Buddhism is Humanist depends on your interpretation of Buddhism.

First, Buddhism is a program for humans to find happiness, and as such seems humanistic.  However, it does this by a thoroughgoing program of deconstructionism, which includes the self itself, and this may seem anti-Humanistic.

Second, while Buddhism is individualistic in a sense, there is the Bodhisattva ideal, which aims at the benefit of all sentient beings, and some of the attempts at transcending ego can involve serving others, so some types of Buddhism can be seen as benefiting people collectively.  However, there is a movement for Engaged Buddhism, which would seem to imply that this view of Buddhism is not universal (otherwise, why make an effort to stress this)?

Third, although the Four Noble Truths talks of the futility of trying to find happiness through our typical pursuits (and paints what some say is a grim picture of life), it also teaches that we have the power to transcend our situation.  In this sense, it seems to value human agency.  On the other hand, we're taught that we're not independent selves and (some interpretations?) even try to transcend the sense of doership as the handmaiden of the self, and as such, human agency may be devalued.

Finally, some Buddhist teachings value critical thinking and/or evidence over faith (Kalama Sutra), but there's also a critique of rationality (see Madhyamaka deconstructionism, especially Nagarjuna's).

In short, YMMV


Judgment, Stereotyping, and Empathic Compassion I am somewhat curious, following an answer to a previous question of mine, as to why understanding a person's background might inhibit judging them in a stereotypical way. I perceived this in my  practice and I have found it somewhat effective in my own case, but I am unsure why this is so. I feel as if such awareness of background is a bit superfluous, yet then again I feel empathy is less frequent when we don't understand a person's motivations.

Consequently, I wonder:

Why is understanding motivations effective against judging others according to Buddhism?
How can this idea be best applied in meditation? For example, how would meditating on the causes of suffering--to arouse compassion--be achieved?

Thank you

The answer to this questions points to an idea that is central for achieving Buddhist Enlightenment. This is the idea that mind has a built-in tendency for reification, stereotyping and overgeneralization; that all our suffering and confusion comes from this tendency; and that liberation from suffering and achieving clarity requires liberation from that.

Mind has this intrinsic function to delineate entities. As it observes the facts, it tries to connect them and create a consistent picture, a story, a model that explains the cohesion behind the facts. I suppose doing so has an evolutionary advantage, because constructing a model gives us a way to predict the model's future behavior.

However, this method has its flip side - which is, we tend to equate our models with reality. Indeed, outside of models there is no experience of the world. So, naturally we tend to assume our models are correct, and as long as they come from experience and have some forecasting power, we tend to attach to them. This gives us a quick way to make decisions about the world. We see something, we recognize it as one of the previous things we have seen, we classify it, and based on that automatically pick the reaction. It's a very efficient mechanism, great timesaver. Imagine if we had to reevaluate everything from scratch every time we saw things.

At the same time, assuming our models are reality gives rise to a sort of perceptual blindness. We end up seeing with our brains, not our eyes. We jump to conclusions. We become stubborn. We are judgmental. We are superficial. We are tone-deaf and blind to nuances.

So getting more details for our models - any details really - increases the chance to get some evidence that will uncover the holes in our model-building. This shows up in your example above, when getting a sense of persons's background, facts from their personal history, can helps us see beyond our mind-made model of them, and into the real person.

Buddhist Enlightenment is to go beyond models. Realization of "Emptiness" is seeing that all our models are mind-made. Buddhist tolerance, total acceptance, humbleness, is the social application of this realization. Buddhist suchness is the emotional state we get when we learn to live in a non-stereotyped inner world, not dragging any models from the past. Buddhist meditation is to see into our modeling process, and learn to go beyond that. Buddhist liberation is to liberate from the oppression of models.


Soul and Self in buddhism I've heard a lot of questions like, "who is there to enlighten if there is no self?"

Is that kind of question based on ignorance on the difference between Soul and Self? Or does Buddhism deny the existence of both Soul and Self?

I think I understand Buddhists saying that 'Soul' doesn't exist.
I understand the word atman meaning Soul in Vedic languages: and it is different from the concept of Self. While nobody can deny the fact that a person exists, the existence of a soul is not proven.

Just curious about the concept of soul and self in Buddhism.

You have to look at which reality you are dealing with.

If you are dealing with sammuti-sacca which is the conventional reality then one can say that a soul, self, spirit, being etc. exists. Why?
Because conventional reality is dealing with concepts. A soul is a concept. A self is a concept. If you try to search for them through the method of insight meditation you will not find a lasting, permanent, indestructible entity anywhere.

Instead you will come to see that the false idea of a self is merely a mental formation belonging to the 4th aggregate.

If you deal with paramattha-sacca which is ultimate reality then concepts do not exist and there is no problem with a soul/self to begin with.

The thing is that things work fine without the need for a self. By adding a self to the equation one is enforcing and strengthening the suffering by identifying and taking ownership of it.
There is a profound difference in saying "i am angry" and "anger has arisen in the mind".

There is also a build-in problem in the way language is used. We are forced to speak about e.g. consciousness by using nouns which can imply that there is something there. But there is not. Consciousness is not a thing. Its a knowing.

What we normally think is consciousness is really a series of cittas (momentary acts of consciousness) that are happening in rapid succession.

The Buddha once said that its okay to use conventional language but do not be fooled thereby.


Can a person live by the Dhamma and have another religion as well? As Buddhism is growing in the west, we see this "conflict" a lot. In Asia I met some Buddhists-Hindus, Buddha, Shiva and Ganesh were equally important to them. Here in the west there are some Christian-Buddhists, people who believe in the Dhamma, but cannot stop Praying to Jesus. Let me add here that according to the Bible if you stop believing in God, you will go to hell no matter what, it is a serious offense for Christians.

I live in an almost 99% Christian country. You only find churches here, you don't find stuppas, temples or monks. It also contributes to the "Christian-Buddhist" phenomena as there is no strong Sangha.

According to the Buddha's teachings you should give up rituals, believe in the Buddha's enlightenment and follow the Dhamma, but on the other hand many people are claiming the Dhamma is more a "way of living" than a religion, so it could be adapted to another friendly religion.

Can a person follow the Dhamma and be a Christian at the same time?

In short: no, you can't. Even cursory knowledge of the teachings of the Buddha and the dogmas of Christianity (or any other religion) will prove enough to realize these are irreconcilable. Just to give a quick example, take the Buddhist belief (one of the "Four Seals") that all things/phenomena are empty and devoid of self: this is enough to negate the whole of Christian dogma at once! There is no doubt that the view that Buddhism can be seen as simply a "way of life" stems from a profound ignorance of the teachings and practice of Buddhism, usually based on a feel-good, watered down version of the teachings that doesn't even come close to trying to get to grips with understanding something as essential as impermanence, interdependence, and emptiness.

EDIT: The above comment is not meant in any way to insinuate that non-Buddhists cannot greatly benefit from studying the dharma—far from it, especially when most Western Buddhists come from a (at least vaguely) Christian upbringing. It was only meant to express that truly abiding by the Buddha's teachings entails a worldview that is not fully compatible with that of the major religions.


Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in? Does one take refuge into the concept of Buddhahood or refuge into Gautama Buddha?  What about Vairocana Buddha or Amitābha Buddha for that matter? I've heard various things from taking refuge in a cosmic Buddha principal to the actual Gautama Buddha over the years from various Buddhist teachers.   Perhaps taking refuge into the Buddha is a relative subjective experience.  Which Buddha do Buddhists take refuge in?

I think both interpretations should be somewhat intertwined and doesn't need to be clearly distinguished. See, you'll not say 'I only take refuge in Gautama Buddha, but not Buddhahood', or 'I will take refuge only in Buddhahood, but not Gautama Buddha', both of these sounds weird. Buddha Gautama represents Buddhahood, so we can not separate Him from Buddhahood.

Abhidharmakosa-bhasya of Vasubandhu explains taking refuge in Buddha like this:

  They who take refuge in the Buddha, take refuge in the factors
  (dharma) of the perfected being (arhat) that constitute a Buddha
  (buddhakāraka), the factors that are the causes of the designation
  “Buddha” [buddhaprajñaptihetūn], i.e., the factors due to which, as a
  principal cause, a certain person is called Buddha; or else the
  factors through the acquisition of which a certain person,
  understanding all entities, is called Buddha. These factors are (1)
  the cognition of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna), (2) the cognition of
  non-arising (anutpādajñāna), and (4) right view (samyagdṛṣṭi) (vi. 50,
  67), (4) with the factors that accompany (parivāra) these cognitions
  (jñāna), i.e., with the five pure aggregates (skandha).

  As for the material body (rūpakāya) of the Buddha, it is not
  subject to modification through the acquisition of the status of
  Buddha. Thus, one does not take refuge in the material body of the
  Buddha, which is, in fact, the material body of the Bodhisattva.

  [Question:] – Does one take refuge in all the Buddhas or in one
  Buddha? [Answer:] – According to the nature of entities [lakṣaṇatas],
  and in the absence of an explicit declaration (kaṇṭhokti), [one takes
  refuge] in all the Buddhas, for the Buddhas have always followed the
  same path, (1) a mundane (laukika) path and (2) a supramundane
  (lokottara) path (vii. 34).  [Lodrö Sangpo translation.]


What is the logic behind visualization meditation I have practiced meditation for the better part of a decade now. I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, but that's immaterial. I've experienced and practiced many kinds of meditation (energy, dream, mindfulness), and all of the meditations I have practiced I have a logic for. I can understand the goal of the meditation and why the meditation works.

One meditation that I've always been troubled by is visualization meditation. The type where repeatedly visualizing a very complex scene leads to certain goals. How is it that by visualizing a certain scene I enact unique changes in my psyche?

Obviously there are many different flavors, but recently every path I turn to has resulted in some kind of visualization meditation and I quite honestly doubt the very fundamentals of such a meditation. When I have such a strong doubt I certainly won't be able to practice effectively.

Are there any resources on this subject?

It depends on the system.

In the sutra system, there are analytical meditations involving visualizing the form of the body of the Buddha, for instance. You do this in order to achieve calm abiding on the mental image of the form of the body of the Buddha. It is very much practiced in Tibetan traditions, since it is said that the object (that mental image) is very virtuous and thus preferable to neutral objects such as one's breath and so forth. It is said that one has to focus on a mental image to achieve calm abiding: if you take the breath, usually from the fourth mental abiding (calm abiding itself being the tenth), your mind becomes so subtle that a mental image of the breath starts to appear. Taking a mental image (such as the form of the body of the Buddha) from the outset makes things easier.

In the tantra system, the way of visualizing, the reasons to do so, and the objects visualized are completely different. I will not go into it here because it is secret mantra. However, in general, one engages in deity yoga so as to take the resultant enjoyment body into a path. It's called "taking the result as a path", or "mixing of the ordinary states with the three kayas."

The idea is to create the substantial cause of the enjoyment body. This substantial cause has to be of a similar type (and in the continuity of its result). It is a special body, a special mental body you create the cause of when you identify with the deity.


Right speech in social situations My boss has a tendency to gossip and speak negatively about his clients when they are not present. Sometimes he speaks to me about these people, and I am unsure of how to respond with regard to right speech. To not respond at all may hurt his feelings and create friction in our workplace. But to engage in such a discussion about others surely is wrong speech. How should one go about responding to gossip while maintaining right speech and prevent hurt feelings/social awkwardness?

There are a few tactics which I have employed in the workplace when dealing with people such as this. They don't ALWAYS work, but with some practice they can definitely help.

1) You can try to push the conversation off tangentially to a different subject.

"Such and such customer did this when we were talking about the smith account."

"Oh right, about the smith account, I was meaning to ask you.."

2) Little to no feedback

Pretty much just what it sounds like. Just be mindful of the persons rant as nothing but noise, only giving enough mindfulness to the actual content as to be able to interact when absolutely necessary.

This sometimes works when the person either takes the hint that you aren't interested, or they become bored that their need to gossip isn't being fulfilled by you.


Was Buddha had a expected food poisoning? Refer to the link below, the Buddha was poisoned in his last meal. Where can i find more information about this?
Why was Buddha poisoned?

The Buddha died after eating a meal often called “pig’s delight” (Skt.
sukaramaddava, lit. “soft” or “mild pig”) offered to him by the
metalworker, Cunda Kammāraputta, in his mango grove in Pava, between
November and January, en route to Kapilavastu, the place of his birth.
The nature of this meal is uncertain. It might have been pork (the
Buddha was not vegetarian) or mushrooms

There are many version of the cause of death. Which one found to be truth and supporting facts?

This is documented in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta's story about the meal containing sukara-maddava served by Cunda to the Buddha, which is presumed to be the cause of dysentery experienced by the Buddha.
The Mahaparinibbana Sutta is sutta 16 of the Digha Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali Canon, which is the sutta explaining the events leading to the Buddha's passing away and events that occurred after that.
The Pali Canon is the authoritative canonical scripture of Theravada Buddhism, and is an Early Buddhist Text. Please read this answer for details.
In this footnote, sukara-maddava is explained:

Sukara-maddava: a controversial term which has therefore been left
untranslated. Sukara = pig; maddava = soft, tender, delicate. Hence
two alternative renderings of the compound are possible: (1) the
tender parts of a pig or boar; (2) what is enjoyed by pigs and boars.
In the latter meaning, the term has been thought to refer to a
mushroom or truffle, or a yam or tuber. K.E. Neumann, in the preface
to his German translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, quotes from an
Indian compendium of medicinal plants, the Rajanigantu, several plants
beginning with sukara.
The commentary to our text gives three alternative explanations: (1)
the flesh from a single first-born (wild) pig, neither too young nor
too old, which had come to hand naturally, i.e., without intentional
killing; (2) a preparation of soft boiled rice cooked with the five
cow-products; (3) a kind of alchemistic elixir (rasayanavidhi).
Dhammapala, in his commentary to Udana VIII.5, gives, in addition,
young bamboo shoots trampled by pigs (sukarehi maddita-vamsakaliro).


Should Buddhists give their time to helping others? I'm new to Buddhism. I was familiarizing myself with the "Four Seals" in  This Article.

The article connects the first truth, that all compounded things are impermanent, to charity. He said that giving our things to others is a good way to practice coming to terms with the fact that all things don't last.

I was wondering if time is included as one of those "things" that we should disconnect ourselves from and give to others? Is time a "compounded thing?"

To evaluate this question correctly, it is essential to look at the difference of Theravada and Mahayana, since answers given by people from these differing traditions are bound to be slightly different also. It appears to me, the four seals are a mahayanic equivalent to the (not-only) theravadic three marks of existence. Also the Theravada/Mahayana-difference is also highly relevant to the question of time being compounded.

Essentially this difference consists the ideal that people strive after, which is the Arahant in case of Theravada - someone who destroys all bondages and gains enlightenment for himself and the Bodhisattva in Mahayana - someone who strives to enlighten all beings before attaining Nirvana himself or herself. (I'm being very brief here.)

The interpretation you refer to, charity as the answer to impermanence of things sounds to me to be typically mahayanic or vajrayanic (Vajrayana developed out of Mahayana).

About time: this is one of the trickiest subjects of Buddhist thought. Thinking over the Buddha's denial of ultimate ontological status for compounded entities (like "the person"), Buddhist thinkers tried to find out, what in the end has this ultimate ontological status, things that are uncompounded - asaṃskṛta/asaṃkhata. One of the perished schools of Buddhism - the Sarvāstivāda was especially noted for the theory of uncompounded, sort of atomic entities called dharmas, time being also made out of minimal time-quantums that all exist simultaneously in the present (past and future as well).

Nāgārjuna is supposed to be the first, definitely the greatest early Mahayana-teacher and his teaching polemicizes precisely against this theory of uncompounded smallest entities, claiming, that they do not exist, that really everything, including Nirvāṇa, Pratītyasamutpāda and time is compounded. His teaching can also be read (thereby being truly mahayanic) as a rejection of self-centered hunger for enlightenment and thirst for Nirvāṇa.

Therefore, at least according to Mahayana the answer to your questions are yes, time IS compounded, we SHOULD disconnect ourselves from it, from clinging to it and we SHOULD freely spend it on others.

EDIT: replaced Hinayana by Theravada.


Buddhist take on parents staying together for the children? How would one go about figuring out if it is wise to stay together for the sake of the children or if it is time to split up?
What would be the guiding principles for figuring this out based on Buddhist principles and Buddha's advice for married couples and the general sentiment of the teachings historically attributed to the Buddha.
Prefer answers based on Vibhajavadin traditions and texts held to be true by those schools.

What would be the guiding principles for figuring this out based on Buddhist principles and Buddha's advice for married couples and the general sentiment of the teachings historically attributed to the Buddha.

As others already mentioned, the teaching is mostly for monastics with some small portion just giving generic advice to the lays. However, one can always use logic and common sense to come up with the best solution for everyone. A common mistake is the automatic assumption about the benefit of sacrificing oneself for the sake of the children, while in reality, there're instances where it's even more harmful to them. Imagine staying with your spouse, but engaging in constant back and forth arguments using harsh, abusive language, Or, on the other extreme, remain completely silent and let the spouse spewing all the nasty words all day long. Both of those stay-together scenarios would actually do more harm to the children than good. So, use one's own intelligence and common sense to evaluate the situation. While it'd obviously be best for parents to try to work things out and stay together, but if that means it'll create a living hell for both parties, and/or it doesn't actually benefit children, or even does more harm to them, then one might have to consider the idea to go one's own separate way, for the sake of everyone involved.


How can I focus on breath at the tip of my nose? I have chosen to practice meditation on and mindfulness of the breath, at the tip of the nose, as prescribed by the Buddha. My difficulty, simply put, is that I am able to sense and focus on the breath everywhere BUT the tip of my nose! I suspect that focusing on where I do perceive it (in the nostrils) might be sufficient, but I want to precisely follow the instructions given by the Buddha.

I came to notice on my own one day that projecting my attention onto a fixed location in the space in front of my head (with eyes closed) seemed to facilitate absorption in single-minded awareness. I had hoped that directing my awareness to the tip of my nose would produce similar results. Imagine my disappointment upon finding that I was unable to fixate my focus as the Buddha recommended! I will be very grateful for any guidance... May all beings find perfect freedom from dukkha and samsara!

"Mukha" can merely mean "to the front" or "to the fore".
"Pari" means "all round".
"Pari mukha" means to make mindfulness the foremost of the mind's activity in an all pervasive way.
"Mindfulness" means "to remember" or "keep in mind" the teachings. The teachings are about abiding without unwholesome states & craving.
Mindfulness establishes the mind all round to be without unwholesome states & craving.
The Buddha taught to keep the mind as pure as possible and, when this is done, the mind will naturally know the breathing in whatever place the breath is felt.
The Buddha did not teach about the nose-tip. Pari mukha does not mean tip of the nose or nose-tip.
If we attempt to only watch breathing at the nose-tip; this will be unnatural for the mind; cause frustration; and have adverse affects (such as sleepiness or "sinking mind").

After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore (parimukhaṃ).
Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will & anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will & anger. Abandoning sloth & drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth & drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth & drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness & anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness & anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty.
MN 38


Buddhism and Evolution I heard an atheist ask this question from a christian and found myself lost in this question as well.

Plainly and simply the question is this,

  How does your religion fit into earth's history?

His point was that although many religions talk about a very old human race, we are a new species. even if we deny all the archaeological evidence, we still can't answer how such a human civilization escaped the few annihilation earth faced, like the long ice age and the meteor that killed the dinosaurs etc.

Do we as Buddhists have an answer, considering we believe in an even older human race's existence?

When the Atheist asked his Christian pal about the evolution of this race, there is only some variations of one answer that our education system, the media and so-called information technology promotes. They are the main instruments used by the Western Christian countries in the present day. There is no freedom of knowledge or of media as there is no second opinion given at any time. It is what this ideology decides that is given to the public. The so called alternative view is only another version of the view of the western Christian mindset and people have no choice in this matter. Even today creationism is allowed to be taught in schools and Darwinian evolution and creationism are nothing but twin systems that try to give an answer to the question how the world (universe) was created and then evolved.

What Buddha said on this is found in the Agganna sutta. Agganna Sutta is the 27th Sutta of Digha Nikaya collections. The sutta describes a discourse imparted from the Buddha to two Brahmins, Bharadvaja and Vasettha, who left their family and caste to become monks. These were two brahmins who were insulted and maligned by their own caste for their intentions. But what is important for us here is that the qualities of the Dharma (Law, truth) is the same as the qualities of the Buddha and forms his "truth body" or "Dhamma Kaya”. A reference from the Agganna Sutta says to his disciple Vasettha:
"Tathagatassa h'etam Vasettha adivacanam Dhamma-kayo iti pi ...":
O Vasettha! The Word of Dhammakaya is indeed the name of the Tathagata.

Dhamma in Buddhism has two primary meanings: the teachings of the Buddha which lead to enlightenment, and the constituent factors of the experienced world. A sankata is an entity arising due to a sankhara; a sankhara is also a sankata, because just like any other sankata, any sankhara arises and falls; thus sankhara is sometimes used to include both. However, a sankata is normally something that arises due to sankhara  (a living being, house, nest, a thought, hopes and dreams, etc) and eventually is destroyed. Nothing in this world lasts forever.
At the deepest level, anything in this world arises due to the mind. That is what was meant by the Buddha when he said, “manopubbangama dhamma……” or “mind precedes everything else…”. It is this that gets described in detail in the Agganna sutta.

In that sutta, the Buddha explains how conglomerates of “planetary systems” blow up and are re-formed in time scales of “mahā kappas“. He has given a simile to get an idea of the length of a mahā kappa and it is approximately several billion years. And this destruction of a “star system” seems to be what scientists have observed as a supernova. Supernovae are of common occurrence; about three of them can be expected to happen every century in our Milky Way galaxy.

A suddhāshtaka is a “packet of energy” and is the basic unit that all matter is made out of. It is much smaller than in energy compared to a light photon that we see. A humongous number of suddhāshtaka would have the energy of a light photon. A suddhāshtaka, being a sankata, is created by the mind. This is why the Buddha said, “manō pubbangamā dhammā…”, i.e., “everything has mind as the precursor…”.

It is a valid question to ask and observe that in the few annihilation that earth faced, like the long ice age and the meteor that killed the dinosaurs etc., the “what if so? questiion.When the human and animal realms are destroyed, all those beings would be reborn in the first rūpa realms. When that is gradually destroyed, they will be reborn in the next higher realm and so on, until they are all in the Abhassara realm.

Buddha’s explanation of how all living beings in the lower realms get into the Abhassara Brahma realm when our world system (Cakkavata) is destroyed is not properly explained in any text found online. When the Sun starts heating up, fine sense objects start being destroyed, and with time less and less sensual objects will be there to trigger kāma rāga. All humans and animal will move to higher realms (over an antakkappa which lasts billions of years).

Even though all dense material realms are all destroyed at the end of a world cycle, all rūpa and arūpa realms at or above the Abhassara realm remain intact. When the Solar system is “re-formed” after billions of years, they all gradually come down to lower realms. . In the future, it will become clear to us that anything in this world has origins that can be traced back to the mind. That is the story in the Agganna sutta.


Must one move through the various jhanas to realise nibbana? Some of these jhanas are incredibly powerful but they have an opposite, that being emotional and mental upheaval and the dark nights.

Essentially, I realise that there are valuable insights to learn from both their extremes but I find that delusion can arise as part of the mental upheaval (I thought I was in love with my teacher) now that I'm out of the delusion it seems so silly.

Buddha had mentioned in a few suttas (I can't remember their names) that jhanas are the way to nibana but was this within the context of who he was giving the teaching to?

As an example, the satipathanna sutta was taught to the kuru people because they already possessed a deep wisdom and an advanced ability to learn quickly thus, the teaching he gave was conducive to their ability to attain higher levels of realisation very quickly.

Both Theravada and (Tibetan) Mahayana textual sources state that jhanas are not a hard requirement, but insight is.

That said, live teachers in both traditions clearly say that "insight" refers not as much to dry intellectual understanding as to practical real-life mastery of mind based on the first-hand insight into its key mechanisms.

In my understanding, jhanas ARE the stages of that mastery - especially if you interpret them broadly as stages of mastery of Emotional Intelligence - as opposed to concrete states. In this interpretation, nirvana/nibbana is a state of 100% inner harmony without any conflict between "is" and "should" whatsoever. While jhanas are progressive approximations of that state from coarse to finer, to finest, to transcendental.

The coarse stages entail coarser positive mindstates and coarser techniques of generating them - and the finer stages entail finer positive mindstates and finer techniques of generating them. If you look at it this way, you will see that jhanas are the very nature of the gradual path and are therefore required for anyone but the most talented practitioners who can skip to pure suchness right away.


Object of Focus for Mindfulness (Non-judgment) In the context of modern mindfulness, one should pay attention to awareness non-judgmentally. I have tried this, and wondered whether it is possible to do so without an object, e.g. the breath. Jon Kabat-Zinn, founder of this movement in the West, advised in one of his talks/books that one should keep with the object for a long time, even years.

What is the effect of attending to awareness without any object, merely being non-judgmental to what arises? Is there such a thing?

How one can be aware without any object? To be aware or mindful means to be aware/mindful of something, isn't it? Therefore, in the context of Buddhist meditation one can choose an object like breath or body and fix attention on it or be aware of it, while it changes from moment to moment (in-breath/out-breath, body sensations etc.). One can also be aware of the "present moment", which means not focusing on anything specific, but maintaining open field of awareness and registering whatever enters that field (again: breath, body sensations, but also sounds, thoughts, emotions, internal commentator, smells, tastes etc.). Anything that natural flow of our everyday experience brings to us. And then comes in the other element you mentioned, our reactions to these experiences, which can also be an object of our non-judgemental awareness. Observing these reactions is much more beneficial than focusing only on the experiences of the so called first order. By becoming aware of these reactions we first of all see which one of them increase our frustration and which one contribute to our inner peace. By learning that, we can slowly start changing these reactions and thus transforming our life.


Why do I rock/sway when people pass me meditating outdoors, and stop when they're gone? When I meditate outside/outdoors, when my body becomes super relaxed, I notice my upper body starts to rock/sway forwards and backwards whenever anyone passes by, or when I am being observed from a distance. Sometimes, the rocking is fast, sometimes it is slow. Sometimes it is very soft and barely perceptible, sometimes it feels like one of those bobbers on the counter of a Chinese restaurant. It stops when the person/people go past, or observations stop.
It also stops if I telephatically make a request for it to stop. And restarts if I ask it to continue (while the people are still walking by).
Does anyone have any idea of what/why is happening?

{Edit for people who get triggered on the 'why' above in my former question: Has anyone else experienced anything like this, or know what is happening}?

(Note: When I'm deep in trance, I do not consciously observe anything or anyone - my mind is still -, yet I'm aware of everyone and everything around me, almost like I'm everywhere at once. The only thing I examine, if I get so inclined, is myself).

Rocking and swaying is caused by the arising of Rapture (Pīti) which is one of the 10 Imperfections of Insight and one of the 5 Jhana Factors.
If practicing Vipassana meditation just note it until it passes away. If it doesn't stop after a long time, make the resolution to make it stop by saying "stop" in your mind. It will then stop either after the first resolution or after a couple of them.
If practicing Samatha meditation just return to the primary meditation object, ie. the breath at the anapana-spot. Don't take either of the Jhana factors as an meditation object. It will not strengthen them but instead weaken them, thereby not leading to Jhana.


At which stage of enlightenment are the aggregates seen as not-self fully? In the Khemaka Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89/en/sujato) Khemaka is an Anagami and he sees the aggregates as not-self. Based on this I guess the answer to my question is probably stream-entry or anagami, but I'm not sure.
This is a quote from that sutta:

“In the same way, reverends, I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to
form, or apart from form. I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to feeling
… perception … choices … consciousness, or apart from consciousness.
For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the
conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.
Although a noble disciple has given up the five lower fetters, they
still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I
am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated.

The conceit ‘I am’ is the 8th fetter; only fully eradicated by an Arahant.

Bhikkhus, there are these five higher fetters. What five? Lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance. SN 45.180

The stream-enterer has overcome 'identity view' ('sakkaya-ditthi'); which means seeing the group (body; kaya) of aggregates are not a self. However, the stream-enterer's seeing of the aggregates as not-self is obviously not complete enough to remove all ten fetters and uproot all outflows of defilements & conceit.
Therefore, arahant is the stage of enlightenment where the aggregates are seen as not-self fully.


Apparently stream-entrants are destined to attain Nibbana but what about non-stream-entrants? Are only stream-entrants destined to attain Nibbana?

I don't know whether it is possible to be destined to attain Nibbana more than 7 lives beforehand.

Is it not possible to be destined to attain Nibbana more than 7 lives beforehand ?

Say, you wanted to lose weight and stay healthy. If you have no idea about Calories, Carbs, Fat, and Exercise - you may spend years randomly trying all types of foods, fasting, etc. - your weight going up and down endlessly. But once you get a clear idea of the science behind the body weight, you start eating healthy and exercising. Then you can draw a burn-down chart of weight by day and see how fast you're moving. At this point you can more or less precisely predict how long it will take you to reach your target weight. So it gets rather "deterministic" for you (wrong use of the word but I will go with you here). While for the people who are on a random diet based on their cravings and dislikes, the weight loss is pretty much never going to happen, because they don't have a methodical system in place that creates rational causes leading in the right direction.

Similarly, with stream entry. You understand "wrongness" (dukkha), the way it arises from conflict between "is" and "should", and the behaviors leading to conflict. You also understand "peace", the way it arises from the cessation of conflict, and the behaviors leading to no-conflict. Once you clearly see that, you can act accordingly. Once you act accordingly, it can be known that you will finish the process in finite time (seven lives being a figure of speech).

It's really simple, no need to over-complicate it.


How can we use the triple round model to understand dependent origination? In the Visuddhimagga (but not in the suttas) and possibly other commentaries, we can find the triple round model, which can be used to explain dependent origination (paticcasamuppada).

The first round is called the round of defilement (kilesa-vaṭṭa) which includes ignorance (avijjā), craving (tanha) and clinging (upādāna).

The second round is called the round of action (kamma-vaṭṭa) which includes mental formations (saṅkhāra) and becoming (bhava).

The third round is called the round of results (vipāka-vaṭṭa) which includes consciousness (viññāṇa), name-form (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa) and feeling (vedanā). Sometimes, it also includes birth (jāti), death and the rest of suffering (jarāmaraṇa).

The meaning of vaṭṭa according to wisdomlib is:

  Vaṭṭa, 1 (adj. -nt.) (pp. of vṛt, Sk. vṛtta in meaning of “round” as
  well as “happened, become” etc. The two meanings have become
  differentiated in Pāli: vaṭṭa is not found in meaning of “happened. ”
  All three Pāli meanings are specialized, just as the pres. vaṭṭati is
  specialized in meaning “behoves”) 1. round, circular; (nt.) circle
  PvA. 185 (āyata+); KhA 50 (°nāli). See cpd. °aṅguli.—2. (fig.)
  “rolling on, ” the “round” of existences, cycle of transmigrations,
  saṃsāra, evolution (=involution) (as forward or ascending circle of
  existences, without implying a teleological idea, in contrast to
  vivaṭṭa “rolling back” or devolution, i.e. a new (descending) cycle of
  existence in a new aeon with inverted (vi-) motion, so to speak)

Question 1: How can we use the triple round model to understand dependent origination, especially within this lifetime? What is the correct interpretation of the triple round model?

Question 2: How can we understand the link from the triple round to the Wheel of Becoming (bhavachakra)? (statement below from here):

  So this Wheel of Becoming, having a triple round with these three
  rounds, should be understood to spin, revolving again and
  again, forever, for the conditions are not cut off as long as the
  round of defilements is not cut off.

Question 3: Is it true that ignorance is always the starting point to get the perpetual wheel-turning started?

Perspectives from different traditions are welcomed.

As explained in oral Mahayana tradition, the twelve Nidanas schematically describe gradual process of emerging subjective experience of the world and a sense of self.
The actual process is not linear and does not have 12 well-defined steps. Instead, 12 links should be considered as key milestones or features. The process itself is made of thousands or even millions of events. Every event follows the same basic pattern: something is perceived, recognized, identified, categorized, evaluated, either liked or disliked, either craved  or avoided, then there is some action, then the resulting experience is aggregated. This basic cycle occurs thousands or millions of times - each iteration slowly, slowly contributing to the developing sense of self (and the world).
There are many ways this process can be analytically explained in order to aid understanding. The challenge any description must solve is to show how each iteration follows the same basic pattern, but at the same time, to show that the whole thing grows over time, becoming more and more clear. In the beginning, there are very vague tendencies for generalization, and then slowly, slowly, very blurry outlines begin to emerge.
Another challenge is to show how and why this process is self-sustaining and self-clarifying. What forces are at play that make the whole thing evolve. What we're trying to show is how the growing subjectivity shapes the agent-centric action and how action feeds the grows of subjectivity.
This is what the triple-round model tries to illustrate. In this model we say that basically, D.O. has three main forces at play: the force of  "murkiness", the force of action, and the force of growing subjectivity. These three forces support each other and push each other forward, thereby making the whole situation evolve.
Murkiness feeds and supports the growth of primitive, confused, naive subjectivity. Confused subjectivity feeds and supports defiled activity. Defiled activity feeds and supports murkiness. The three forces feed and support each other and help each other develop.

The first round is called the round of defilement (kilesa-vaṭṭa) which includes ignorance (avijjā), craving (tanha) and clinging (upādāna).

This part talks about the force of murkiness. When we look at the 12-fold description of D.O. we can see 3 features that can be primarily associated with murkiness. The initial ignorance is murkiness in its most obvious original form. Craving is murkiness in its developed phase. Updana is murkiness in its most active phase.

The second round is called the round of action (kamma-vaṭṭa) which includes mental formations (saṅkhāra) and becoming (bhava).

This part talks about the force of action. Murkiness contributes to propensity or tendency to act and react in a certain way. On the initial stages, when things are very vague and unclear, these propensities are very ambiguous generalizations, inclining to seek some experiences and to avoid others. On the mature stages of D.O. the propensity to act in pursuit of likeable experience and to avoid its opposite gets much more deliberate, so now we can talk about "bhava" or individual purposeful planned activity in
pursuit of personal plans. On this stage we actively shape our environment by achieving our dreams and making them come true - in other words we actively construct ourselves and our world.

The third round is called the round of results (vipāka-vaṭṭa) which includes consciousness (viññāṇa), name-form (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa) and feeling (vedanā). Sometimes, it also includes birth (jāti), death and the rest of suffering (jarāmaraṇa).

The remaining group describes the elements that develop to comprise our subjective experience. This is the gradually emerging experience of myself looking out, this is what we see: external objects slowly take shape, our feelings, the sense of the world and of self, and the interaction between the two.
In (protomahayana) Salistamba Sutra this is explained very similarly, except there they split the Defilement (Murkiness) factor into two separate factors: Ignorance and Desire:

... Four limbs of this twelve-fold Dependent Origination [are] ignorance, desire, karma and consciousness.
Here, consciousness [is like a] seed. Action [is like a] field. Ignorance and desire are defilement. Without these conditions, the development of the consciousness-seed does not occur. And so, the seed of consciousness grows, standing in the field of action, scattered by the wind of ignorance, watered by the moisture of desire.