What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)? What is the difference between Dhithi (view) and Panna (wisdom)?
According to Buddhism the teaching of other religions considered views.
However, people who follow those religions think that they have wisdom.
How can we differentiate views from wisdom?

Panna is understanding, knowledge, wisdom, insight. Panna is always correct.
Ditthi is simply view. Ditthi can be either right(Samma-ditthi) or wrong(Micca-ditti).
Samma-ditthi has 2 levels:

The right view caused by faith in another's teaching and/or faith in personal feelings,perceptions and reasoning.
ex: having the view that rebirth is true without actually knowing and without knowing the nature of phenomena

The right view caused by Panna
ex: having the view that rebirth is true by direct knowledge and/or by inference(through understanding of how phenomena arise).

Micca-ditthi has nothing to do with Panna. It is caused by ignorance and the faith in someone else's false teachings or the faith in one's own feelings, perceptions and false reasoning.
ex: believing that death is the end regardless of one's mental conditioning


How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception? How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception ?

Can anyone point me to on-line resources where in I can read more about this topic ?

It is a topic expounded in:

philosophical texts
classifications and presentations of tenets (Tib. grub mtha')

In several instances, "reality" refers to "ultimate truth". You will find it so meaning in expressions such as "concealing reality", "seeing reality", "understanding or ascertaining the meaning of reality". It seems it is also how Sankha Kulathantille understood it, since he gave the Vaibhashika definition of ultimate truth.

I will indicate how Geluk presentations of tenets (grub mtha') define ultimate truth in relation to different philosophical school. My main sources here are Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen's Presentation of Tenets and Geshe Sopa's Cutting Through Appearances. These sources are more "doxographical" than they are philosophical.

Vaïbashika definition [of ultimate truth] : A phenomenon that is such that, if it were broken or mentally separated into parts, the mind apprehending  that object would not cease. Ex.: directionally partless particles, temporally partless moments of consciousness, uncompounded space, any of the five aggreegates.

Sautrantika definition: A phenomenon that is able to perform a function ultimately. Ex.: Any impermanent phenomenon.

(That is to say an appearing object of a conceptual consciousness is not an ultimate truth, and a conceptual consciousness is necessarily mistaken with regard to its appearing object)

Cittamatrin definition: That which is realized by means of a valid direct perceiver that realizes it clearly without dualistic appearance. Ex.: An emptiness that is a form and its form-apprehending valid cognizer’s
emptiness of being other substances, and an emptiness that is a form’s
emptiness of existing by way of its own characteristics as a base for assigning the term ‘form’.

Madhyamika-Svatantrika definition: An object that is realized in a non-dualistic manner by the direct valid cognizer that directly realizes it. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of true existence.

Madhyamika-Prasangika definition: An object which is found by a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence and with respect to which a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence become a valid cognizer analyzing for the final mode of existence. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of inherent
existence.

The Prasangika stand is, in brief: anytime a conventional truth appears to the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha), it appears together with the appearance of inherent existence. Thus, all conventional cognizers in the continuum of a sentient being are mistaken with regard, not to the thing, but to the mode of existence [of things]. Innate ignorance is the mistaken conception of true existence that conceals reality (i.e. emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence) and is the opposite of wisdom directly realizing emptiness (which is the absence of inherent existence).


Near death experience and meditation I have been trying to analyse NDE stories from a meditator's point of view. The way people change after a NDE is, in some cases, similar to the changes a person goes through after meditating for a while (i. e. less materialist, more calm, serene, not affraid of dying, less attachment to the "I"...). It is a life changing experience just like meditation when taken seriously.

In general NDE fits well in the Dhamma, showing for instance that the mind does not depend upon the body.

Let's accept NDE as true for a while.
What I don't get and want some help is: almost all NDE are nice and positive (similarly to going to heaven). In the Dhamma we usually hear that most people are reborn in the awful planes due to their kamma. Some monks even say people sometimes get a glimpse of their future realm of rebirth. That would suggest NDE should be bad and traumatic for most people, but it is not! I don't believe so many people are going to be reborn in heaven, based on the way people live and all ignorance and anger in the world.

Also, most people after a NDE claim to have seen and talked to dead family members or even pets, would that imply necessarily that they were all in the hungry ghost realm? Or could they be devas, but keeping the same old shape?!

I know fitting NDE 100% into the Dhamma may be impossible, but I appreciate any help!

NDE's are true. Just as true as any other experience. When there is seeing, this is the experience of seeing. It arises and ceases.

  “Again, bhikkhus, when walking, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I am walking’; when standing, he understands: ‘I am standing’; when sitting, [57] he understands: ‘I am sitting’; when lying down, he understands: ‘I am lying down’; or he understands accordingly however his body is disposed."

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating feelings as feelings? Here, when feeling a pleasant feeling, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling’; when feeling a painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a painful feeling’; when feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.’ When feeling a worldly pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly pleasant feeling’; when feeling an unworldly pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly pleasant feeling’; when feeling a worldly painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly painful feeling’; when feeling an unworldly painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly painful feeling’; when feeling a worldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling’; when feeling an unworldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling."

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects? Here a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five hindrances. And how does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five hindrances? Here, there being sensual desire in him, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is sensual desire in me’; or there being no sensual desire in him, he understands: ‘There is no sensual desire in me’; and he also understands how there comes to be the arising of unarisen sensual desire, and how there comes to be the abandoning of arisen sensual desire, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of abandoned sensual desire.’
      “There being ill will in him … There being sloth and torpor in him … There being restlessness and remorse in him … There being doubt in him, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is doubt in me’; or there being no doubt in him, he understands: ‘There is no doubt in me’; and he understands how there comes to be the arising of unarisen doubt, and how there comes to be the abandoning of arisen doubt, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of abandoned doubt."

  “Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects [61] in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging. And how does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging? Here a bhikkhu understands: ‘Such is material form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception, such its origin, such its disappearance; such are the formations, such their origin, such their disappearance; such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.’
      39. “In this way he abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects internally, externally, and both internally and externally … And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging.

Satipatthana Sutta

In this way, seeing is seeing. Trying to prescribe anything else to it in an ultimate sense is false attribution.


How is Vegetarianism morally superior to eating meat in a Buddhist context? Fact: Buddha ate meat. He died from food poisoning eating pork. Are not thousands if not millions of living being slaughtered when you harvest vegetables (worms, insects, micro-organisms etc.)? So how is vegetarianism morally superior to eating meat in a Buddhist context?

First of all, the Buddha didn't die from eating pork at least in the Theravada point of view. In fact, his last meal was sukara maddava, translated to English dug by pigs, a mushroom which still grows in India.

Also, vegetarianism is not considered morally superior to eating meat in Theravada. The general guideline followed with regards to eating meat by both monastics and laity is,

  I say that there are three occasions in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected, that the living being has been killed for sake of the bhikkhu, I say: Meat may be eaten on these three occasions.
  MN 55

On the other hand, a person can be a strict vegetarian while craving for tastier food and could be strengthening his ego considering his higher morality, both of which are not good.


how to aware of Dukkha ( "suffering", "anxiety", "stress", or "unsatisfactoriness") I have read about

'Dukkha': What is the difference between 'suffering' & 'unsatisfactoriness'?

but i want to know how to aware Dukkha

what are the good practicess to aware Dukkha

Dukkha is a state in which our expectations differ from the actual state of the world; it's often tied in with a perverse sense of permanence. For instance, it's fairly common for people to assume that their favorite sports team are 'winners'. That produces dukkha when the team loses (because losing violates expectations), and it produces dukkha when the team wins (because winning amplifies the expectation that the team will always win).

Tanhā is a stubborn demand that our expectations must become real; it's usually translated as 'craving,' but... We often see that in super-fans, for instance, who somehow have become so attached to the fortunes of their team that much of their emotional life revolves around it.

All we need to do to be aware of dukkha is to notice when we are discontent with the way things are. If we feel a sour/angry/pissy/grumpy/churlish attitude rising, it's because (somewhere in our head) we expected A from the world and got B. If we feel a pleased/smug/superior/sanctimonious attitude rising, it's because the world momentarily aligned with our expectations, and we damned well think it should do it more often. Tanhā is a bit more difficult to recognize because tanhā usually involves a a self-righteous sense that our expectations are 'real' and the actual state of the world is 'false'; we are so committed to the way things should be that we lose connection to the world as-it-is entirely.

Ridding ourselves of dukkha is advanced practice; it's extraordinarily difficult to live without expectations, and I'm not certain it's realistic or healthy outside of monastic life. Ridding ourselves of tanhā is valid and valuable for all of us, though.


Categories of Dhammanupassana (Satipatthana) What are the components, the categories (the dhammas)that have to be observed in dhammanupassana (the 4th field of satipatthana)?

The categories are:

5 hindrances
5 aggregates of clinging
6 internal and 6 external sense-bases
7 awakening-factors
4 noble truths

Sourced from: Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta


Shouldn't we care only "What I think" instead of "What I + Others think"? Our own thoughts make something wholesome or unwholesome. Not what other's think. So, is there a need to care about what others think regarding a certain thing?

We can do good for others, but they might think that we do something bad for them. Isn't it their responsibility to think in a wholesome manner?

The title of this question should be "Should we care about what others think?", but I found a related question here:

Should we care about what others think?

However, it doesn't have any answers regarding this case (karma).

Kind regards

We should not harass other people, including with what is wholesome. The suttas say:

  Enduring patience is the supreme austerity, Nibbāna is supreme say the
  Buddhas, for one gone forth does not hurt another, nor does an ascetic
  harass another. Dhammapada 184

  Drawing in the mind’s thoughts As a tortoise draws its limbs into its
  shell, Independent, not harassing others, fully quenched, A bhikkhu
  would not blame anyone. SN 1.17

If we act with a wholesome intention, this is not wrong. But if we discover others are not interested in our wholesome intentions, we should refrain from harassing them & care about what they think.

However, if we unintentionally offend them with our wholesomeness, we have done nothing wrong. As Jesus said: "Do not give pearls to swine; do not give the children's food to the dogs; they will turn to attack & trample upon it".


Is there anything like "positive suffering" for Buddhists? In some religions, suffering is seen as a positive thing, some people even see it as a necessary step for growing, however in Buddhism suffering is seen as something that should be avoid or eliminated, we don't invite suffering, we want peace and there is nothing wrong with it.

So, is there anything like a positive and necessary suffering in Buddhism?

Yes, there is, as mentioned in the Upanisa Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya:

"Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
(SN 12.23, Bodhi, trans)

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote an article on this sutta here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html
As he puts it:

The Buddha's declaration that suffering is the supporting condition for faith points to the essential backdrop to the awakening of the religious consciousness. It reveals that spiritual awareness and the quest for enlightenment do not arise spontaneously in harmony with our natural modes of world-engagement, but require a turn "against the current" a break away from our instinctual urges for expansion and enjoyment and the embarkation in a different direction. This break is precipitated by the encounter with suffering. Suffering spurs the awakening of the religious consciousness in that it is the experience of suffering which first tears us out of our blind absorption in the immediacy of temporal being and sets us in search of a way to its transcendence. Whether in the form of pain, frustration, or distress, suffering reveals the basic insecurity of the human condition, shattering our naive optimism and unquestioned trust in the goodness of the given order of things. It throws before our awareness, in a way we cannot evade, the vast gulf stretching between our ingrained expectations and the possibilities for their fulfillment in a world never fully susceptible to domination by our wills. It makes us call into question our schemes of values built upon the bedrock of personal expedience. It leads to a revaluation of all values and a new scale of worth indifferent to the claims of self-concern. And it opens us to confidence in an unseen order of relations and inter-connections, an order in which the values that emerge, so often in forceful opposition to the old, will find their proper justification and reward.

I guess I'd put it more simply: suffering leads one to put one's faith in spiritual practice because one no longer sees pleasure in mundane existence. It leads one to gain faith in the Buddha's teaching specifically because it teaches that suffering is a fact of life, which one has come to verify.
So yeah, suffering is important.  There is another sutta (Padota Sutta) that talks about four types of thoroughbred horses as a simile for humans:

"Once more, monks, here we may have a goodly thoroughbred man who neither hears it said... nor yet with his own eyes beholds... nor is his own kinsman or blood-relation afflicted or dead, but he himself is stricken with painful bodily feelings, grievous, sharp, racking, distracting, discomforting, that drain the life away. Thereat he is stirred, he feels agitation. Being so stirred he strictly applied himself. Thus applied he both realizes in his own person the supreme truth, and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. Just as, monks, that goodly thoroughbred steed on being pierced to the very bone is stirred, feels agitation, even so using this figure do I speak of this goodly thoroughbred man. Of such a sort, monks, is the goodly thoroughbred man in this case.
(AN 4.113, Woodward, trans)

So there is definitely the idea that suffering spurs one towards enlightenment, at least in a preliminary way.


What is the perspective of the western buddhist cannon websites? In the eastern perspective, Tipitaka is memorized and studied by Atthakatha-teachers from generation to generation and still going on nowadays, so it is weird to study Tipitaka without Atthakatha.

But I look at the western Buddhist canon website and they look like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's explanation because it's not actually his."

For the example, https://suttacentral.net/ protects 84000.org to show suttacentral's page on its iframe directly after this function opened ere long.

I requested this function to 84000.org webmaster because I need to use tipitaka, atthakatha, and tika in pali thai, pali roman, siamrattha thai translation, mahamakutta thai university translation, MCU translation, and english translation. (I don't know why 84000.org chose iframe instead of the real source from inside, but I think the webmaster may avoid the license problem).

Actually, that protection is not the main idea, however it means suttacentral webmasters already knew the problem that suttacentral has not enough canons for the reference, no Atthakatha-pali and no Tika. It's ok for that protection, but it makes the questions that why don't suttacentral and the other western buddhist canon websites put the losing resources into their website, although they already knew there were demands?

So,

What is the perspective of the western Buddhist canon website to protect the Buddhist people from Atthakatha study?
Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like  "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's explanation because it's not actually his"?

Another, why don't the western Buddhist canon websites make the function for easier reference such as highlight function?

OP: It's ok for that protection, but it makes the questions that why don't suttacentral and the other western buddhist canon websites
  put the losing resources into their website, although they already
  knew there were demands?

  OP: Another, why don't the western Buddhist canon websites make the function for easier reference such as highlight function?

SuttaCentral for example, has a discussion forum here. If you want new features. You can ask them directly. I'm sure other "western" buddhist canon websites have similarly reachable community or administrators. If they lack manpower, maybe they will focus on the canon first, which is itself huge.

Apart from the suttas, there's also translation of the Visuddhimagga online and also summaries of the Abhidhamma.

  OP: What is the perspective of the western Buddhist canon website to protect the Buddhist people from Atthakatha study?

I think this is largely due a lack of manpower, so they focus on what they think people need the most.

For example, you can see that not all of the Sutta Pitaka is available on AccessToInsight. Only the ones judged by the admin to be the most useful are there. Similarly with Piya Tan's collection at The Minding Centre.

On the other hand, SuttaCentral has grown to contain a far bigger collection of the suttas, perhaps hoping to cover the whole Sutta Pitaka one day. This is by itself a huge effort.

Comparatively, the Atthakatha is seen as secondary to the Suttas and less important.

But nevertheless you can read parts of the Atthakatha indirectly quoted by Piya Tan at The Minding Centre and other translators like Thanissaro Bhikkhu on AccessToInsight.

  OP: Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's
  explanation because it's not actually his"?

I don't think this is the attitude. I think it's more like "I want to listen to the master's words first. That's more important to me. But if there is a disciple explaining it, I can refer to it, but it's less important or secondary."


Skillful assumptions Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't round during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat? Was a belief in a flat Earth a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

OP: Does atheism in Buddhism mean you let a belief arise that God doesn't
  exist? Is this a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

To put your "salvation" or your liberation from suffering into someone else's hands, is unskillful in Buddhism.

To reinforce belief in a self, is unskillful in Buddhism.

To take anything that is impermanent as permanent, is unskillful in Buddhism.

Faith in an eternal permanent Supreme God who is one's personal saviour would include all three unskillful views above, in some way or the other.

  OP: Was it right view for one to believe that the world wasn't round
  during the time when it seemed to everyone that the Earth was flat?
  Was a belief in a flat Earth a skillful assumption? Why or why not?

Whether the Earth is round or flat is not of concern to Buddhism, and can be left to science. In this case, it is skillful to rely on scientific methods.

However, metaphysical investigations that cannot be proven by science is not skillful, as seen in the Acintita Sutta:

  "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.


How is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima connected to the Buddhist community? How is he connected to the Buddhist community?  Is he a to be Buddhist leader or simply a successor?

And does his imprisonment by china has anything to do with Buddhism or is it just a political matter?

Did his imprisonment affected the Buddhist community? If yes, then how?

The founder of the Gelug tradition, Lama Je Tsongkhapa, had two main disciples:

Gyaltsab Je and
Khedrup Je

While Khedrup Je was the 1st Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was recognized, by H.H. the Dalaï-Lama, as the 11th Panchen Lama. He was also recognized as such by the Chinese government that decided to have a say in the so-called “Tulku system [of recognition]”.

Although Gyaltsab Je was the Spiritual Leader of the Gelug tradition (Ganden Tripa) after Tsongkhapa, Khedup Je also became the Ganden Tripa in time, after Gyaltsab Je's passing.

As a result, their philosophical work is highly regarded by Gelug teachers and students. Gelug students still study the 1st Panchen Lama's commenteries, along with Gyaltsab Je's.

Khedrup Je was also a teacher of Gendün Druppa, the 1st Dalaï-Lama. From the time of the 5th Dalaï-Lama, the Dalaï-Lama & the Panchen Lama held the responsibility of recognizing one another['s reincarnation].

It is believed that Khedrup Je was a reincarnation of Subhuti (the one depicted in the Vajra Cutter Sutra, a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha).

Whether his imprisonment affected the Buddhist community, and if so, in what way, is difficult to tell. His imprisonment means:
… a teacher of H.H. the Dalaï-Lama being imprisoned
… a candidate to the regency of H.H. the Dalaï-Lama being imprisoned
… one of the main disciples of the founder of the Geluk tradition being imprisoned
… a candidate to the position of Ganden Tripa being imprisoned
… a potentially influential of textual commentaries being imprisoned

Most Tibetans still mourn him. If you go to McLeod Ganj or Boudhanath, you will see plenty of posters with his pictures, and printed characters such as “Give back the Panchen Lama!”

Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche (that many think of as clairvoyant, or even enlightened and thus omniscient) said that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima (from whom we have never heard of again otherwise) is still alive, safe and sound.


Opening my third eye experience I've been meditating for me get a week and have always felt connected to my spiritual side. My dad has been meditating for about 30 years so I go by his guilds.
I just wanted to know if anyone else felt what I have been feeing.
After a few try's I saw an eye approach me and it kind of scared me away so I stopped the meditation till the next day.
After that I've been getting vibrations coming through my body (from my feet to shoulders) every time I meditate.
What should I expect next? Are there levels of meditation?

Yeah, initially you may experience all kinds of glitches. When you don't meditate a lot of energy is stuck at different layers of your body-mind, and when you start meditating those layers start connecting to each other and energy starts flowing up and down.

So you may get a headache or feel like you are flying or see some flashes of colors, or get various body experiences etc. These are all like hallucinations, don't take them too serious. It is only a side effect of your energy moving to a more balanced state.

Some of them are very cool. Some of them can be super interesting thoughts or intellectual realizations. You job is to not fall in love with them on one hand, and don't fight them on the other hand, but let them come up and pass away so you can keep going.

Next you may expect funny dreams. Maybe lucid dreams when you know you're dreaming. Maybe flying dreams. Maybe dreams in which you go through walls. You may also start noticing how in your post meditation you become more steady and your senses get a lot brighter, like you feel more awaken.

On the other hand, at some point you may feel like meditation gets very frustrating. For some reason you start hating it. Usually that means you got stuck on some preconceived notion of how meditation is supposed to go. If that happens, let go of that!


My job requires me to shuck oysters I am not necessarily Buddhist but I am a vegan and killing doesn't sit well with me. I have suffered terrible sleep condition over the past 2 years and can't work in my field anymore and have no experience in any other field and have a hard time getting to work at an early time so midday work is best for me. Unfortunately the restaurant I work at currently has oysters for sale and they are alive when you prepare them which involves killing them. I don't know how to rationalize this but I am struggling financially and am working on getting a different restaurant job where they might not serve this dish. But I have killed some oysters already. How do I come to terms with this?

The Buddhist teachings do not exist for you to create suffering for yourself. Oysters are extremely primitive life forms. While they breathe oxygen, they are very close to plants. Oysters have a nervous system but not a brain. We practise non-killing as Buddhists so we cultivate a respect for life and cease to be violent people. If killing oysters (that don't suffer or don't have relatives or loved one's who suffer about them) is against your moral principles then find a new job. However, if you think deeply about what or who you have harmed, I don't think much will be found. Don't worry about it. Let it go. An oyster does not have a  brother, sister, mother or father somewhere in the universe grieving about their lost relative oyster. The Buddha appeared to infer in SN 12.63 that lifeforms consuming other lifeforms is part of the cycle of life. As a "vegan", I imagine your views about food are more extreme than the average Buddhist. For example, the Buddha did not preach vegetarianism. The above said, personally, I would not like to kill oysters for a living.


Spacious versus Empty This comment says,

  True the world becomes more SPACIOUS when we focus on the moment and thus see that to save one life is to save the world. This is why it is important to translate spaciousness as spaciousness and not emptiness.

Are "spacious" and "empty" words that are confused or mis-translated?

Is "spacious" a word that has a use in Buddhism?

A search for "spacious" on Access to Insight suggests that word is used, but is not used often and not used canonically.

I think "empty" usually means "empty of self", am I right? I.e. when people say "empty" do they mean Anatta?

More like shunyata instead of anatta. The former has a philosophical as well as an experiential component. It speaks to the inherent emptiness of all things as well as the spacious feelings that often accompany the direct realization of that emptiness.  The etymology of the word shunyata also conveys a notion of "hollowness" and has actually been translated as "emptiness", "voidness", and "spaciousness".

Side note - I'd be careful not to confuse the perception of shunyata with the experiences of the formless attainments (namely the base of infinite space and the base of nothingness).  Those are very different things; even the Pali/Sanskrit roots of the word are vastly different.


the Pair of Knowing and Object I am searching for a precise understanding of what Buddhist authors mean by the "pair" of "knowing" and "object". For example

  ...we see that what we call "self" is simply the pairwise progression of knowing and object.

A second example

  In all perception, at each event of noting, there is always this twin
  pair, the object and the mind,  which observes the object. These two
  elements of the object and the knowing mind always arise  in pairs,
  and apart from these 2, there does not exist any other thing in the
  form of a 'person',  an 'observer', an 'experiencer', nor any 'Ego',
  'Subject', or  any 'Self'! No identity is present! Similarly is there
  no 'observed object', or  any 'substance' "out there" independent of
  the mind!

Can this "pair" of "knowing" and "object" be explained precisely? Or is it subject to many interpretations?

What insight is gained from discussion of this pair of knowing and objects?

The "pair" or "dyad" of "knowing" and "object" is found in the Pali scriptures, as follows:

  At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus... there is
  this (internal) 'group' ('kaya': of five aggregates) and external minds-and-bodies: thus this dyad (pair). Dependent on the
  dyad (pair) there is contact.

  https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.19

~~~

  Owing to a dyad (pair), monks, consciousness comes into being. And how, monks, does consciousness come into being owing to a dyad?

  Owing to the eye and forms arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Forms are impermanent,
  changing, 'becoming-otherwise.' Thus this dyad is fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing and 'becoming-otherwise.'

  Owing to the ear and sounds arises ear-consciousness. The ear is impermanent...

  Owing to the nose and scents arises nose-consciousness. The nose is impermanent...

  Owing to the tongue and savors arises tongue-consciousness...The tongue is impermanent.

  Owing to the body and tangibles arises body-consciousness. The body is impermanent...

  Owing to the mind and ideas arises mind-consciousness. The mind is impermanent...contacted, monks, one feels. Contacted, one intends.
  Contacted, one perceives. Thus these states also are fleeting and
  transient; impermanent, changing, 'becoming-otherwise.'

  SN 35.93

~~

  The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be
  known.

  MN 148

The 1st example in the opening post is incorrect understanding. For example, what is called "self" is not included in the pairwise occurring of knowing and object. The mind can know an object but be empty of 'self' because 'self' is a product of thought/thinking (sankhara) while knowing an object is a product of sense consciousness (awareness: vinnana).

The 2nd example in opening post is correct understanding, in that when the dyad operates, there is no 'self' in its operation. However, the thought of 'self' can arise quickly afterwards (called 'becoming'), as described in the following quote:

  "Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

  "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.'... The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression and sense-impression is
  the condition of feeling.'

  "Who, O Lord, feels?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.... And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

  "Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.'...the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of
  craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

  "Who, O Lord, clings?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.'... 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of (self) becoming.' Such
  is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

  SN 12.12

However, to assert there are no objects "out there" independent of the mind goes too far. It is an extreme view because to assert there are no objects independent of mind asserts the mind is 'God' or 'Brahma'; that the mind is the 'Creator' of the external world.

The Pali scriptures state, for example, the Laws of Nature exist "out there" regardless of whether they are known by a human mind or not, as follows:

  Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. All processes are
  unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self. The Tathagata directly
  awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking
  through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it
  forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain

  Dhamma-niyama Sutta

The insight gained in knowing this pair of knowing and objects is explained in SN 35.93 quoted above, namely: (i) the mind can clearly identify or be aware of them and not create 'self-becoming' & suffering in relation to them; (ii) the mind can see they arise & pass; are impermanent & not-self.

For example, an object of sight comes to be when eye-consciousness functions & an object of sight ceases to be when the eye-consciousness ceases to function. If this is watched, the mind will realise all sense objects are impermanent each time the eye blinks.


What is Inner and Outer Peace and how can I achieve them? I am bit Confused about Inner and Outer Peace.

If they exist, how can I know and how can I achieve them?

Using Buddhist vocabulary, what you call "inner peace" might be "tranquility" (i.e. Passaddhi); and what you call "Outer Peace" might be a consequence of ethical/virtuous/moral behaviour (i.e. Sīla).


What are the canonical definitions of vitarka-vicara in the Tripitaka or related literature The quote below defines Vitarka-vicara as:

Ardency (atappa) + mindfulness (sati) => combines to make vitakka
Ardency (atappa) + alertness (sampajañña) => combines to make vicara

  As Ajaan Lee, my teacher’s teacher, once noted, mindfulness combined with ardency turns into the concentration factor called vitakka, or directed thought, where you keep your thoughts consistently focused on one object, such as the breath. Alertness combined with ardency turns into another concentration factor: vicāra, or evaluation

Head & Heart Together, by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, Chapter: Mindfulness Defined

No citation from the cannon have been given in this discussion.

What are the Tipitaka, commentary, sub commentary sources, including primary, secondary or tertiary source with citations, which defines Vitarka-vicara as such?

Are there other definitions of Vitarka-vicara from Tipitaka, commentaries, sub commentaries, including primary, secondary or tertiary source with citations?

From Khuddaka Nikaya's The Questions of King Milinda (translation mine):

  ‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vitakka*?’

  ‘The characteristic mark of vitakka is "placing" (Appanā), Your Majesty.’

  ‘Give me an example.’

  ‘For example, Your Majesty, like a carpenter takes well-finished boards of wood and places (appeti) them in position.’

  Mil 3.3.13

*ideation, reasoning, putting forward ideas, postulating a premise

  ‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vicāra*?’

  ‘The characteristic mark of vicāra is pondering/mulling over (anumajjana), Your Majesty.’

  ‘Give me an example.’

  ‘For example, Your Majesty, if you strike on a copper vessel, it then rings for a while, it responds with a sound. Here, Your Majesty, the strike is a simile for vitakka and the reverberation is a simile for vicāra.’

  Mil 3.3.14

*investigating a premise, considering an idea to weigh its implications


Is it the EARTH only Place that can give birth to a Buddha? is it the EARTH only Place that can give birth to a Buddha? isn't their any other Universes or worlds  beside than Earth that Previously born Buddha or in the Future?

The plane humans live on, is the lowest of the higher realms of existence where one has the ability to comprehend the Dhamma. The Ābhāsvara worlds form the upper limits of existence. The scriptures talk about four tiers of existence or planes of consciousness. At the lowest level are the realms of Hell, and the worlds of Animal, hungry ghosts, & Asura / Titans. Above our world of Humans, there are the seven worlds of desire (Kama-lokas / Kamavacara). Above them are sixteen worlds of forms known as Ripa-lokas / Rupavacara. Above them are the four formless worlds (Arupa-lokas / Arupavacara).
Even on Earth, Buddhas are ALWAYS born in the middle kingdom. The following is what Buddha said of this region:

"Even if one escapes from the evil creations, it is one's rare fortune to be born as a human being. Even if one is born as a human, it is one's rare fortune to be born as a man and not a woman. Even if one is born as a man, it is one's rare fortune to be perfected in all the six senses. Even if he is perfected in all the six senses, it is his rare fortune to be born in the middle kingdom. Even if he is born in the middle kingdom, it is rare fortune to be born in the time of a Buddha. Even if he is born in the time of a Buddha, it is rare fortunate to see the Enlightened One. Even if he is able to see the Enlightened One, it is his rare fortune to have his heart awakened in faith. Even if he has faith, it is his rare fortune to awaken the heart of wisdom. Even if he awakens the heart of wisdom, it is his rare fortune to realise a spiritual state which is above discipline and attainment."

A Buddha’s  birth, His Supreme Buddha-hood, His first Dhamma discourse, and His pass away (Parinibbāna) - all happen within this Middle Kingdom. We know of these details because of Buddha’s Ten Extra Ordinary Powers. One of the ten powers is that a Buddha is…

capable of seeing how He spent His past lives in many ways. He has the capability to remember His past lives in terms of one life, two lives, three lives, four lives, five lives, ten lives, twenty lives, thirty lives, forty lives, fifty lives, hundred lives, thousand lives, or even hundred thousand lives. In fact, He can remember the past up to infinite time such as many Sanvatta Kalpa, Vivatta Kalpa, and Sanvatta Vivatta Kalpa.
He is capable of remembering all the past lives with all related information in a manner as follows: “I lived in that particular place, in that name, and in that family name. My skin color was this. I ate these kinds of foods and felt these and these happiness and sorrow. I died in these ways and got born in that other place. I got that particular name in that life. I had this family name. My skin color was this. I ate these kinds of foods and felt these and these happiness and sorrow. I died in these ways and got born in that other place.”


Did Lord Buddha preach not to believe our own minds? Has Lord Buddha preached that we shouldn't believe our own minds?

If he did, what is the meaning of that saying?

Update: Are there any meaning other than ignorence, Ilusion ? Like Uncertainty of mind, changing mind ?

"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html


Dependent Origination: causes vs conditions? I suspect that I am not alone in having a fuzzy understanding of precisely what the difference is between a ”cause” and a “condition” in the Buddha's teachings on Dependent Origination.
A concrete example illustrating the difference clearly and perhaps the interplay between the 2 would be helpful.
If that example were to be drawn exclusively from the Buddha’s teachings on “suffering and the end of suffering”, namely

Twelve Links of Dependent Origination-Dependent Co-arising
(Paticca-Samuppada)
Twelve Links of Transcendental Dependent Arising

that would be even more helpful.
Finally, if the example were to focus on only “suffering and the end of suffering” in this life and to avoid the divisive topic of “rebirth” as "reincarnation", that too would be very helpful.

The Pali word for 'cause' is 'hetu', which means direct cause, such as oxygen & hydrogen are the cause of water. An example of the use of 'hetu' is SN 22.82, which says the four elements of earth, wind, fire & water are the cause of the physical body aggregate:

The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the form aggregate.
Cattāro kho, bhikkhu, mahābhūtā hetu, cattāro mahābhūtā paccayo rūpakkhandhassa paññāpanāya.
SN 22.82

SN 12.2 uses the word 'paccaya', which means "resting on, falling back on, foundational". For example, AN 10.61 says ignorance has no preceding cause (hetu) yet also says the five hindrances are a condition (paccaya) for the maintenance of ignorance. AN 10.61 clearly shows the words 'cause' ('hetu') and 'condition' ('paccaya') are not synonymous because the five hindrances are not the cause of ignorance. If the five hindrances were the cause of ignorance then when the five hindrances are absent during the 1st jhana or even lesser concentration, full enlightenment would occur via the absence of ignorance.
SN 12.23 uses the word 'upanisā', which appears to be from 'upa' ('close') and 'nissaya' ('support'). It appears 'upanisā' and 'paccaya' are synonymous.
In summary, ignorance is obviously not the cause of the three sankhara (breathing, thought and perception & feeling) in Dependent Origination because the three sankhara continue to exist in a Buddha. Similarly , the three sankhara are not the cause of consciousness because a Buddha remains consciousness depsite having no ignorance; just as consciousness is not the cause of nama-rupa because consciousness cannot cause the existence of 'rupa' ('physical matter').
In Dependent Origination, ignorance is merely something the pollutes or taints the sankhara, consciousness, mind-body, sense bases & sense contact. However, it can be said ignorance causes (hetu) craving, attachment, ego-becoming, ego-birth, ego-death, dukkha and any other unwholesome mental state.
In conclusion, it appears paccaya (condition) is a general and flexible word that can accommodate both a condition and a cause. This appears why the words 'paccaya' and 'upanisā' are used in Dependent Origination rather than the rigid 'hetu' ('cause').


Taking Vinaya as a measure of the weight of kamma? Some Brahmans, strangely those learning Abhidhamma and give into meditation, draw excuses of deeds and weight of kamma from the Vinaya, arguing that a lesser transgression must be lighter kamma. Is such an idea legitimately or just another cherry-picking around to justify personal incapacities and giving favors?

What's the different between "retaliation-justice" (in cases one likes to judge god-like) and the Vinaya, the difference between conduct-rules and kamma? Acting according certain community-rules or according the law of nature?

[Note: this is not given to give a stand, nor to trade, exchange or Buddh-ism, but for liberation, gaining rightly unbound.]

You must be dissatisfied with my quote (in this answer) of killing humans being a parajika offense for monks vs. killing animals which is only a pacittiya offense. A parajika offense is met with immediate and irreversible dismissal from the monastic order. A pacittiya offense is met with confession, usually with the intention to not repeat it.

Firstly, let's get this right:

Killing is against the first of the five precepts
Business in meat is against Right Livelihood.
Keeping the five precepts is one of the criteria for stream entry according to AN 10.92.

However, does this mean killing any living creature has the same consequence or same effects? Does killing a mosquito bear the same consequence as killing an arahant?

The answer is NO.

According to AN 6.87, there is actually a list of people a person could kill or injure, and such a person will never be able to have the right mental state or moral capacity to learn the Dhamma:

  "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting
  on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even
  when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?

  "He has killed his mother; he has killed his father; he has killed an
  arahant; he has, with corrupt intent, caused the blood of a Tathagata
  to flow; he has caused a split in the Sangha; or he is a person of
  dull discernment, slow & dull-witted.

  "Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on
  the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while
  listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?

  "He has not killed his mother; he has not killed his father; he has
  not killed an arahant; he has not, with corrupt intent, caused the
  blood of a Tathagata to flow; he has not caused a split in the Sangha;
  and he is a discerning person, not slow or dull-witted.

According to MN 86, Angulimala killed many human beings, but he could still change and become an arahant. So, probably, he did not commit the transgressions above (killing father, killing mother, killing arahant, injuring Buddha):

  And at that time in King Pasenadi's realm there was a bandit named
  Angulimala: brutal, bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying,
  showing no mercy to living beings. He turned villages into
  non-villages, towns into non-towns, settled countryside into unsettled
  countryside. Having repeatedly killed human beings, he wore a garland
  (mala) made of fingers (anguli).

  (After the Buddha transformed Angulimala)

  Then Ven. Angulimala, dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, &
  resolute, in no long time reached & remained in the supreme goal of
  the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into
  homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself in the here & now. He
  knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There
  is nothing further for the sake of this world." And thus Ven.
  Angulimala became another one of the arahants.

On the other hand, according to DN 2, King Ajatasattu was unable to effectively learn the Dhamma because he had arranged to kill his father in order to become king:

  So King Ajatasattu, delighting and rejoicing in the Blessed One's
  words, rose from his seat, bowed down to him, and — after
  circumambulating him — left. Not long after King Ajatasattu had left,
  the Blessed One addressed the monks: "The king is wounded, monks. The
  king is incapacitated. Had he not killed his father — that righteous
  man, that righteous king — the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye would
  have arisen to him as he sat in this very seat."


I enjoy sex just like I enjoy good movie. What is wrong about it? Until and unless I become enlightened I will be driven by my needs. At times I am aware and these urges do not overpower me but not always. What is wrong here according to Buddhism? Enjoyment? If yes that is the case then with all people who are enjoying writing in this forum. Desire to help others masquerades as compassion. I find desires as the central point of origin of actions. I have my doubts whether compassion is the real force. I think compassion is mixed with desire in all our actions till we are liberated. Please enlighten me.
For the sake of clarity I am just a regular Joe not a monk.

Sex(1) is unwholesome(2) according to the Buddha's teaching.

If one is on this forum just to enjoy oneself then that is probably unwholesome. If the real intention to be on this forum is to learn and/or help people then that is most likely a wholesome intention and is good kamma.

Wanting to be compassionate is a wholesome intention. Not everything we want is unwholesome.

(2) Unwholesome actions lead to suffering. Unwholesome actions are usually entangled with a wrong view of self, nonacceptance of reality and/or not letting go of reality.

(3) Wholesome actions are usually in harmony with acceptance of reality, letting go of reactions to reality  and/or the correct view of self

(1) Why is sex between consenting adult laypeople unwholesome? I don't know precisely but I do have faith in the Buddha's teaching. Even just wanting to exist is also unwholesome, so I wouldn't get my feathers ruffled over it.


Will I break the eight precepts if I listen to nature sounds considered as music? During uposatha days, I'm getting a little confused with the interpretation of the seventh precept of eight precepts.

Is it possible for me to listen to nature sounds without any musical instruments' sounds? Even if they’re considered as 'music'?

Also, is there any text (from aṭṭhakathā or ṭīkā) explaining this precept? It would be great and very helpful.

Thank you in advance.

What is prohibited is the sounds (music) disturb your meditation and increase your attachment aversion and ignorance. You are allowed to substitute unwholesome sounds with wholesome sounds.
For instance, you can listen to Pirith chanting or watch Dhamma video.


Can anyone do something intentionally? Consider someone is doing something (for instance eating). I can say that he is eating because of hunger, and his hunger is because his body needs energy. So, every action have external causes only.

Can I do something by my own (without external causes)?

I know that I can't do unwholesome things because of anatta. But I can say that I did something because of ignorance, and also that my action has an effect (karma).

This post may not be a question. I'm looking for a way to clear my understanding.

Kind regards.

Every inside has an outside.  Can you truly say that one has hunger because of only things outside without anything on the inside?  Can a rock be hungry?  Can the vacuum of space be hungry?  There must be something on the inside which is part of hunger, or else it is a thing which is experienced by every part of existence equally.

On the other side, can an action occur without an actor?  If not, and you cannot do something, then no action can occur.

Of course, these are not to say that hunger does not exist, nor that one cannot act.  They merely point out that there are fundamental limits of understanding when one starts from the assumption that things are either completely outside or completely inside.

Phrasings like "I am hungry with my body" and "I act with the world around me" may be worth considering.  They have their flaws too, but they are complementary flaws.


Are there meditations for forgiveness? I'm having a lot of trouble forgiving someone for something they did quite a little while ago. The repercussions of which I am still dealing with today. I feel a lot of anger and frustration when I think about what this person did, and it's very hard to ignore.

I have already spoken to this person, and told them how I feel about the situation - ultimately forgiving them, but it still troubles me internally.

What can I do to "purge" the thoughts from my mind and the negative connotations that come with them?

EDIT: I do not wish to forget what happened, only learn to better manage the emotions that are felt when recalling the incident.

Well this form of meditation is not well established or part of the more common meditation object but Bhanthe Vimalasiri does teach forgiveness meditation. The instructions are here: http://www.dhammasukha.org/forgiveness-meditation.html


Is our success predestined by our past karma? Some people are more richer other others, some are more intelligent than others, some are more beautiful than others...

Are all these predestined? I heard that one's karma in his/her past life affects his/her present life. So if one is not as intelligent/sucessful in the present life, can we attribute this to his/her bad karma in the past life?

Kamma is volitional or intentional action as Buddha said, “It is volition, bikkhus, that I call kamma. For having willed, one acts by body, speech, or mind.” It’s results ripens or takes effect in three ways; to be experienced in this very life, the next rebirth or at some subsequent occasion. Thus, as long as we travel on in the cycle of rebirths, our stockpile of kamma will  yield its due results. We have no escape from kamma so long as we make no effort to make an end to kamma by becoming at least a Stream Winner. Until one gets into the path, as Buddha said, “beings are the owners of their kamma, the heirs of their kamma; they have kamma as their origin, kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; whatever kamma they do, good or bad, they are its heirs.”

In this way, the effect of ones past kamma determine the nature of ones present situation in life. This is a universal principle, on which Buddhist morality is based. It does not assert that everything is due to Kamma. If everything were due to Kamma, a man must ever be bad, for it is his Kamma to be bad. One need not consult a physician to be cured of a disease, for if one's Kamma is such one will be cured.

Kamma is only one of the five all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. The other four ‘Niyamas’ which operate in the physical and mental realms other than the Kamma Niyama are… Utu Niyama, Bija Niyama, Citta Niyama, & Dhamma Niyama. Utu Niyama is that of the physical order such as seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. Bija Niyama is the order of germs or seeds. Citta Niyama is the order/power of the mind. Dhamma Niyama is that of those who tread the Path. Kamma is, therefore, only one of the five.

It is this doctrine of Kamma that can explain all the inequality of mankind. But it does not mean fate as it is possible to change or reduce the effects of these past actions through present actions. That is why if a person who has much money, but no true, righteous friends should practice sila.  Such people who have no friends, very often single but keep on hoarding wealth have in their past lives given lavishly in generosity as dana but without any sila/morals in them. A person who is very generous but not virtuous (without the any personal virtue like the observance of the five precepts ) would inherit this kind of bad kamma. Even today many rich people are highly generous but the inevitable karmic law is that no degree of generosity can cover up the lack of virtue in personal life. This karmic law cannot be deceived. This is why it has been laid down that "give dana with confidence and always be virtuous" (daanam dadantu saddhaaya - seelam rakkhantu sabbadaa). The two aspects should be complementary to each other.


Deva realms with maidens - samsaric and sexist? One occasionally comes across stories in the Buddhist canon like the story of Manduka (Sanskrit: frog) Devaputta (Sanskrit: son of devas) (Chronicle of the Buddhas, Page 1123) - a frog while listening to the Buddha's sermon, attains the Tavatimsa Deva realm when he is accidentally crushed by a member of the audience.

The story makes a big deal of the frog's deva mansion 12 yojanas long and fair deva maidens who wait on him day and night.

Do women who are born in the deva realm too get fair attendants who are men? Or are all devas men?

Why are the samsaric pleasures of a large palace and maidens the chief attraction of the deva realm? Don't the fair maidens of the deva realm get a lesser deal - having to wait on the devas - how do they make merit?

I know these are silly questions, little to do with the dhamma, but one wonders all the same.

These stories remind me of telemarketing slots on TV - "call now, and we will throw in this 12-spanner set for free."

I'd rather not answer my own question, but these thoughts occurred to me about the lure of deva realms in general, and I guess this is as good a place as any to put it down.

There are several kinds of people, some have strong delusion, so for these people a little incentive to make them commit is upaya.
The Dhammapada story of Buddha's nephew who follows the Buddha into monastic life yet yearns for his fair wife back home comes to mind. He agrees to practice hard only after the Buddha promises him fair maidens in the deva realms when he completes his attainment of arahatship. Fellow monks aren't so understanding and label him a mercenary monk. It appears only the Buddha is compassionate enough to not poke fun at him.
Perhaps the Buddha's largely male audience was a bit of a boy's club - no harm in throwing in the lure of fair maidens - again upaya? He was after all preaching to cow herds and farmers who could only dream of riches and fair maidens. Then again, most monks and Arahats were royalty and Brahmins too.
I guess they don't have to pay estate taxes, mop the floors and mow the lawn on mansions in deva realms. If someone else is doing all the heavy lifting then celestial mansions aren't as much of a bore. This is also why human life is considered good for spiritual attainment because every sense pleasure here carries a stinger unlike the deva realms. Perhaps the fair deva maidens never cling, never fight or demand expensive gifts (I can't help taking a sexist tone here, the situation is overtly so, my apologies). It will only bother those who realize it is all unreal.

This still doesn't answer why women are nowhere in the equation. Aren't women equally tempted by luxuries? Shouldn't there be a deva realm filled with Adonisesque serving men? Or filled with babies that are always cute and never hurt the parent?


What are the similarities between quantum physics and buddism? What are the similarities between modern physics/quantum physics and Buddism?
Although i know little about this, like Budha said that conciousness creates everything, emptyness and dependent origination kind of things. What are other things that matches with what modern science is saying?

As far as I know quantum physics does not teach four noble truths, dependent origination and consciousness. So there are no similarities.However quantum physics can be used as examples to explain Buddha's teaching.


Is the attainment of natural wisdom exclusive to Buddhism? Regardless of the medium, or the path, do you know of any other traditions, or religions, or ways to attain wisdom? Wisdom as it's known in buddhist tradition: Seeing things as they are.

Dhamma isn't exclusive to Buddhism. As the story goes, wherever there are apple trees, there are apples; but one can't expect to find apples where there aren't apple trees. Likewise, can't expect to find wisdom teaching where wisdom is not being properly taught.

  While sitting on one side the wanderer Subhadda said this to the Gracious One: “Those ascetics and brahmins, dear Gotama, who have a community, a group, who teach a group, well-known, famous, religious founders, agreed upon as good for the people, such as: Pūraṇa Kassapa, Makkhali Gosāla, Ajita Kesakambala, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta, have they all understood, according to their own avowal? Have they all not understood? Or, have some understood? Or, have some not understood?”

  “Enough, Subhadda, stop this: ‘Have they all understood, according to their own avowal? Have they all not understood? Or, have some understood? Or, have some not understood?’ I will teach the Teaching to you, Subhadda, listen to it, apply your mind well, and I will speak.”

  “Very well, reverend Sir,” the wanderer Subhadda replied to the Gracious One, and the Gracious One said this: “Wherever, Subhadda, the Noble Eightfold Path is not found in a Teaching and Discipline there a true ascetic is not found, there a second true ascetic is not found, there a third true ascetic is not found, there a fourth true ascetic is not found.

  But wherever, Subhadda, the Noble Eightfold Path is found in a Teaching and Discipline there a true ascetic is found, there a second true ascetic is found, there a third true ascetic is found, there a fourth true ascetic is found.

  -- Mahāparinibbāna sutta, DN 16


Is it important to be vegetarian when meditating "Metta meditation"? Is it essential or somehow profitable to be vegetarian when doing "Metta/Maithree" meditation?

Or Is it essential or somehow profitable to any other form of meditation?

If not why a lot of people seems to be becoming vegetarian some time after they start their path?

Based on Theravada, which is what I'm most familiar with, vegetarianism is not essential for any meditation that I know of. Even so, I've chosen to be a vegetarian. As I understand it, the Mahayana tradition tends to strongly encourage vegetarianism, but even then I'm not certain if they do it specifically to aid meditation practice.

As to it being profitable, it depends on what effects adopting vegetarianism has on that person's state of mind. If being a vegetarian helps your compassion towards beings, then you might consider it profitable. For some people, choosing vegetarianism might result in no improved state of mind, in which case it doesn't matter.

This also answers your third question as to why a lot of people become vegetarian after they start their path. They might have noticed that becoming a vegetarian, for them, improves their personal state of mind. Of course this won't be the only reason, but for some it might be.

Try it, and see what works for you.


Does anyone read the part 2 of Nagarjuna's karika as an argument about infinite divisibility? Is Nagarjuna is arguing that time cannot really be both infinitely divisible and extended, so is a conceptual construction?

I'm asking because verse 2.23 suggested that to me, taken completely out of context, anyway.

  [A going] which is other than the going by which a goer is made evident does not [enable a goer to] go.  Because it is impossible for
  going to be twofold within a single goer.

Emphasis, obviously, mine. I really like the idea that Nagarjuna was saying that time must be infinitely divisible, but time as we experience it (evidently) is not infinitely divisible, because if it was it would take forever to compose it.

As I think it was pointed out in an answer, it is often I think said that Nagarjuna means time cannot inherently exist because it is infinitely divisible. I'm just adding that it can neither be infinitely divided nor not.

I would not conclude that time does not flow, but that anything that arises has already passed, radical impermanence, suggesting that extinction and so on is already present.

Here is the translation that by Jay L. Garfield of that same verse:

  2.25 One that both is and is not a goer does not go in any of the three ways. Therefore, going, goer and that which is to be gone over are non-existent.

This is from the second chapter of Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise where Nagarjuna refutes the inherent existence of motion: going and that which goes. This verse is the last of the chapter and Je Tsongkhapa in his Ocean of Reasoning explains (by adopting Buddhapalita's earlier explanation) the three ways refer to:

That which is gone
That over which one is going
That which over which one has yet to go

ie., the three times. Je Tsongkhapa says there is another way to understand the three aspects here (by adopting Chandrakirti's explanation) as referring to:

That which is a goer
That which is not a goer
That which is and is not a goer

In sum, the verse can be read as refuting the inherent existence of the goer, the place one is to go, or the going. All of these exist as mere conventions. There is no essence of motion.

Anyway, maybe you can update your question to indicate how you arrive at the conclusion that time cannot be both infinitely divisible and extended? That's basically saying that time cannot be regarded as modeled by the real numbers... but rather must be the infinite integers?? I don't think this is what Nagarjuna is saying because even if time is infinitely divisible and extended it would still be proper to model time by the past, present and future.

Let's say that the past, present, and future are modeled by real numbers. All we have to do is identify the present with a specific real number and say all those numbers less than, but not equal to the present model the past and all those numbers greater than, but not equal to the present model the future. Even with this, Nagarjuna's argument in the chapter would still accomplish the goal: refuting the inherent existence of the goer, the act of going, and the place where one goes...

You also refer to verse 23 in your update, but this verse according to Je Tsongkhapa is just a refutation to the idea that there is more than one action or "going" that makes a goer go. Nagarjuna's position is that only one action is tenable because a two-fold action makes no sense. Although it is obvious that it takes time to perform an action, these verses and this chapter do not explicitly deal with time. The chapter is about motion and how motion does not inherently exist.

However, there is a chapter in Nagarjuna's Treatise that explicitly deals with time. That is chapter 19 and there is one verse in particular that deals with whether or not time "endures":

  19.5 A nonenduring time is not grasped.
  Nothing one could grasp as time
  Could exist as enduring.
  If time is not grasped, how it is known?

You can read more about this verse and Je Tsongkhapa's explanation in Ocean of Reasoning, but I would just add that it is clear from the first phrase that we experience moments of time as enduring. That is directly contradictory to the way I used the real numbers above to model time. We perceive the present moment as enduring for some length of time. If we look at the present moment and analyze it we'll find it is made of parts. For anything that has an extent must be made of at least three parts: the beginning, the middle, and the end. Thus, if the present moment is enduring then it must be made of parts. If it is made of parts, we can analyze further and ask if an inherent entity that is this present moment can be found in the beginning of this present moment? In the middle ? In the end? By looking and analyzing like that it can be known for sure that the present moment cannot be made of any inherent entity. The present moment does not exist inherently.

So, I'd conclude and say that it is precisely through analyzing an enduring moment of time and breaking it up and dividing it infinitely we can know that no enduring moment whatsoever truly exists. Time does not truly exist. It only exists as mere label. It only exists conventionally.

That is emphatically not to say that time does not exist at all! That way lies nihilism and we can be sure that if we look at the above explanation as somehow indicating nihilism, then we have grasped the snake of emptiness incorrectly and ought to put it down right away!


altruism or being used? One of my friends got himself into some serious debts. I've loaned him money, helped him get his admin organised, I've helped him move into a new apartment....and I single-handedly moved his stuff back out, after he had fled the country in an attempt to run away from his debts. Now, he's back and I've managed to get him into a program to pay off those debts over the course of the next three years. Until recently, we were quite close and he shared many of his fears and thoughts with me and I was glad to be there for him, any way I could. His life seems to be improving now and I'm happy for him. Two weeks ago he started ignoring me and blocking me, because his current girlfriend doesn't believe our friendship is merely platonic. (it really is, though)
I do not regret helping him; I did it for him, not for myself.
I'm happy he's trying to rebuild his life.
I don't think he's in a nurturing relationship right now, but I think that's for him to figure out by himself.
My other friends keep telling me he's using me and he's not treating me with the respect I deserve.
I agree partly: I do not feel respected anymore. I feel ambivalent. What should I do next? End our friendship? Keep a low profile? How does that teach him not to forsake his friends for romance? We've all been blinded by love before, so I understand why he's doing this right now, however, when I reach a point where it's hurting my feelings, should I end the friendship? I've tried to talk to him about it, but he remains incommunicado. Still I am doing his admin for him and making sure he stays in the afore mentioned "debt program"; it's not helping him to move forward, though, because currently he's not an active part of sorting out his admin. Please advise me....

In Buddhism, there are two kinds of friendship: (i) ordinary friendship; & (ii) spiritual friendship.

In ordinary friendship, Buddhist principles ensure what is called 'false friends' or 'false friendship' does not harm us, including economically. The principles of 'true friendship' & 'false friendship' are listed in this link in the 2nd section, which begins with: "These four, young householder, should be understood as foes in the guise of friends...". You may read this thoroughly & thoughtfully to help provide perspective &/or guidance.

In what you described in your post, the impression of 'false friendship' does not appear to exist because: (i) you have volunteered to help him; (ii) you are not threatened economically; and (iii) you are not being taken advantage of sexually or illegally.

Therefore, your situation appears to be an issue of spiritual friendship. In Buddhism, spiritual friendship (metta-karuna) or 'altruism' is unconditional; it is not given to receive anything in return; it is selfless.

From a Buddhist perspective, since it appears you are not being threatened or harmed, your issues are those related to hurt from 'pride' or 'conceit'. This kind of 'egoism' the Buddhist path seeks to end or overcome because it causes suffering. A mind training verse is as follows:

  When someone whom I have helped, Or in whom I have placed great hopes, Mistreats me in extremely hurtful ways, May I regard him still
  as my precious teacher.

  Eight Verses for Training the Mind

Buddhism would recommend to continue helping your friend in a selfless manner & identify the problem as your 'pride' or 'ego' rather than your relationship being something inherently dangerous you must urgently end.

While his new girlfriend may not be ideal, ordinary people do often get possessive in relationship so you can give them some space rather than officially break your platonic friendship.

Ultimately, it is ideal the new girlfriend trust you and express gratitude towards you given you have helped her new boyfriend in an extraordinary & praiseworthy way. Give it time. His new love affair may not work out, anyway (since she sounds very possessive & controlling), thus he made need your help & support again when it falls to pieces.

In summary, true spiritual friendship & altruism cannot hurt or harm us. As long as the five Buddhist precepts are not transgressed (namely, physical violence, economic theft, sexual exploitation, deliberate lying & drug addiction/enabling) then we cannot be harmed or hurt; unless we ourselves are controlling & possessive, in which only our own pride & attachment hurts us.

My answer: keep a low profile! (but be prepared for when he needs you again).

In Buddhism, this is called 'upeka' ('equanimity'), which literally means: 'to watch over/observe a person in a detached manner until we have the opportunity to help'. An intrinsic element of 'upeka' is giving others the space to take responsibility for & learn from their own karma (actions).

Since you have genuinely helped him, you should be satisfied in your own virtue & goodness. One meditation in Buddhism is reflecting upon your own good altruistic deeds (cāgānussati).


How can the term "spirit" be translated into Buddhist doctrine? How can the term "spirit" be translated into Buddhist doctrine? If I may just copy paste the definition:

Moreover, could be mean anything unconditioned, permanent, or in some way separate from the rest of 'us'? The tags are clues, but I'm not being facetious.

It is citta (mind), which have cetasika (citta+nika;mind factors), such as feeling, emotions, etc. See more information in cittanupassanasatipatthana in mahasatipatthanasutta.

But if you mention to the ghost (citta+cetasikas+rupas), it is bhuta or sambhavesi in KN. Khuddakapatha ratanasutta & it's atthakatha.

Abhidhamma describe this topic as tons.


Breaking of five precept Breaking of five precept would generate bad consequences from the evil deeds or from being not able to keep the precepts itself? The so called breaking of the body of precepts? some traditions say that if one break the 5 precepts one observes, one will not only has to face the evil consequences of bad deeds, but has to suffer even more severe from breaking of the body of sila. He suffers doubles?

E.g. you are a thief.

you get punishment from the law - this can be karma (dittadhammavedeniya) or sometimes not
karmic consequences results after one dies - breakup of the body

So 1 results in this life and another in the next.

Thereforeyou get 2 results.

What is mentioned is the break up of the body and not body of sila.


Do our habits prevent us from seeing things as they really are? Each phenomenon (how impersonal and indifferent it is) is always looking to sustain itself.
Am I right when I say that—in the same way—our habit patterns are obstacles that prevent/hinder us from seeing things as they really are because they fuel the fire of self?

Habits and patterns are like the water streams carving paths on earth when it rains. So when it rains again, the water follows the same paths. There's no self in the rainwater that made the paths and the rainwater that followed the existing paths. It's a process of causes and effect.

If habits are self, why is it hard to get rid of them? ex: smoking, drinking etc.
And why do good habits need to be cultivated?


Dream journal - what to focus on? My partner has practiced a lot of lucid dreaming. She is good at it, I'm not. All in all, I'm a conceptual, low level beginner not yet recovered from too many years of academics.

I sleep 7 hours every night, and as I've gotten all the intoxicants out of my system (I'm referring to chemistry here, not Kant and Plato) I remember my dreams! I've read about lucid dreaming a bit, and understand it's vital to keep a dream journal.

Does anyone have tips/own experience on what's best to focus on in such a journal? I've asked my partner, but she gets a bit impatient with me.

Lucid Dreaming and The Dream Journal.

A Dream Journal is actually quite simple to use.

First of all you need some material, i.e. Dreams.

After weeks or months, depending on your dream activity and the ability to remember your dreams, you should have sufficient material to begin analyzing your dream-material.

Next step is to look for patterns. All people have different patterns that occur in the majority of their dreams. One pattern could be "action". Some people have dreams that are action-packed and very vivid. Others have dreams that are very realistic, while others have dreams that are no near realistic. Each have their own dream-pattern.

You want to find these patterns through studying your dreams. Get to know these patterns as your own back pocket. In time and with practice, these patterns will become lucid-dream-triggers. When you know them very well and they occur in a dream of yours, you will realize them and become aware/lucid in the dream.

That step might take a while so don't become discouraged at first. Every morning when you wake up, write down as much as you remember from your dreams. Have a pen and a journal at your bed table or close by. When you wake up, dont move. Stay frozen for some minutes and lie with closed eyes. That will make it easier for you to remember more details from your dreams.

The great thing about this is that the more you write down, the more details you can remember from your dreams. Soon you will remember 2 dreams, then 3, then 4-5 or 7 dreams when you wake up in the morning. When you have enough material, then begin analyzing.

Do yourself a favor and have at least some weeks of material. That will make it easier to find patterns the dreams. When you find patterns, write them down separately and get to know them. They will be unique, just like a fingerprint.

Lucid Dreaming and the relation to Buddhist Practice.

How can this then be used in Buddhist practice?

In Theravada Buddhism, one can use the dream-state to deepen ones practice.

If one is practicing the WILD technique (see also Tibetan Methods), i.e. entering the dream-state from waking-state, one can continously observe conditioned phenomena as they arise and pass away. Why is that important?

Because the stages before falling asleep, exactly mirrors the stages of dying. There is the possibility to gain some deep insights here. Also to sneak-preview and prepare for the moment of Death. Meditating while going from waking-state into the dream-state gives the opportunity to continue to practice even while the body sleeps.

Let me end with a quote from Tibetan Buddhism, by Shugchang.

  "In order to make the time we spend dreaming more meaningful, we must first recognize that we are dreaming. That is the initial exercise. The next step is called transforming the dream; the third is known as multiplying. The fourth practice is to unify the dream with the clear light. Recognizing, transforming, multiplying and unifying the dream with the luminosity of the true nature; these four outline the essential applications of dream yoga."


How can I tell the difference between the Deva realm and the Buddha and bodhisattva realms? How can I tell the difference between joy bourne of karma that will expire and joy bourne of karma which has turned the irreversible wheel of the dharma?

Denizens of the heavenly planets enjoy more and live longer. They have made lots of good karma in their human form of life and became qualified to enjoy heavenly life. The joy of of Buddhas is eternal and unlimited. Buddhas enjoy their natural life that's found in enlightenment.

The best way to know this is by gaining experience from meditating.


Can effective altruism (specifically Earning to Give) and Buddhism co-exist if Earning to Give was done to the extreme? (This may be more of a philosophy stack exchange question; feel free to move it. Actually, the example I give below is probably off topic or something since it's the real meat and potatoes of the question: money.)
In general, where does Buddhism and the philosophy of effective altruism split, when one spends all their time Earning to Give? (Again this question assumes many things, a chat would greatly be appreciated.)

While reading The Middle Way by the Dalai Lama (give as a gift) this question keeps surfacing. In the book is says, "the aspiration to bring about others' welfare and the aspirations to seek buddhahood for this purpose." Maybe I'm misdefining the translation of "welfare"...but this point will come up again and again when reading about Dharma anyway. Please help answer the essential question, and not the details of this specific quote. It is arbitrary for the main game.

Perhaps what I mean is better though an example:
Somehow assume that a person has this extraordinary altruistic resolve, or even bodhicitta (if that's close to correct). And they decide to spend much time Earning to Give. Let's assume they work 16 hour days (from one job being professional, such as an electrical engineer, and a second in a similar job or a factory job--six days a week). Try to also assume they get enough sleep (7.5 hours), stay hygienic (taking a shower during a break at the factory), manage to eat bagged lunch, and everything else to spend virtually no money on unnecessary expenses such as rent (by sleeping in a van near both companies). And so, after all that, there is no time to meditate. Literally, every waking hour is spent Earning to Give. How on earth can this person seek buddhahood?! And wouldn't others' welfare be all what this person lives for anyway? (Additionally, since this question is seeped in money, also assume that 'Robin Hood tactics' are not a means to Earning to Give...)

The question is asking about Bodhicitta (Mahāyāna Buddhism), Confirmed Candidate of Future Buddha (Theravada).
I would like to explain Striving to attain the Nirvana with an example flying with airplane. If you offered more money, you can get more luxurious class or seat.

  so, after all that, there is no time to meditate.

There is most simple way to attain Nirvana. Concisely, meditate and then attain Nirvana. This is a kind of flying with an economy seat. Because you offer less, you just get a seat what you pay for.

Here is Sutta Bahiya Sutta. He was the one who attained Nirvana the most fastest way in Gautama Buddha's teaching. Even though he attained Nirvana in fastest way in his last life meeting with Buddha, he strived for many uncountable years during his past lives. It means that it is not an easy job to be a student with flying colors in Buddha's teaching.

For the life of a confirmed Candidate of Future Buddha, the job is extremely harder to accomplish; only the strongest determination and dedication can go through because being a Sammasambuddha is highest class of attaining Nirvana. If you are going that way, you have to strive for perfect in offering. "Earning to give" or Earning to offer" is the very first step to strive for being Sammasambuddha. The candidate offered even his life to complete his offering capacity. There are countless of lives where candidate of Gautama Buddha dedicated just offering (Earning to give/donate). Yes, "there is no time to meditate", there might be the case because he just strived for donation, trying not to attach anything he owned. But the act of Dana is very first cornerstone to become a Sammasambuddha.

Here is list of paramis

  And wouldn't others' welfare be all what this person lives for anyway?

I do not know exactly to what extent he lived/survived only for other's welfare (at least he needed to consume to be alive in particular past life but probably, I guess). I like to request reference/citation if anyone knows about Buddha past lives regarding to this statement.

  How on earth can this person seek buddhahood?

This person had long way to complete all the paramis to become Buddha. Not a single life, not 100 lives, not 1000,000 lives but uncountable lives he strived for being Buddha.

  where does Buddhism and the philosophy of effective altruism split, when one spends all their time Earning to Give?

Yes, it was done to extreme by the example above. Yes, both can co-exist if you're moderate person and you are going to strive for attaining Nirvana in normal way (just want to be a normal student of Buddha's teaching).

For example in real life two students may differ in determination and dedication. One is striving for LSAT to attend Columbia Law School or Harvard Law School. Another might say "he is not himself recently" but two students differ in their goals. So that kind of case is expected.


Is there a story or a mentioning about masturbation in the Buddhist teachings? Is masturbation wrong? In what exact way is it wrong? I just need to know if the act of masturbation is wrong. This may include watching nudity while masturbating. Even though it's an addiction, I was wandering if it hold more or any negative karma than another general addiction, like addiction to food. I just need your opinion in this backed up by references to the teachings.
Is the act of masturbation a barrier towards mental concentration or samadhi? Will I have more mindfulness and concentration if I get rid of this addiction? I'm talking about the samadhi gained through annapanasati.
In what way can I get rid of this addiction if it is leading me away from the path? Please give instructions to one who is somewhat deeply ingrained in it.

I am not here to discuss about an 'embarrassing' topic, rather a plausible problem (affirmed by many Buddhists) that a majority of people in the western world have. I am also here to see if my addiction can be a cause for any other negative habits, like many Buddhist say so. That being said, thank you very much for the help. I honestly will appreciate the answer you give me, since this idea have haunted and caused inner conflicts within me for the past 2 years.

Sexuality is mentioned and that does include sex between man and woman, same sex partners and self pleasuring.

But there is a clear delineation between monks who have take their vows and lay people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexuality

  To lay people Buddha advised that they should at least avoid sexual
  misconduct which meant following generally accepted norms of sexual
  morality and behavior. From Buddha's full-time disciples, the ordained
  monks and nuns, strict celibacy (called brahmacarya) has always been
  required.

But what is the issue with sexuality. Shakyamuni Buddha had been married and surrounded by women before he was married, per his father the king's devices to keep Shakyamuni interested in assuming the throne after the king died.
So Buddha spoke from experience. What is he trying to tell us?

  In the Buddha's first discourse he identifies craving (tanha) as the
  cause of suffering (dukkha). He then identifies three objects of
  craving: the craving for existence; the craving for non-existence and
  the craving for sense pleasures (kama). Kama is identified as one of
  five hindrances to the attainment of jhana according to the Buddha's
  teaching. Throughout the Sutta Pitaka Buddha often compares sexual
  pleasure to arrows or darts. So in the Kama Sutta from the Sutta
  Nipata Buddha explains that craving sexual pleasure is a cause of
  suffering. —Kama Sutta, Sutta Nipata[1]

So really the issue is not sex or no sex, but what to do with craving. As lay people, a long term relationship is one way of expressing these cravings, but even so sex is not the answer to our deepest longing to awaken to Buddha consciousness.

Buddha goes on to explain in greater detail what is the problem.

  If one, longing for sexual pleasure, achieves it, yes, he's enraptured
  at heart. The mortal gets what he wants. But if for that person —
  longing, desiring — the pleasures diminish, he's shattered, as if shot
  with an arrow.
  —Kama Sutta, Sutta Nipata[1]

So the aspirant is shot with the arrow of disappointment. But this disappointment can be a prod to try harder to see beyond the lie that sensual satisfaction will really give lasting fulfillment. It isn't a matter of whether the rules say to do or not do sex, but what will this act do for my practice.

There is another post on onions and garlic and how those are best avoided. So there may be things one can do to lessen the craving. What was the motivation for the prohibition on eating onions and garlic?

Buddha then goes on to say:

  So one, always mindful, should avoid sexual desires. Letting them go,
  he will cross over the flood like one who, having bailed out the boat,
  has reached the far shore.

  The 'flood' refers to the deluge of human suffering. The 'far shore'
  is nibbana, a state in which there is no sexual desire.

  The meaning of the Kama Sutta is that sexual desire, like any habitual
  sense pleasure, brings suffering.

So that is the crux of the matter "any habitual sense pleasure, brings suffering."

So that gets us back to the Four Noble truths. And now we are in the heart of Buddhism, finding a way out of suffering.


What is meant by pursuing gain with gain? Leading on from this answer - in the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta  it identifies wrong action in one's livelihood as

Scheming
Persuading
Hinting
Belittling
Pursuing gain with gain

What is meant by pursuing gain with gain? It is a problem with the translation that makes it unclear or have I just missed an obvious interpretation?

My first thought was that it meant usury, but apparently Buddhagosa defines it as,

  'Herein, what is pursuing gain with gain? Seeking, seeking for,
  seeking out, going in search of, searching for, searching out material
  goods by means of material goods, such as carrying there goods that
  have been got from here, or carrying here goods that have been got from
  there, by one bent on gain, honour and renown, by one of evil wishes,
  a prey to wishes—this is called pursuing gain with gain' (Vbh. 352-
  53).

... which I think implies being a merchant (buying here and selling there), or more generally capitalism.

Note that that sutta is addressed to monks.


Does any other sect of Buddhism have the stages of insight? The primary source for the 16 stages of insight (aka 7 stages of insight) is the Theravadan text, the Visuddhimagga. But do other, unrelated, sects of Buddhism have similar stages? (ie. Do other sects mention things that could be compared to the dukkha nanas?)
You would think that separate sects of Buddhism, performing the same practices of meditation, would have encountered the same things, and so would have formed their own "maps". Did they? Or is it unique to the Theravadan tradition. And if that's the case, why?

Other sects definitely have plenty of "stages", just not necessarily the same ones.
For example in Tibetan Buddhism there's not just one text but a whole genre of texts called "Stages of the path" (usually shortened to Lamrim in Tibetan). These are not stages of meditation, rather it is the overall stages of insight and realization of the practice of buddha-dharma. You can see a sample of titles in this genre on the corresponding Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamrim
Zen has the stages of taming the bull, as described in the other answer. Again, these are overall maturity not specifically meditation.
Although if you ask me, Visuddhimagga's stages don't read like in-meditation stages either, by that I mean they look more like (slightly obscured) stages of the realization of Emptiness than stages of progression of one's meditation skills. This gets more obvious when we see similar lists from other early schools, each of them having a slightly different description of the stages all clearly pointing to the same overall sequence of investigation => realization => denial => acceptance => liberation.
When it comes to meditation stages proper, Mahayana ones actually seem to be more to the point. For example in Tibetan tradition one traditional list is known as the "stages of taming the elephant" and counts anywhere from 10 to 30+ stages. Another one is called "The Nine Stages of Settling the Mind" etc. These actually describe one's meditation skills at each level of maturity - unlike Visuddhimagga's that mentions more generic things such as disenchantment, conformity, and knowledge of how the overall path works.
To summarize, indeed "separate sects of Buddhism ... have formed their own "maps" - just not necessarily by walking the same exact trail, though the overall landscape is undeniably recognizable to anyone who has walked it.


Theories and Doctrines It is common practice to speak of Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness and Doctrine of Two Truths.

Why do we call one a theory and the other a doctrine?

I'm not sure there's a meaningful difference (between "theory" and "doctrine"), or perhaps not one which every agrees on.

Per Google these seem to be used with the same frequency/popularity:

doctrine of emptiness (19,900 results)
theory of emptiness (19,000 results).

It's never called a "theory of two truths" though.

If you use the Ngram viewer (which I think only searches books), then "doctrine of emptiness" is the more popular.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=doctrine+of+emptiness%2C+theory+of+emptiness&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3

So published (book) authors tend to call it a doctrine.

As an aside -- not about Buddhism but about the way the word "theory" is used in English -- the word "theory" isn't necessarily pejorative (e.g. meaning "speculative , unproven, and wrong"): especially when scientists used that word.

For example it tends to be called "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", not because that's wrong or unproven, but apparently because it's an explanation (perhaps even akin to a doctrine) not just an observation.

This seems plausible to me -- When will Einstein's theory of relativity become a law of relativity? -- i.e. consistent with how physicists might use the term.

See also Laws and theories explained on Physics.SE.

Also note that e.g. Newton's laws are merely "excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life" (i.e. non-relativistic) -- a "law" needn't be "more true" than a "theory".

But the shades of meaning are a bit subtle, perhaps you can't infer much about why people might use or the other.

Certainly "doctrine" though, anyway, right?


What happens when your tank is empty, and you’ve got nothing left to give? Today I happen to read the article “Charitable giving by country: who is the most generous?”

Then this question came up. When it comes to generosity, sometimes people look at what they’ve got and they’d like to be able to give much more. They’d like to make a more impressive offering, but their means are limited. So they have to content themselves with giving limited gifts. So what do you think happens when your tank is empty, and you’ve got nothing left to give?

It's not really about what you give, it 's about what you give up. What you let go.

We can always give love. We can always send lovingkindness and compassion.

We can give to ourselves if it is from the heart. Love yourself by loving all beings. Free yourself by loving all beings. When you love yourself in a virtuous way, you see yourself as you humbly see everyone.

Anyway, If your tank is empty for giving then remember there are 7 other parts of the eightfold path other than giving that can be practiced by monastics    and    laypeople.  -m e t t a