Do you become unhappy when happiness disappears? Do you become unhappy when happiness disappears? Or is there some other state of mind between happiness and unhappiness?

When you are hungry and you take a first bite of your favorite meal, the happiness in the aspect of a pleasant feeling that you experience is not actual happiness, it is not in the nature of happiness: it is contaminated happiness. That pleasant feeling you experience is merely a relief. You experience the first bite as [contaminated] happiness only because it relieves you from a greater suffering (i.e. hunger), not because it is in the nature of happiness. It is actually in the nature of suffering; it is suffering of change (a quiet subtle form of suffering).

As Tsongkhapa puts it in the Middle-Length Lam Rim:

  At present most of the happy feelings that increase our attachment are
  minds of happiness that arise with respect to a relief of suffering.

If you eat when you are not hungry, there is no such relief, no such pleasant feeling, no such experience of "happiness in the aspect of a pleasant feeling", and it is experienced as suffering  of suffering (a quiet gross form of suffering). You are not mislead to conceive of the object as being in the nature of happiness.

There are three types of equanimity. The first of the three is 'equanimity feeling', which his neutral feelings.  Furthermore, when pleasant feeling arise, you wish to associate further with it. When suffering arises, you wish to be separated from it. Tsongkhapa writes further:

  That which is neither pleasant nor suffering is that which, when it
  arises, neither of the two wishes occurs.

You can think of it this way: you enter a crowded room, you look at people and you immediately have “I like this one... I like that one... I don't like this one... and so forth” in dependence upon pleasant and unpleasant feelings. There also will be plenty of people you will not have really noticed, you are indifferent to, your attention wasn't drawn towards, because of neutral feelings.

Another more abstract examples of arising of neutral feeling (which is other than neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feeling arising in the 4th concentration of the form realm) is: the conception of the body as permanent , that produces neutral feeling and increases ignorance. Tsongkhapa also adds in the Lam Rim Chen Mo that:

  In the case of [these] neutral feelings, ignorance ceases when you see
  that they are impermanent, permanent, exhaustible, and perishable in
  nature.


Is austerity necessary in Buddhism? I have been watching Buddhist followers for sometime now in India and it made me wonder if austerity is necessary in Buddhism ?

Like if I wish to become a Buddhist do I need to give up on listening to music, watching tv, using social networking sites, making a livelihood by working in a firm, self- pleasure (read masturbation), have to sleep on floor and beg for a living?

I don't mean any of this questions in an offense way. But most of the people here, at least the common opinion as most of my friends/family have told me is that if you believe in Buddhism you have to live like a "Monk".

Is austerity [as defined above] necessary in Buddhism?

The answer depends as follows:

As a householder, austerity, as you defined above, is not required since it's not part of the five essential precepts prescribed for him.1 However, this austerity, also know as the 8 precepts, is usually applied during retreats and Uposatha days.2
As a monastic, it is required consistently since it will help to develop the meditation practice more effectively by diminishing unwholesome obsessions & available distractions.

This distinction, however, is not "set in stone" or "black & white" since householders are encouraged to follow this kind of austerity more consistently if they can and feel inclined to do so.


How to do an intense home retreat? I am planning to do an intense home retreat, of 2-3 months -- just like a ven. Mahasi Sayadaw retreat: which means 1 hour walking, 1 hour sitting, all day long, short sleep, repeat.

The thing is, to do a long intense retreat in this tradition (ven. Ajhan Tong Sirimangalo technique, to be specific), I think you need a teacher.

Is there a way I can do a retreat alone at home, with some other technique maybe?

I would like as much advice from as much people here -- in case they know of ways to do a home-alone intense retreat -- without a teacher.

The Buddha, according to tradition, sat under the bodhi tree for 7 days without moving. Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhi_Tree.
He had practiced with other teachers before this though.


How to explain that relationship with someone worthy of respect is more than just a friendship? If someone asked, "What? My father, teacher, ... are not just friends?" -- how would one explain significant differences between "tolerance" and "deep respect and regard", of people being in front and what is called a "person worthy of respect"?

Since it might sometimes occur, in modern or western world, that one gives the gift of appreciation to someone who you count as an equal -- how to make best, or explain now the further step, respect, reverence and even refuge and total devotion?

Does anybody have, can provide, a good answer, strategy, to solve such?

Maybe under the headline, "Neither your father, your teachers and many others, nor the Buddha, are your "homies" or your "colleagues" (co-worker on same stage), proper to call and address by name or with 'friend'".

Practical try, as well possible inspiration to answer this, might be found under the question: "Why should one not address a venerable as friend?", by Upasaka Chris. And why the question is very importand and reasonable, why "homie"-like meetings and ways are destructive for a grow, might be also find inspiring answers later possible here. (this is later addition)

[It's not required to try to answer if the significant different is not really traced yet. Possible better to ask another question. And yes it's another challenging and possible not much broadly beloved question. And yes, feel free to upvote the question as well, if thinking that this gives release.

Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

This is not how it works. You don't beg for respect, you don't demand it. When you deserve respect, it happens naturally.


Skipping Meditation After Great Exertion Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, in a video, describes how some beginners exert themselves too much at once and then skip sessions. That is precisely my situation. Upon meditating for much longer than usual in one sitting, I skip subsequent days.

Yet, recently I found myself wishing to meditate more, but not doing so because I feared that phenomenon would happen again.

How can this limitation (exertion then skipping) be overcome?

Would for example taking longer breaks between short sessions (15 min of meditation) inhibit overexertion? What would be the ideal length of such a break?

Meditation shouldn't be viewed as a need. You should neither regret that you skipped nor  wish that you do it.You are getting attached to the joy of meditation and this in itself is counterproductive to the practice.

Do it simply willingly any time you feel like it.Naturally then a rhythm will form that suites your lifestyle.

And remember that the practice should be applied in the real world.


Can Buddhist practice make you more emotionally volatile? When I spend an extend period with Buddhist practice I become emotionally more volatile or at least my emotions seem stronger and  more likely to come to the surface. I've often had reactions that are uncharacteristically emotional though the emotion feels authentic. The period of practice doesn't even have to be that long - sometimes a day retreat will have this effect. It could be linked with meditation however it could be study or the experience of sangha that does it.

Is this something that people recognise? Is it written about anywhere by any teacher? I want to know if it's a common outcome and advice around working with it.

Many Thanks

From my own experience i can say that this has happend to me before. I think its due to the fact that when one sits in insight meditation one does not have a "filter". One wants all phenomena to come up in order to observe them, learn from them and understand them.

So when one practices a lot and thereby having extended periods in ones life where there is no filter then when one returns to everyday life and is not being mindful about what phenomena arises (e.g. emotions) one can easily react to them.

So it seems that if one practice a lot and is used to things comming up in meditation then one should make an even greater effort to guard oneself with mindfulness in everyday life. Because the filter is still not there. The suppression is not there.

That might be one of the reasons why these emotions can seem to have a greater intensity because there is no suppression or filter to affect them or "cloud" them. They are experienced "clean and bare". While non-meditators may have layers of filters and concepts limiting the intensity of the emotions that is not the case for insight-meditators.

This is my own experience and view on it. I do not know if information about your question can be found anywhere in the texts.


Can someone please guide me to theravada buddhist monastery in France or Netherland? Looking for someone who could guide me to Theravada Buddhist monastery in France or Netherland on July

I just checked the link. Actually i don't have idea which monastery i should go. I will only two days in france and already have full schedule for city tour. I think I just have time night time. Are you from france @ChrisW

I am in France, but not near Paris. I can read French, if that's any help: if you want me to search for something specific on the internet. Two days with already a full schedule isn't very much time.

This page, Les Centres et les Temples Bouddhistes à Paris (75) says it lists Buddhist centres and temples in Paris. Almost all of them are either Zen or Tibetan.

This one is Theravada (Thai Forest):

18. Association Bouddhique Theravâda "Vivekârâma"
école : Theravâda (tradition des "moines de forêt" de Thaïlande)

lieu de pratique : 14 rue Philibert Lucot 75013 Paris

siège social : c/o Michel-Henri Dufour
22 rue de la Grange Aubel 71000 Sancé Tél. 03.85.20.14.42

Their web site is at http://vivekarama.fr/activites-3/activites-paris
which says they have 3-hour guided sessions every third Sunday, and free sessions once a month on Fridays (it's not a temple, they meet in a room somewhere).

They have a calendar here and they ask you to contact them (by email I suppose) first.

So that's not a monastery.

This search finds no Theravada in Paris.

There's a centre that's near Paris: http://centrebouddhique.fr/ It's near the "Le Bourget" airport. They have a calendar here.

There's a Pagoda in Vincennes which is virtually inside Paris (Vincennes are a wood or park, on the south east edge of Paris): it's not Theravada and not a monastery but is a multi-denominational Buddhist place (without a teacher) that might be within your reach if you have limited time in Paris.

If you're looking for Theravada monasteries, this map says it shows the Theravada monasteries in Europe.

The two which are near Paris have these web sites:

http://dhammayutta.free.fr/ (located 11 km from Paris, beware that the web site is 2012)
http://www.burmeseclassic.org/dir.php

U Kumara Association Bouddhiste Birmane
63 Avenue Maurice Thorez 94200 Ivry sur seine France.
Tel: 33 (0) 146717240, 33 (0) 677463943

In summary I don't know whether you'll be able to go to a Theravada Buddhist monastery in France.

If you have questions about travel rather than Buddhism there's a Travel.SE site which may be useful.


In the Tirokudda Kanda food and drink are given for dead relatives. Is this a superstitious scripture most likely not uttered by Buddha? Surely the Buddha never said to do this as there is not a single case I have ever heard of where a dead being was able to eat food and drink from our dimension of living.

Tirokudda Kanda (as well as dharmafarer.org's traslation of Tirokuḍḍa Sutta) mentions doing this for the benefit of the dead. Meritorious acts cause positive telepathic vibes which can help betterment of the dead especially if the see and rejoice in the meritorious acts we do.

So this does not look out of place as a later composition. It is the merit that is given not the food.

Also even if you leave out food this can be of some enjoyment to the spirits. Say a person liked a certain type of food and you leave it out. His spirit would naturally be attracted to it through he cannot physically partake it. As I see this is not what is mentioned in the Sutta, but the transfer of merit.

Transfer of merit works in two way:

Positive vibe associated with the positive through having a positive externality on the person concerned
The entity rejoicing at good action creating positive karma and betterment on its own


When feels empty during vipassana meditation? When command the mind to does something it was done what had commanded. If thought about more happy today next moment  less happy. After sitting meditation feel empty. Is it mindfulness?where is the meditation,according to visuddhimagga?

When command the mind to does something it was done what had commanded.

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or
presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or
external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with
right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine,
this is not I, this is not myself.'
"Any kind of feeling whatever...
"Any kind of perception whatever...
"Any kind of determination whatever...
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently
arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external,
whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right
understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is
not I, this is not my self.'
SN 22.59

As the Buddha taught, identification with the mind (along with the other aggregates) is a wrong view. The mind is impermanent (along with all else in Samsara), in flux. It is not a stable, controllable thing. The more you try to control it, the more identification you will cultivate with it. Try meditating and observing thoughts arising and falling in the mind. You will come to see that they are out of the control of any self and you will come to objectively accept them as just arising and ceasing thoughts.
If thought about more happy today next moment less happy.

"Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the
world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain,
loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are
the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world
spins after these eight worldly conditions.
AN 8.6

Experiences are impermanent as the Buddha teaches. This is something the Buddha teaches to accept. And how does one accept it? This is through meditation (specifically vipassana), observing one's experiential reality to see it objectively as it is and ultimately let go to be wavered by it.
After sitting meditation feel empty.

"And how does a monk remain focused on feelings in & of themselves?
There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling,
discerns, 'I am feeling a painful feeling.' When feeling a pleasant
feeling, he discerns, 'I am feeling a pleasant feeling.' When feeling
a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he discerns, 'I am feeling a
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.'
"When feeling a painful feeling of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am
feeling a painful feeling of the flesh.' When feeling a painful
feeling not of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am feeling a painful feeling
not of the flesh.' When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he
discerns, 'I am feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh.' When feeling
a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am feeling a
pleasant feeling not of the flesh.' When feeling a
neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am
feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh.' When
feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he
discerns, 'I am feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of
the flesh.'
"In this way he remains focused internally on feelings in & of
themselves, or externally on feelings in & of themselves, or both
internally & externally on feelings in & of themselves. Or he remains
focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to feelings, on
the phenomenon of passing away with regard to feelings, or on the
phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to feelings. Or
his mindfulness that 'There are feelings' is maintained to the extent
of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by
(not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains
focused on feelings in & of themselves.
MN 10

When you feel empty, meditate on that feeling, observing it as just a feeling. That's all it is anyways.
Is it mindfulness?where is the meditation,according to visuddhimagga?
Unfortunately, I am ill suited to quote a passage from the Visuddhimagga that can clarify this (as it is a vast technical text). What I can tell you from what I have learned is that mindfulness is when one is in the here and now, presently focusing on their current experience (which, again, is done in vipassana meditation).

I would recommend checking Yuttadhammo's booklet on how to meditate. Your questions should be answered once you start meditating after a while. I hope this all helps!


How should a lay person respond if they see a monk teaching something contrary to Dhamma? Let's say if a lay person sees fault of a monk (something against the monastic code, or against the Dhamma). Should the lay person just stay silent (thinking it would create bad karma), or should they do something about it (showing the monk what he has done, or letting others know about it)?

Are there any Sutta references on what the Buddha said about this?

I have seen a lot of monks doing things against the monastic code and the Dhamma, and it breaks me up to see that people who know about it are silent; and that, day by day, the Dhamma is fading away because of this. What has the Buddha instructed to a lay person, on situations like this?

Since Buddha Sasana is not only monks and nuns, but also lay man and lay woman as well, what are the lay person's responsibilities towards the Sasana?

(Sutta references are appreciated if any)

Recently me and my Meditation teacher encountered a monk who stated in one of his statement saying that the Buddha has advised lay people not to comprehend the 4 truths but to get rid the 4 states of misery. For me and my teacher, it was shocking since all of Buddhism is based on the 4 truths. Therefore we created a video on the monk's statement and give a detailed explanation on how wrong the statement is and how it should be corrected and we uploaded it on youtube knowing that the messaged would spread to that monk. And within 3 days of time it did.

At first, they didn't accept it but at the end they did accept their statement as wrong. And we took the video down since our mission accomplished. Our intention was for us to show that monk's fault and for him to recognize it and correct it. But now someone people are saying that it's a sin to do that and that we should not intervene with monks' things. But we were to stay silent when Monk themselves are spreading wrong statements, will the sasana survive? Isn't it selfish to stay silent where as we cans how what is right or wrong despite one is a monk or a lay person?

The word sangha is used nowadays to refer to the bhikkhus. This may or may not be true. One does not have to be a bhikkhu to belong to the sangha. An Upāsaka (male) or Upāsikā (female) - lay followers – could also be part of Arya Sangha. Upāsaka and Upāsikā are part of Ariya Sangha, once in the Path. The Ariya Sangha is described as all those who have attained at least the stage of Stream Entrant.

A bhikkhu is someone who has renounced the life of a layman to dedicate himself exclusively to practice, realization, study and teaching of the dhamma. But in the present day and age, there are a great number of bhikkus who have not come to the stage of Stream Entrant. Thus they are not part of Arya Sangha.

There were times when Hattha Āḷavaka Ugga gahapati (householder) preached dhamma to the Bhikkus at the time of Buddha, when no one else came forward to speak on Dhamma..

The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake between bhikkhus or amongst bhikkhus and lay followers at the expense of the Dhamma. Buddha instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear.

Buddha has described in no less than six suttas about what one should do at such an instant. In the Sangha Bedha Sutta (AN 10.1.4.7), Buddha’s instruction is to not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear. According to the Vinaya, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

Thus the ability to take a stand requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A difference of opinion can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds and get to the root, and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.

For more about the Sangha Bedha Sutta, see the Suttas on pages 1389 through 1391 which are titled Schism(1), Schism(2), and Ananda(1) in The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: A Complete Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya – by Bhikkhu Bodhi; and Schism in the Sangha by Thanissaro Bhikkhu & Geshe Rabten
.


How are good and bad Karmas determined in Buddhism? One important thing that Hindus and Buddhists agree on is the law of Karma.  That is, there are certain actions which will lead a person to have a positive experience in future, either in this life or the next, and there are other actions which will lead a person to have a negative experience in future.  And Hindus and Buddhists also agree that ultimately the goal of life is not to just do good Karmas so you can have positive experiences in future, but rather to break out of he whole cycle of Karmas and their consequences.  Buddhists believe that this can be done through the Eightfold Path, and Hindus believe in other means like knowledge of the supreme being.

But my question is about what determines good Karmas and bad Karmas.  Hindus believe that the Vedas (and texts derived from them) tell us exactly what actions constitute good Karma and what actions constitute bad Karma.  But Buddhists reject the Vedas, so my question is, how do Buddhists determine what actions are good Karmas and what actions are bad Karmas?  Do Buddhist scriptures discuss how to determine this?

Note that I don't think the answer is "The Eightfold Path", because that's about what's required to break the cycle of Karma and consequence, whereas my question is about what's required to get positive experiences through the law of Karma.  Also, on a side note, do Buddhists simply classify Karmas into good or bad, or do they subdivide these categories further?  Because Hindus believe in a more fine-grained system where different kinds of good Karmas produce different kinds of positive experience.

Please see this answer on karma, rebirth and effects of karma on this life and future lives.

From the Nibbedhika Sutta:

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

In Buddhism, intention is the basis for karma. There are some guidelines on removing unskillful thoughts and qualities. The story of the blind elder monk Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1 and the story of the hunter's wife in Dhammapada 124 further illustrates this.

  Dhammapada 1: All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they
  have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts
  with an evil mind, 'dukkha' (suffering) follows him just as the wheel follows
  the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

  Dhammapada 124: If there is no wound on the hand, one may handle
  poison; poison does not affect one who has no wound; there can be no
  evil for one who has no evil intention.

It appears that the simplest way to identify unskillful thoughts and actions, is whether they are imbued with the three poisons or not. And for skillful thoughts and actions, it's the opposite.

In the Vitakkasanthana Sutta, we find that unskillful thoughts imbued with desire/ greed, aversion/ hatred, or delusion have to be removed.

In the Vina Sutta:

  "Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.

And the same applies to the other senses.

You can find a similar discussion in the Aparihani Sutta where it talks about removing "evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress".

In the Sacitta Sutta, also teaching us to remove unskillful thoughts:

  "If, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain covetous, with
  thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless,
  uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or
  unconcentrated,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort,
  diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the
  abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.

Detailed classification can be found in the Abhidhamma in the volume called Dhammasangani ("Enumeration of Phenomena"). We can find a classification list in the work The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis:

  Sa"nkhaaraa is a collective term for the other fifty cetasikas (mental factors). These
  fall into four groups:

  Universal mental factors (sabba citta saadhaaranaa)
  Particular mental factors (paki.n.nakaa)
  Unwholesome mental factors (akusalaa)
  Beautiful mental factors (sobhanaa)

You can read the details on this page for the full classification of the 50 cetasikas.

There are also other classifications there like the different types of cittas (momentary states of mind and consciousness) - vipaaka, kusala, akusala, kiriya. They have association with roots (hetu, mula - see below) and feelings (vedana) etc.

  There are six roots. Three are kammically unwholesome (akusala); the
  other three may be either kammically wholesome (kusala) or
  indeterminate (abyaa-kata), depending on the type of consciousness
  they arise in. The unwholesome roots are greed (lobha), hatred (dosa),
  and delusion (moha). The three roots which are wholesome in some
  cittas and indeterminate in others are greedlessness (alobha),
  hatelessness (adosa), and undeludedness (amoha). Though these last
  three roots are expressed negatively they have positive
  manifestations. Greedlessness manifests as generosity and
  renunciation, hatelessness as loving-kindness, and undeludedness as
  wisdom or understanding.

The above are only the Theravada texts. There will undoubtedly be additional discussion on this, in the Mahayana texts.

You can find useful info also in Ven. Thanissaro's Kamma: A Study Guide.

  OP: I think skillfull vs. unskillful has to do with what will lead you to liberation vs. what will serve to keep you in Samsara.  But my
  question is about what will serve to give you positive experience in
  Samsara vs. what will serve to give you negative experiences in
  Samsara.

Skillful thoughts and actions will give you a positive experience in Samsara and could also lead you to liberation. Unskillful thoughts and actions will give you a negative experience in Samsara.

But liberation requires much more than skillful thoughts and actions. It also requires one to abandon all the fetters.

For e.g. by practising one or more of the Brahmaviharas (loving kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity) which is skillful, one could obtain the pleasant experience of birth in the heavans. But this is not permanent.


How to avoid apathy in the absence of self? I have noticed in my meditation / mindfulness practice the following: as the idea of self dissolves, the ideas of compassion, happiness, sorrow, and basically everything that a "person" might experience also dissolve.

This is disconcerting for a few reasons:

I stop caring about the suffering of others. After all, "no one" is really suffering, so there is no "person" to receive compassion. The "person" that I direct compassion to right now, is simply a volatile "soup of phenomenon" that won't even exist a few moments later.
I lose motivation to do things because I don't feel fear the way I used to. Because of my upbringing, fear of consequences was the primary motivation for doing anything. Example: in relationships, fear of letting people down would motivate me to pursue resolution to problems, resolve conflicts, etc.
I don't enjoy things in life the way I used to. As negative emotions have dissipated, so have positive ones. I no longer enjoy eating a meal with good friends, or a sunset or a dozen other things I used to. No moment is particularly better or worse than any other moment. When I live life one moment at a time, there is nothing to "look forward to" because I am not doing anything I dislike that I am trying to "get done as quickly as possible."

Bottom line: the more I meditate and live moment by moment, the more dull and uninteresting the world becomes. Consequently, I don't know how to get from here to having compassion or even interest towards other living beings.

Can anyone offer some guidance?

Very good and relevant question. Based on hearsay and my own experience, I suspect this problem is rather common with serious, sincere practitioners.

On one hand, it is totally normal to keep getting dispassionate and detached as you grow your "eye of no-self". After all, the Buddhist realization was described by the Buddha himself as "dispassionment, disillusionment, disenchantment, nibbana" (or something like that).

On the other hand, putting too much faith in this idea of no-self (and its concomitants of "no future to strive for", "no sentient beings to save" etc.) as some kind of Final Truth indicates incomplete understanding of Dharma, at best.

In fact, my teacher strongly insisted that "3D vision occurs when you look with both eyes". Meaning, the anatta view and the "atta" view - are the two eyes. In one, there is no sentient beings and no suffering, no Path, no Attainment etc (quote the rest of the Heart Sutra) - and in the other there are countless sentient beings who suffer and need help. Enlightenment is called "the knowledge of all modes" exactly because it involves going beyond a single perspective, and seeing all perspectives (all "worlds") at once. Enlightenment is the pinnacle of empathy because it involves appreciating all perspectives out there, including perspectives of the most unfortunate, confused, and suffering sentient beings.

As your realization of Emptiness matures, the idea of single correct point of view, or the idea of absolute truth should start making less and less sense to you. At the same time, being able to see things from other perspectives - and empathize their pain, which for them is certainly real! - is the foundation of enlightened compassion.

The dispassion that comes from liberation from any single point of view (atta, anatta, and all the others) and the compassion that comes from a realization that most of the sentient life is locked into a single point of view are the two signs of correct realization.

The above is about the View. As for the Action, this sense of apathy probably comes from an established habit of living a spiritually sterile life. The same exact principle is at work here. While you cling to a single point of view (that of spirituality), you try to be as honest to that as possible and this leads to this sterile lifestyle. Once you realize that Emptiness means no absolute reference point and this realization sinks in to the level of daily life, you will no longer be restricted by one model of behavior. Then your life can start getting back the colors -- without the passions that came from taking it all too seriously.


Does the Doctrine of No Soul mean there is nothing permanent to continue? Does the doctrine of no soul is means that there is nothing permanent to continue? So is the teaching of reincarnation, rebirth misleading as there is a notion there is a continuity after death? Also death and birth is visible at the physical level, [but the rebirth process is not. What is the implication on this in the doctrine?]

I agree with you.

The Pali suttas do not refer to a continuous consciousness at the termination of life.

Instead, the suttas explain 'birth' ('jati') & 'death' ('marana') refer to the birth & death of 'self-views'.

Therefore, 're-birth' refers to the re-arisings of 'self-view'.

For example, you make $100,000. Re-birth is the happy view: "I made $100,000; I am rich". You lose $100. Death is the unhappiness of 'I lost $100; I am poor".


Best Pali to English translation source I’m very new to Buddhism and am wanting to find an accurate source to show me the word-for-word interpretations of terms and words. Right now I’m trying to learn the meaning of each word of the “Ethan santhan ethan paneethan..” chant and although I have the English explanation of the whole thing, I want to know what each word translates to in order to gain the best personal understanding of how this mantra is said and also how Pali works.
I’d appreciate any help on this. Thank you.

Here is a slightly modified B.Thanissaro translation of that passage (etam santam...), with pali + english lined up side by side, nearly word for word order.
http://lucid24.org/an/an09/an09-0036/toc-addon/index.html

suttacentral.net is an excellent resource, if you configure the settings on there to show pali with english for B.Sujato translations (aside from KN, he has complete set of translations for nikayas). You can view them side by side or line by line.

lucid24.org has a snapshot of B.Sujato's translations as of 2019-jan., arranged in side by side pali+english, with an important correction to B. Sujato's mistranslation of the 4 jhana formula.

DPR (digital pali reader) is an offline excellent resource addon for firefox.

Those resources will save you an enormous amount of time from the tedious and frustrating old tech research methods. But with that said, don't expect to get an understanding of the Dhamma even if you read the entire Pali and English collection with a decent intellectual understanding. It's only through repeated reflection over years, and seeing how the various important terms are used in various contexts throughout the canon, and a deepening of samadhi in your meditation practice that the passages will really make sense, and you're able to sort out for yourself the various controversies and sharply divergent interpretations existing out there.


Using music to uplift mood and alleviate depression Music can be used to uplift one's mood and alleviate depression, as depicted in this article:

  In Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness American author William
  Styron's autobiographical account of his struggle with depression he
  describes how in desperation he planned to shoot himself, but at the
  last minute he heard the music of the German composer Johannes Brahms
  and this saved him.

  His life began to mean something and he found solace in the
  melancholic and uplifting moods of Brahms's German Requiem.

In other religions like Christianity (like this song) or Hinduism (like this song), music (both lyrics and melody) is used to boost one's devotion to God, and could be uplifting too.

However, in Buddhism, this is against the seventh of the Eight Precepts:

  I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going
  to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and
  beautifying the body with cosmetics.

The Gitassara Sutta (AN5.209) also states:

  There are, bhikkhus, these five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with
  a sustained melodic intonation. Which five?

  Oneself gets attached to that intonation, others get attached to that
  intonation, householders get angry: 'Those ascetics who are followers
  of the Sakyans' son sing in the same way that we do!', there is a
  break in concentration for those striving [to produce] musicality, and
  the upcoming generations imitate what they see.

  These, bhikkhus, are the five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with a
  sustained melodic intonation.

Questions:

Is it ok to use music to induce positive states of mind, especially to uplift one's mood and alleviate depression?
If music can be used to uplift one's mood, then why is it considered unwholesome and against the seventh precept?
How does music cause attachment or craving?

Is it ok to use music to induce positive states of mind, especially to
  uplift one's mood and alleviate depression?

Yes, if you are a layman and if you are not observing the 8 precepts.

  If music can be used to uplift one's mood, then why is it considered
  unwholesome and against the seventh precept?

'Uplifting' here means inducing pleasurable thoughts/feelings. Even Marjuana can do that. Some people eat sweets to uplift themselves. Uplifting doesn't mean wholesome. It's important to note that hearing music by chance does not break the precept. Listening intently breaks the precept.

  How does music cause attachment or craving?

Music is sound that is pleasurable. Wanting to hear pleasurable sounds is a sign of craving.


I need to know the names of the angels and their actions in Buddhism I have a research and I need to know all the names of angels in different religions and their actions, and since I am an Arab, my sources are not enough and I need the names of the angels in Buddhism

There is no matching concept for the Abrahamic angelic doctrine, because the existence of god(s) is quite irrelevant to the goal of Buddhism: enlightenment, which can only be gained through personal experience.
The only two concepts that could be confused with angels are devas (the same root as our word "divine") and bodhisattvas. However they differ in a number of key properties with the idea of angels.
A deva in Buddhism is one of many different types of non-human beings who share the godlike characteristics of being more powerful, longer-lived, and, in general, much happier than humans, although the same level of veneration is not paid to them as to buddhas (humans). However, they are still mortal and unenlightened. In Buddhism, the human form is the primary form for attainment.
Bodhisattvas in most schools of Mahayana Buddhism are humans who attained enlightenment, but chose not to enter Nirvana, but go back into the world to help other beings gain attainment.


What is the difference and relation between chanda and cetana? In this website, it's stated that:

  chanda:
  intention, desire, will.
   1. As an ethically neutral psychological term, in the sense of 'intention', it is one of those general mental factors (cetasika, q.v. Tab. II) taught in the Abhidhamma, the moral quality of which is determined by the character of the volition (cetanā) associated therewith.

However, I've seen in a lot of discussions and sutta translations that the word cetana is usually translated as intention, which also happens to be the word chosen as the rendering for chanda.

At first glance, I kind of understand this situation, mainly because how intertwined and related these two phenomena (chanda and cetana) seem to be. Sadly, I'm almost a complete ignorant in regard to pali issues (and dhamma matters in general, by the way), and so, I cannot comprehend the nuances that may differenciate these two processes.

What is the difference between chanda and cetana?

How do these two relate to each other?

If they are related, which one comes first, and which after?

Is one a condition for the other?

Thanks a lot, in advance, for your time and patience.

Kind regards!

OP: What is the difference between chanda and cetana?

Chanda is the desire to act. E.g. if you stand from a seat you have to have the "intention" to do it, but can choose not to if you want

A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

Cetana is volition. This is what makes you commit a certain course of action to realise a goal or a wish. E.g. I a feeling hungry hence I will to get up and go to the fridge to get some food.

A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

  OP: How do these two relate to each other?

Cetana is what pulls you in a certain direction in taking action. Chanda is the desire to do the act. E.g. (1) I am feeling hungry, but I am lazy to get up from bed. Here I have the intention but not the will to act. (2) I have money to buy a beggar or donate it to a beggar, but I choose to donate it. Here there is an intention to eat and donate but volition to donate.

Chanda is karmically neutral. Cetana is what decides the karma.

  OP: If they are related, which one comes first, and which after?

They are present in the same mind moment if Chanda occurs. Cetana is a universal mental factor and is there in every mind moment. Chanda is an occasional factor hence there only in certain mind moments.

  OP: Is one a condition for the other?

Cetana is the driving force which conditions chanda also.


How do I proceed to seriously study Buddhism? I have been sincerely studying Buddhism for the last 6-8 months.

I have covered most of the famous authors and teachers namely Ajahn Brahm, Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Tenzin Palmo, Alan Watts, D.T. Suzuki, Sharnyu Suzuki.
I watched a few youtube videos of Ajahn Brahm to get some idea of Buddhist outlook towards life.
I read most of the books available out there to cover the history of the Buddha written for the beginners. But I am not much interested in the history, specifically the progress of sangha and spread of Buddhism in East.
I have read a few topics that interest me on this stack.
I completed 2 10 days Vipassana retreat and one-month long Zen retreat which included a mini shesshin.

But now as I see the amount of literature is simply enormous. The Tripitaka, itself is massive. For an e.g., I tried reading an article on 12 nidanas on the wiki but it's difficult to read it that ways. It just feels like information overload.

Can you guide me how should I proceed from here studying Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana?

Give an answer based on the school you are following. In your answer also include the source from where to study, for e.g. 'Read about 8 fold path from this website'.

Please answer in the following format:

Theravada

Study in following order.

4 Noble Truth
8 fold path
10 paramis

Also kindly include the recommended retreat and study centers world over that you know of.

Imagine that I will be studying this dedicatedly for the next 3 years or so. Also, include the online resources and paper books if required.

For those (relatively) new to Buddhism here is what I'd (generally) advise in order:

Read Bikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon as this will ground you in the Buddha's own words.
Read HHDL and Thubten Chodron's Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions which will give you a respectful overview of the different traditions extant today and where they agree and where they disagree. Note this book is product of extensive consultation with experts in other traditions and their viewpoints are included. Among those other experts are some that you cite above such as Bikkhu Bodhi, Thich Nhat Hanh.
Find a local community of practitioners and sangha that follow one of the traditions outlined in #2 that fits your interests and predilections. In particular, research the community and the teachers to make sure they are valid. After you've made some investigation you can ask others here which communities do a good job representing the various extant traditions.
Really buckle down and try to understand whichever tradition you've picked in #3 and concentrate on that tradition. Don't go picking different ideas from different traditions until you've first really grokked your own tradition otherwise this will likely lead to a lot of confusion.

I am partial to the Mahayana as taught by the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism that is authentically taught in the West by the FPMT community and the community at Sravasti Abbey in Washington State. However, there are very good Theravada traditions and teachers and some individuals will be better off with them. Not everyone is the same and you'll have to make your own decisions as what is best for you. Trust yourself to do so.

Hope this helps!


Should we care about what others think? Should we care about what others think? If so, to what level? (Most of the time, those thoughts creates suffering).

Tryin to project one's self-image into the minds of others is a source of suffering1. So one should look inwardly and constraint oneself with the precepts and also develop the Brahavihara and be benevolent. This protects others also oneself. Beyond this worrying about what others think will create misery as this is not in one's control and one's ego is expanding from the spere of "me" to "dear ones" and "others" (also see link below). The misery will be more closer you are to the person in question.

1 This is highlighted in this example: Vipassana | S.N. Goenka | The Ego - "The teacher and his 5 students"


How much of our initial conditions come from past Kamma? When we come into this world, in a rebirth, how much of our situation is predetermined by our past Kamma? I think I have some understanding of the role of inherited Kamma in our personhood. But, are there teachings which indicate if our genetic makeup (good or poor) and our initial social/economic situation (born to rich or poor circumstances) are influenced by it?

To ask in another way, does a person with negative Kamma have a likely-hood of being born with worse health and in poorer circumstances than one with positive? Or are these 'random' factors, uninfluenced by Kamma? Or is this an unanswerable question?

I sense these are unrelated but I have not found guidance yet in this issue.

Buddha addressing the issue of Kamma in the Chula-Kammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya No. 135) has shown us why “No two people are alike and why human beings differ in their skills, beauty, longevity, health, personality, etc..”. It was in response to a question asked by Subha. Subha asked as to why no two human beings are alike? Why some people are short lived, and others long lived, some sickly and others healthy, some beautiful, and others ugly, some influential and others non-influential, some rich and others poor. In response Buddha said:

  ” beings are the owners of their own actions, born out of their actions, related through their actions, and have action as their arbitrator.  Action is what determines and differentiates beings in terms of their processions, character and the qualities they inherit.”

From this we can take that the effect of ones past kamma determine the nature of ones present situation in life. As I pointed out before, everything is NOT due to Kamma. Kamma is one's own doing reacting on oneself, and so one can divert the course of Kamma and the degree to which depends on oneself. Only the Buddha had the perfect knowledge about kamma. He is the only one who fully realised kamma. He is the ONLY one who could teach the nature of kamma, how it works, how it originates, how it is eliminated. For you and me, it is too complex an issue to try to understand. For example, ONLY when a person gets married that for him/her all hell would break loose and the marriage end in divorce. That person can never find contentment in marriage even in subsequent marriages to others. Then there are those who can never find success as a recluse/bhikku. That is their Kamma. Thus from a Buddhist standpoint, our present mental, intellectual, moral and temperamental differences are mainly due to our own actions and tendencies, both past the present. So in short yours is an unanswerable question.

AN 3:76 Bhava Sutta: Becoming, gives us an analogy to describe how becoming is produced:  “Kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture.” Kamma gives us a range of possibilities in which the seed of consciousness can be planted and on which it can feed. Craving is the moisture that keeps the seed alive and allows it to grow into a state of becoming.

Then there is this aspect too. Kamma can mean different things in different contexts. Once Buddha said that “Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.” — AN 6:63. In others, kamma means also the results of that action. The six sense media (Ayatana) are old kamma. Whatever kamma one does with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.” — SN 35:145. kamma is complex because the relationship between old kamma and new kamma is intertwined. It is so complex that that past kamma does not absolutely determine one’s experience of the present moment. There is a tendency for a certain type of kamma to lead to a certain type of result, but the intensity of that result is not a fixed thing. It is also influenced by a factor of present kamma: one’s state of mind now when a particular instance of past kamma ripens. Thus the kamma of one’s state of mind in the present moment plays a crucial role in influencing how the ripening of past kamma is experienced.


Right time, Right time! But what is the right time to speak? Failue, disappeared, they say: "Right time, right time. It wasn't the proper time!", but:

What's the right time to ask?

What's the right time to advise?

What's the right time to speak?

What's the right time to stay silent?

What's the right time for delay?

May one answer when ever thought being the right time.

[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or whatever binds to this wheel but for gaining release from it.]

In the sutta (MN 28), the phrase "right time" is in the translation of kālaññū which is defined in dictionaries here ("one who knows the proper time"), and here.

  Kālaññū knowing the proper time for ... (c. Dat. or Loc.) Sn. 325; described at A. IV, 113 sq.; as one of the five qualities of a rājā cakkavattī (viz. atthaññū, dhamma°, matta°, k°, parisa°) A. III, 148; one of the seven qual. of a sappurisa, a good man (=prec. +atta°, puggala°) D. III, 252, 283; as quality of the Tathāgata D. III, 134=Nd2 276; Pug. 50.

The most complete explanation of kālaññū that I found in the suttas is in Dhammaññūsutta (AN 7.68).

The definition in that context is:

  And how are they one who knows the right time? It’s when a mendicant knows the right time: ‘This is the time for recitation; this is the time for questioning; this is the time for meditation; this is the time for retreat.’

In that sutta it's one of seven qualities:

  A mendicant with seven qualities is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of veneration with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world. What seven? It’s when a mendicant knows the teachings, knows the meaning, has self-knowledge, knows moderation, knows the right time, knows assemblies, and knows people high and low.

Of these seven, the quality with the longest description is the last (I abbreviate slightly in the quote below):

  And how are they one who knows people high and low? It’s when a mendicant understands people in terms of pairs. Two people:

  one likes to see the noble ones, one does not.
  one likes to hear the true teaching, one does not
  one lends an ear to the teaching, one does not
  one remembers the teaching they’ve heard, one does not
  one reflects on the meaning of the teachings they have remembered, one does not
  one understands the meaning and the teaching and practices accordingly, one understands the meaning and the teaching but does not practice accordingly
  one practices to benefit themselves but not others, and one practices to benefit both themselves and others

  That’s how a mendicant understands people in terms of pairs.

The definition of "one who knows assemblies" might be relevant too:

  And how are they one who knows assemblies? It’s when a mendicant knows assemblies: ‘This is an assembly of aristocrats, of brahmins, of householders, or of ascetics. This one should be approached in this way. This is how to stand, to act, to sit, to speak, or to stay silent when there.’ If a mendicant did not know assemblies, they would not be called ‘one who knows assemblies’. But because they do know assemblies, they are called ‘one who knows assemblies’. Such is the one who knows the teachings, the one who knows the meaning, the one who has self-knowledge, the one who knows moderation, the one who knows the right time, and the one who knows assemblies.

There's a discussion on SuttaCentral at the moment, ‘Qualifications’ neccesary to teach Dhamma? There someone said that the situation e.g. relationship with a teacher is different within the Sangha: I recommend this answer (which I won't quote here) and the answer immediately following that.


What gets tired or feels hungry? Experiment So there is a mind (one that asks this question) and there is the body (fingers typing this question of the mind). This is not "I" or "me". So when the body goes running and when the mind or brain is thinking, why does it get tired? Or is it just the illusion of tired?

In the mind and body at the level of experiencing things moment by moment there is feeling and tiredness but nothing feels hungry or gets tired that can be experienced directly.


Before Buddhism, was there a way to escape from samsara? Before the Buddha introduced nirvana and enlightenment, was there any way to escape from the cycle of birth and death? What is written in Buddhist texts?

Some Buddhist texts say that there were previous Buddhas (and that there will be others in the distant future): that they too taught Buddhism; and that the current Buddha rediscovered Buddhism.

For example, in the commentary to Dhammapada verse 183:

  On one occasion, Thera Ananda asked the Buddha whether the Fundamental Instructions to bhikkhus given by the preceding Buddhas were the same as those of the Buddha himself. To him the Buddha replied that the instructions given by all the Buddhas are as given in the following verses:

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

    Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.
    The best moral practice is patience and forbearance; "Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas. A bhikkhu does not harm others; one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.
    Not to revile, not to do any harm, to practise restraint according to the Fundamental Instructions for the bhikkhus, to be moderate in taking food, to dwell in a secluded place, to devote oneself to higher concentration - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

There are even some suttas, such as SN 12.65 which implies that Nirvana and the path the Nirvana was "inhabited in ancient times" and rediscovered by the Buddha.

  In the Nagara Sutta, the delightful ancient fortress city [§20.2] clearly refers to nirvana, and the city is
  populated by saints (called “seers,” rsi, in the Sanskrit Nagara Sutra, §5.28). Both the Pali and Sanskrit
  versions of the Sutta speak of ancient people using the path.

Texts also say that a few people (called "private Buddhas") discover Nirvana for themselves, but (unlike a true Buddha) aren't able or aren't willing to teach other people.


How do you master (control) your mind with buddhism Im a hindu and dont know much about buddhism, many people say that buddhism is the art of cultivating the mind which I feel includes methods to control and discipline the mind, I have a poor control of my mind, I cannot concentrate on any work for a good amount of time as my mind keeps wandering away. Im addicted to pornography, I watch porn everyday and masturbate because of which my penus hurts. I want to stop this habbit but cant. I try not to watch porn but my mind keeps driving me to watch porn. These are not the only problems, Im facing lot of problems in my life caused due to lack of control of my mind. I know buddhism suggests meditation for the control of mind. Is that enough or what are the other ways and methods to master the mind according to buddhism.

One can master the Mind by gaining experiental knowledge about The Five Hindrances and when to apply the corresponding five remedies to them.
The five remedies, can be found in the The Noble Eightfold Path, p. 63-66, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, and are as follows:

Replacing the hindrance with its opposite, e.g. replacing hatred/ill-will with thoughts of loving-kindness.
Contemplating the arisen hindrance as vile and ignoble, since it has entered the mind without permission or any control.
Shifting attention away from the hindrance.
Shifting attention onto the hindrance and thoroughly contemplating it by investigating its causes and conditions for arising together with its characteristics.
Removing the hindrance with force, just as a strong man would pin a weaker man to the ground.

The Buddha says in the quoted sutta below, that if one learns how to use and apply these five remedies then one will no longer be the subject of the mind. One will become it's master;

"... This bhikkhu is then called a master of the courses of thought. He will think what- ever thought he wishes to think and he will not think any thought that he does not wish to think ...".

The Blessed One said this:
"Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is pursuing the higher mind, from time to time he should give attention to five signs. What are the five?
(i) "Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome. When he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, then arty evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the aban- doning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a skilled carpen- ter or his apprentice might knock out, remove, and extract a coarse peg by means of a fine one, so too...when a bhikkhu gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(ii) "If, while he is giving attention to some other sign con- nected with what is wholesome, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should examine the danger in those thoughts thus: 'These thoughts are unwholesome, they are rep- rehensible, they result in suffering. When he examines the danger in those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are aban- doned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. Just as a man or a woman, young, youthful, and fond of ornaments, would be horrified, humiliated, and dis- gusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung around his or her neck, so too...when a bhikkhu examines the danger in those thoughts.. .his mind becomes stead- ied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(iii) "If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them. When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give atten- tion to them, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concen- trated. Just as a man with good eyes who did not want to see forms that had come within range of sight would either shut his eyes or look away, so too...when a bhikkhu tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(iv) "If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought- formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to sin- gleness, and concentrated. Just as a man walking fast might con- sider: 'Why am I walking fast? What if I walk slowly?' and he would walk slowly; then he might consider: 'Why am I walking slowly? What if I stand?' and he would stand; then he might consider: 'Why am I standing? What if I sit?' and he would sit; then he might consider: 'Why am I sitting? What if I lie down?' and he would lie down. By doing so he would substitute for each grosser posture one that was subtler. So too...when a bhikkhu gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts...his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
(v) "If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought- formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind. When, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied inter- nally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. }ust as a strong man might seize a weaker man by the head or shoulders and beat him down, constrain him, and crush him, so too...when, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, a bhikkhu beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind.. .his mind becomes steadied inter- nally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.
"Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwhole- some thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delu- sion, then when he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, any such evil unwholesome thoughts are abandoned in him and subside, and with the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. When he examines the danger in those thoughts...When he tries to forget those thoughts and does not give attention to them...When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts...When, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes mind with mind, any such evil unwholesome thoughts are abandoned in him...and his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated. This bhikkhu is then called a master of the courses of thought. He will think what- ever thought he wishes to think and he will not think any thought that he does not wish to think. He has severed craving, flung off the fetters, and with the complete penetration of con- ceit he has made an end of suffering.
-- The Middle Length Discourses in the Majjhima Nikaya, MN: 20, Bodhi Translation


Can you help me identify this English translation of The Gateless Gate? Over the years, as I have seen various commentaries on koans, I've become aware that the quoted text seems to always derive from one of a very few English translations, but the translation concerned is rarely mentioned.

I am no expert on this area of philology and I'm particularly interested in the version which for Hyakujo’s Fox uses the phrasing "fall under the yoke of causation". This was the first translation which I saw, and so somehow canonical to me. I wonder if it is a highly regarded one?

My main interest is in intellectual curiosity, being interested in philology more generally.

I stumbled upon the answer to my own question elsewhere.

The translation I was seeking was prepared by Katsuki Sekida (1903—1987). Sekida was a school teacher by profession, after retiring he dedicated himself to his lifelong interest in Zen, including preparing excellent translations of the Gateless Gate and Blue Cliff Record.


what's the emptiness, 空, in 3rd jhana of STED 4 jhana formula in agamas? what's the emptiness, 空, in 3rd jhana of STED 4 jhana formula in agamas?
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/12/whats-emptiness-in-3rd-jhana-of-sted-4.html

excerpt:
The 4 jhanas standard formula in the agamas of MA, match up very closely with the pali STED 4 jhana formulas. There's a striking difference in the 3rd jhana though, which is not in the pali. There's a sunyata/kong/空 on this part of third jhana:

聖所捨、念、 樂住、 shèng suǒ shě, niàn, lè zhù
the noble’s equanimity (捨), mindfulness, happy (樂) abode,
空，kōng
and emptiness.
得第三禪成就遊， dé dì sān chán chéngjiù yóu
He attains the accomplishment of the third meditation.

Good, interesting find. Here is what I think:

Jhanas are not just a list of four separate states, they are a progression of the same principle developing and getting stronger from one phase to another.

The principle is that as our skill (of seeing and overcoming obstacles to peace, which is what meditation, and indeed the entire Buddhist path, is about) increases, we overcome subtler-and-subtler types of obstacles and as a result our happiness gets subtler-and-subtler, too:

In the beginning we generate crude happiness by "detaching" ourselves from unwholesome experiences and ideas, and by remembering and going over certain wholesome ideas that elate our mind.
Then we "detach" from  this crutch of the wholesome ideas that we used on the previous step, and master a non-discursive method of generating happiness (of subtler nature) by focusing on the (psychosomatic) experience of inner unity, inner confidence, being at peace and comfortable in our own skin.
Then (and this is what's called the third jhana) we "detach" from any notion of spiritual goal or success, including the very notion of inner harmony that we cultivated on the previous step. Now we dwell in effortless peace, without any sense of "practice" or "cultivation".
Finally, we "detach" from any judgement or comparison that we used to apply in order to categorize our inner state as "peaceful" vs "disturbed".

As you can see, on every step we overcome the limits inherent in valid practice of the previous step, expanding our mind to include what we previously left out, and reducing the tension that comes from division.

I believe the word you found in this version of agama sutra, 空, is there to emphasize the sense of effortlessness and goal-less-ness, the peaceful exhaustion of striving that is characteristic of the third jhana.

This all-encompassing effortlessness is illustrated by the image of the lotus pond used in the Pali Suttas:

  Just as in a lotus pond there may be some lotuses which, born and grown under water, stay immersed at all times, never sticking out of the water.

These lotuses don't need to try and immerse themselves in the water. Water is already all around them at all times. The same way, a meditator who has mastered the third jhana has mastered dwelling in effortless peace. Because they let go of any sense of striving for a goal, including the spiritual goal of enlightenment or successful meditation or anything like that, they never "stick out of peace" no matter where they go or what they do. It's like being in retirement, there is nowhere to rush and nothing to worry about.

This sense of effortlessness, goal-less-ness, purpose-less-ness, vacancy - is what's meant here by the word 空.


Is nirvana just the end of a causal series? It is often said that nirvana is bliss.

What I'm struggling with, and have been for years now, despite reading a fair amount, is whether nirvana, being blissful, is not just objectively so.

i.e. is nirvana good for the buddha or saint that achieves it?

Because if it is, then I don't think it can only be an end to the causal series. Just like, when a fire has stopped burning, we don't say the fire is not hot.

Nirvana is not 'caused'. This is why the Buddha referred to the "path" to Nirvana rather than the "cause" of Nirvana.

Imagine being blind-folded. The eyes cannot see any sights. But if the blind-fold is removed, sights can be seen.

Similarly, greed, hatred & delusion are like a blind-fold that prevent experiencing Nibbana. Nibbana is not something 'mental' although the mind experiences Nibbana (as a sense object).

This is similar to how a tree or flower is not the eye, but the eye experiences the tree or flower.

  It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former
  times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city,
  an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with
  parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html


What is panna? Is it permanent? Because panna (wisdom) is the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anatta, it leads to the cessation of ignorance, greed and aversion and therefore to Nirvana. Now Nirvana or the state of being enlightened is permanent, so panna must be too, mustn't it? The cessation of ignorance alone is not enough, because it could rise again, couldn't it? I mean it already happened one time...
So to hinder ignorance from rising again, panna must be permanent. This is how I always understood it. I always thought of it as an aspect of Nirvana, and therefore not a part of the impermanent (?) skandhas.
Now I read a text which says that panna is a sankhara. Aren't sankharas as the 4th skandha impermanent and cease to exist when entering Paranirvana?
So what is panna?
Thank you.

Light is movement of photons which vibrate within a certain frequency range and travel at the speed of light. If there there is no one present with eyes to sense light, is there still light? I would say yes.
Nibbana is a permanent phenomena (dhamma) which is like light. Even if there are no enlightened ones to experience it, it is still there.
From MN 49 with corrected translation from this answer:

That which could be known (Nibbana), is invisible, infinite, radiant
all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on
earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the
gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of
abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.

Also Ud 8.1-4.
But wisdom (panna) is different. It depends on the mind. If the mind ceases, then wisdom ceases. When the Buddha passed away, his wisdom ceased, but his teachings (Dhamma) which arose out of his wisdom, continue to exist through the suttas and the noble sangha.
So are the teachings (Dhamma) permanent or unconditioned? I would say no. If the suttas and the noble sangha disappear after many centuries or millennia (i.e. the end of the current Buddha sasana), then the teachings also disappear.
Some have asked if physical space is permanent or unconditioned. From Einstein's theory of general relativity, we know that physical space-time is conditioned.
So, in every case, we can see that only one phenomena is permanent and unconditioned and that is Nibbana. It is that which is experienced by the mind when it is free of defilements and fetters. It is not a mental idea or state of mind or state of consciousness.


I'm just interested in buddhism Do buddhists pray? Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner? What are buddhists views on suicide? Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?

So this is your questions: Do buddhists pray? Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner? What are buddhists views on suicide? Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?

1) Do buddhists pray?

  yes we pray.

2) Do they ever speak to the universe in a spiritual manner?

  Um, not to the universe, a universe is a science thing (which is actually existed outside of the earth. So rather just say "Heaven".
  We usually pray in our prayer to wish for the Heaven and let the wish go to the heaven and we believe something good will happen to us.

3) What are buddhists views on suicide?

  We believe someone who suicided will have to recycle in their another ten lifes - will end each of their life by suicides.
  But nowadays, I think people don't take it too much.

4) Do you help plan out your life before being reincarnated?

  should say yes, I also believe being reincarnated is because of that thing - planning out a life or wishing to have something they have before. (means) They just can't leave their previous life and want to hold on it in any possible ways...

P.S: maybe my answers are not complete but I tried to let you know the basic things I wish I knew. Hope you find smth in it.


Is there any truth in the legend about the birth of Siddhartha? This Life of the Buddha (also mentioned among Wikipedia's Miracles of Gautama Buddha) says,

According to the legends about this birth, the baby began to walk seven steps forward and at each step a lotus flower appeared on the ground. Then, at the seventh stride, he stopped and with a noble voice shouted:

"I am chief of the world,
Eldest am I in the world,
Foremost am I in the world.
This is the last birth.
There is now no more coming to be."

However I feel like the legend is far-fetched from the truth. Any comments or alternative views are very welcome.

It depends what you mean by truth. If you mean did this actually occur then I would agree it does seem far fetched. However if you understand it as a myth then it will have truth. I think sometimes we understand myths as been basically being synonymous with fiction. However myths have a deeper truth that is relevant to the culture or society that it comes from. Authors such as Joseph Campbell go further and say that myths have a truth that cuts across cultures and societies - a comparative mythology.

The story above could be understood as a variant of the hero story which typically have miraculous or supernatural beginnings. The story of Christ could be understood in the same way (though obviously not everyone would be happy with this interpretation). This kind of comparative mythology can be seen in other places in the Buddha's life story. His enlightenment experience can be seen as occurring on the world navel (axis mundi) as well as more prosaically under the Bodhi tree.

Joeseph Campbells book, The Hero with a 1000 Faces, is a good place to start if you are interested in these ideas.


If Buddhas don't feel bliss, what is the purpose of attaining nirvana? If I have zero feelings won't I be a dead robot? And how would I have love and compassion for beings without feeling?

From AN 9.34:

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

Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses, including thoughts and the intellect) or when encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
But for a Buddha or arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.
Please see this answer for commentaries by Nyanaponika Thera. The supporting suttas are MN 44, SN 36.5 and AN 9.34.
In addition, the Buddha and arahats can experience emotions or states of mind which are not tainted with the three poisons of greed (lobha), aversion (dosa) and delusion (moha). This includes the four brahmaviharas of loving kindness (metta), compassion (karuna), empathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha).
The brahmaviharas are considered skillful states of mind.
An enlightened person is not an emotionless person. It's simply a person who does not have cravings, does not have plans to fulfill sensual cravings, does not have plans to become something and does not become afflicted with negative states of mind that arise as a side effect of having craving. Also please see this question.
The purpose of Nirvana is permanently ending suffering - it's not about experiencing bliss.

Adding on based on a comment by Ruslan, the Buddha did have his five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) intact and functioning without being tainted by the three poisons, after attaining Nibbana, and could still experience pain and pleasure, but did not suffer from it. Please see this answer for details.


Why can't we accord the theory of evolution? What's the Buddhist view of evolution of mankind? Why can't we accede to the theory of evolution? Can we get same path of an evolution theory and aggajha sutta?

Why we can't accord theory of evolution??

The Buddha's Teaching is a not a theoretical teaching but a practical teaching. The Buddha invites one to come and see1 for oneself.

In SN 1:20 - Samiddhi Sutta, its taught that; "This Dhamma is here-present, out of time, inviting inspection, leading onward, to be realized by the wise each for himself".

Human beings, mankind and evolution are all concepts that do not have any real reference point, ie. a reference to Ultimate reality.

The question becomes meaningless when observed from a practical/meditational point of view. The question belongs to the Four Imponderables, namely the origin-element.

The Buddha teaches only about suffering and how to become free from it.

  What's the Buddhist view of evolution of the mankind?

Insight meditation will show that "the evolution of mankind" is merely a concept belonging to the 4th aggregate of mental formations.

1"Ehipassiko" is a Pali
 word used to describe the investigative nature of Buddhism. Discouraging blind faith alone, the Buddha encouraged his disciples to "come and see" his teachings for themselves, to witness the fruits of this practice through direct experience.


Are good deeds superficial? It's said that our actions are originated from unconscious mind. People are trying to become more patient, more tolerable, etc. but there are anger type of people, lustful type of people, etc.. Once the circumstances change, people also change according to their nature.

So can we change our 'true nature' by just doing good deeds? Or good deeds have to come from our true nature? Thanks all.

Doing good deeds is very beneficial because our moral character is changeable. When we do good deeds, our moral character improves. When we do bad deeds, our character worsens.

However, according to the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination, the ultimate cause of all our negative qualities is much deeper than that. This underlying root cause is ignorance, so the only way to permanently change is to overcome ignorance. To do good deeds without overcoming ignorance is very good, but it isn't enough to become enlightened.

To overcome ignorance, one must develop wisdom by developing insight into the nature of reality. Once this wisdom is attained and brought to perfection, the ignorance that is the underlying cause of all suffering is brought to an end.


Do the words, Dharmakaya, Nirmanakaya or Samboghakaya appear in any Teravada Buddhist Scriptures? I read some articles and saw some references to the words , Dharmakaya, Samboghakaya and Nirmanakaya used by Buddha , as mentioned in the Theravada scriptures , at least a few times during His Lifetime. Has anyone come across this , too?

The Trikaya concept is a Mahayana concept although the origin to the term Dharmakaya could be found in the Pali Canon at SN 22.87:

  Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."


In what sutta does the Buddha talk about Paccekabuddhas? Question is in the title.
Thank you for your time.

In MN116,

Once upon a time, five hundred Buddhas awakened for themselves dwelt
for a long time on this Isigili. They were seen entering the mountain,
but after entering were seen no more. When people noticed this they
said: ‘That mountain swallows these hermits!’ That’s how it came to be
known as Isigili.
desessāmi, bhikkhave, paccekabuddhānaṁ nāmāni.
I shall teach the names of the Buddhas awakened for themselves.
Taṁ suṇātha, sādhukaṁ manasi karotha, bhāsissāmī”ti.
Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.
“Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“The Buddhas awakened for themselves who dwelt for a long time on this
Isigili were named Ariṭṭha, Upariṭṭha, Tagarasikhin, Yasassin,
Sudassana, Piyadassin, Gandhāra, Piṇḍola, Upāsabha, Nītha, Tatha,
Sutavā, and Bhāvitatta. ......
These and other mighty ones awakened for themselves, enders of the
attachment to rebirth— honor these great hermits who are fully
extinguished, having got past all ties, limitless.”

Other translation: From Piyadassi Thera


Validity of Meditation Experience I have tried meditating on public transport. There, I find I meditate as sharply as when sitting formally. Yet, I find this suspect.

Is it possible to believe one is concentrated and meditating efficiently, but actually not? In other words, should I trust my experience that meditating on public transport is equally efficient as formal sitting?

Thank you.

Both practices are valid. To be precise: you subjectively feel that meditation on the public transport to be sharp, more concentrated, and efficient, but you suspect that this subjective reaction is questionable.

Let's draw a comparison another way. Suppose you compare 2 sits on the public transport to one another. Or, two sits at an Advanced Meditators retreat to one another. We'll say we compare 2 sits which are in identical settings, of equal duration; sit(1) you diligently follow the instructions but the experience is uncomfortable, bland, and you don't see any benefits that day. Sit(2) has pleasure which is spiritual in nature, or clears out the mind, or has only positive effects all day long. Yet both were identical practices?

It is possible that the bland meditation without noticeable benefit may be just as, or more valuable, to your practice, then the pleasurable one. That's because it's a process within a system, and you can't see all the benefits. Of course we WANT the later experience, but it does not mean it is actually more productive.

It could be that your sitting at home in quiet and seclusion is dealing more deeply in some areas you might prefer not to go in? Or could it be the public transport is easier because you are more distracted?

In my own experience, I really treasure the less pleasurable sits because they are turbulent due to the things bothering me, and I feel that stuff needs to be front and center. It might be that your sits at home are of more actual benefit, but it doesn't look that way now.


How does one deal with the 'fear of rebirth'? At times when even Stream Entry seems implausible let alone Nirvana how does one deal with the fear of rebirth.
Rebirth would mean over again; disappointment after disappointment and after horrendous ordeal of life coming to understand the Buddhas teaching and learning everything all over again.
I have dealt with the five hindrances to meditation, but this fear of failure in this life has taken its place.
Its not death but rebirth that I have developed aversion towards.
How do I address this? How do I get equianimous towards this idea?

Its not death but rebirth that I have developed aversion towards.

How do I address this? How do I get equianimous towards this idea?

By recognizing a few things:

Unless one's already enlightened, rebirth will happen anyway, regardless of whether one likes it or not. Recognizing that one's dread or favor over it won't help would hopefully gives one some peace of mind and equanimity.

Try to conduct oneself with wholesome deeds thru the 3 gateways: body/speech/mind. If rebirth will happen anyway, it'd be better to have a more peaceful and favorable rebirth due to wholesome kamma than a horrific one due to evil kamma.


Does using or watching YouTube break a bhikkhu's rules? Would using YouTube or other social media, where one is exposed to music or forced advertising/entertainment, be breaking the rules for monks?

  "the watching of entertainments are stumbling blocks"

This makes watching any of YouTube (Number 7 of the eight precepts) an area of
concern.

It is my personal experience that frequent games, movies, TV, YouTube, smart phone use and browsing definitely reduce one's mindfulness.

This is a  fundamental question about all entertainment - why must entertainment be eschewed? The nature of boredom is that it arises out of a mind that isn't at ease with itself. The nature of thought at the moment a bored mind arises is to gravitate towards the outside world - towards sense pleasures.

Distracted thought gets reinforced with every application of distraction, so much so, we live in a world where hardly anyone reads long pieces of text voluntarily and people find even Twitter too difficult to concentrate on.

The nature of boredom is that it gets excited by violence rather than peace. It reinforces duality, of the entertainer and the entertained. It is thus a quality of mind to be safe guarded against.

YouTube itself is just a tool, it is neither good nor bad, it is the nature of the mind that watches YouTube that is the determining factor. There are a good many dhamma talks on YouTube for example.


Do five precepts protect? All five precepts are relatively clearly defined except maybe the third precept. There are different types of women that are prohibited, prostitute is not one of the requirement to break the third precept.

If, for example, someone likes to visit prostitute, that person does not break the third precept. Do five precepts protect us from falling to lower realms? What is the purpose of practicing five precepts? What protects you from taking rebirth in the realms lower than human? Thanks.

The precepts are generally considered to be training principles (sikkhapada) which prepare us for more rigorous practice or which generate merit in order to gain a more fortunate rebirth (sugati) in the next life. And by "more fortunate" we definitely mean circumstances in which one meets and can practice the Dharma.

Many Pāḷi suttas outline how sīla (practising the precepts) leads onto more intensive practices such as saṃvara "restraint with the respect to the senses" or indriyesu guttdvara "guarding the doors of the senses". And these in turn lead into more intensive practises like eliminating the hindrances, and then into practising jhāna and vipassanā. Of course in other schools of Buddhism the progression into more intensive practice follows different paths, but on the whole the precepts are seen as preliminary to practising more intensively.

Traditionally for lay people, who do not undertake intensive religious practices, practising the precepts is an important source of merit (puñña) which they hope will accumulate enough to crate a fortunate rebirth next time. Thus traditionally we could say that the precepts protect one from a bad destination (duggati). Traditionally making gifts to monastics and supporting their lifestyle is an important source of merit. Generosity generally is seen as generating merit.

In modern times the distinction between monastics and lay people has begun to break down. Some groups see monasticism as far less important that it has been traditionally, or indeed as irrelevant, and many lay people have now taken up practices traditionally only done by monastics. So it's not always clear how the tradition applies.

On the issue of visiting prostitutes I would say that if one has made a commitment to be faithful to a sexual partner, such as one does in marriage, then visiting a prostitute is clearly a breach of that commitment. It is a lie, and therefore a breach of the precepts.

If one has no such commitment then the situation is more ambiguous. But in order for the act to be completely ethical one would need to know for sure, for example, that the prostitute was not under any compulsion whatever, to do sex work. One would need to be sure that the agreed fee was absolutely fair and that the prostitute received their full share of that money. In my view one could never be certain of these, and thus one would always be risking demerit or apuñña.

As with all the precepts, one must look at the spirit of them as well as the letter. The fundamental principle is "do no harm". One cannot choose to do a harmful action and claim that it is not mentioned in the letter of the precepts. Harm is harm. The institution of prostitution almost always does harm to someone. One can always ask oneself the question: "Would I want my son or daughter to earn their living having sex with strangers for money, risking catching AIDS and so on? Is that what I would want for my children?" My answer to this, despite not having children, is "no".


What will be the situation of the world when every beings will attain Nirvana? The ultimate goal of a Buddhist is to attain Nirvana, i.e., to stop the cycle of rebirth. Since a Buddhist is compassionate, she/he not only wants to stop her/his own rebirth but also wants that all beings will stop their rebirth. Now suppose this has happened: all beings have been able to stop the cycle of rebirth. Then what will be the picture of the world? There will be no life anywhere, let alone human civilization. The entire world will be like a land of the dead. Is that a desirable goal? If not, where is the fallacy in the above argument?

The Buddha explicitly declined to answer:

Whether or not the cosmos is eternal
Whether or not the cosmos is infinite
Whether or not the Tathagata exists after death

Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta

  And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

He seems to imply that both views are wrong view (or at least, not "right" view):

  It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

If not, where is the fallacy in the above argument?

If you don't mind me saying so, a fallacy seems to be to be that you're postulating something good (i.e. "cessation of suffering"); and then proposing your attachment to and your imagination of something (i.e. "the picture of the world" and "the entire world" and "a land of the dead" and "a desirable goal") as a counter-argument; for example the following are meant as some absurd examples:

Suppose nobody needed to die anymore: how could grave-diggers then earn their living?
Suppose everyone's basic needs were magically taken care of, with enough food and shelter and protection from violence for everyone: society would collapse! Who would go to their jobs anymore? We'd be living in a world without slaves and without armies.


Is the Dhamma / morality objective? Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?

If yes, how?

Do all beings intuitively know what is right and what is wrong deep within their consciousness? Even the worst psychopaths?

Resources:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Is_morality_objective%3F
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-indispensability-of-theological-meta-ethical-foundations-for-morality/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

This is an interesting question. Is morality objective?

I recently watched a video where Tovia Singer, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, claimed that he once debated with an atheist. The atheist apparently stated that he did not need God and he is aware by himself that murder, theft and other immoral actions are wrong. To this, the rabbi responded that humans were made in God's image, and that's why he has intrinsic awareness of morality - because God put it in him.

How would Buddhism respond?

  OP: Does the Dhamma allow the philosophical establishment of an objective and/or universal morality without God?

Yes, of course.

According to the Kimattha Sutta:

  "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward."

You can read the whole sutta to see how skillful virtues lead to enlightenment. It starts from freedom from remorse, which leads to joy and so on.

So, if skillful virtues result in freedom from remorse, then immoral behavior lead to remorse. So, this means that virtue is universal or objective in Buddhism.

Well, some things are not universal or objective. For example, should you try to beat the lights when the traffic light is red? Now with the pandemic, many governments enforce social distancing rules - should you follow them? These are not universal or objective. These are learned.

But some things like taking a life, taking what belongs to others, speaking untruth and adultery are definitely universal or objective.

  OP: If yes, how?

Where is this source of objective morality?

According to Udana 5.1:

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that
  occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper
  palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you
  than yourself?"

  "No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what
  about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"

  "No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."

  Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"

  Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:

    Searching all directions
    with your awareness,
    you find no one dearer
    than yourself.
    In the same way, others
    are thickly dear to themselves.
    So you shouldn't hurt others
    if you love yourself.

Also found in the Dhammapada 10:

  All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
  All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
  One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
  hereafter.
  One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
  hereafter.

What does this show?

Morality is objective, not because it has a source like God.

Rather, it's because we know that nobody is dearer to us than ourselves (if we still have self view and conceit), and we recognize that this is also the case for other unenlightened sentient beings.

So, you would feel remorse when hurting others, because you know that if others did that to you, you would feel pain. The basis of morality is compassion towards the suffering of others, because we can relate to it due to our own suffering.

How do I know this to be true?

Simply list out every possible way you can hurt another person, and most likely, you would have derived the basic code of morality found in most religions by negating every item in your list.