The New Age Philosophy of Evolution stating that working towards Thoughtlessness and Nothingness is fundamentally Flawed Though this video is in Hinglish - some casual dialogues are in Hindi but most of the conversation happens in English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uf-eoAij5o , Anand Gandhi - Director and Scriptwriter for the philosophical movie "Ship of Theseus" gives a perfect explanation of what we have to do as humans, Purpose of Life, and in fact, argues that attaining the nothingness or the thoughtlessness is fundamentally wrong using evolution theory. Is there an opposition argument to what he has stated?

"The freedom of my swinging arms ends at your nose."
This video promotes the value of developing consciousness beyond personal concerns into a consciousness that embraces the world around us.  In the suttas, one reads the equivalent:

AN9.33:6.2: If someone should say, ‘I do not know or see where the perception of the dimension of infinite space ceases’,  they should be told:  ‘It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space, aware that “consciousness is infinite”, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite consciousness.  That’s where the perception of the dimension of infinite space ceases.’

Infinite space is unsatisfactory when one's swinging arm hits another's nose. Infinite consciousness is aware of noses and arms and also aware of the time for swinging arms or stepping forward with noses.
Notably, the suttas continue beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. With increasing consciousness we discover that costs and benefits are mixed. Hunting skills lead to obsession with video games that produce no actual food. Huntington's disease leads to lower risk of cancer. Consciousness mitigates some suffering but doesn't end it. The suttas go on to describe what lies beyond infinite consciousness.

AN9.33:7.2: If someone should say, ‘I do not know or see where the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness ceases’, they should be told: ‘It’s when a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that “there is nothing at all”, enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness. That’s where the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness ceases.’

The dimension of nothingness should not be experienced as life-ending nihilistic apathy.

SN54.9:3.3: Becoming horrified, repelled, and disgusted with this body, they looked for someone to slit their wrists.

Instead, the Buddha taught:

SN54.9:7.2: In the same way, when this immersion due to mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s peaceful and sublime, a deliciously pleasant meditation. And it disperses and settles unskillful qualities on the spot whenever they arise.

So the Buddha might agree with the video in that fiercely grasping at nothingness is silly (i.e., "bulls**t" in the video). But the Buddha also noted that infinite consciousness itself is ultimately impermanent and unsatisfactory, and certainly not an end to suffering.


How to nullify the expectations? Buddhist teachers say things like

Do not expect anything from anyone,

and also:

Do everything with good heart and expect nothing in return and you
will never be disappointed.

Such a wonderful lines to get peace and never get disappointed. But as a human, it becomes very tough for us to follow this. Can someone throw light on this please? How we can remove the greedy nature?
When we do a lot for someone, we at least expect basic thing in return. It is hard to accept disagreements or carelessness in return from whom where you have done/thought a lot for him in past.

When you expect something, it's because it seems to you that you know that something is supposed to happen that way. For example you know that if you help someone they should be nice to you. It seems like you know for sure this is how it works, and based on this knowledge you set your expectation. But this knowledge may be wrong. Maybe the person has different goals, or he has some other problems that keep him distracted. Because of being distracted he doesn't notice that he is not being nice. If your knowledge is incomplete then your expectations can be wrong. So before you expect something you should say to yourself: "my knowledge about this may be wrong. Maybe it will happen this way and maybe it won't". If you think like this, your expectation will remain flexible. And when it doesn't go the way you wanted, you can adjust quickly.
In general every one of us only sees part of the picture. The other person sees a different part. Based on the part that you see each of you create your expectations, your actions, and your judgements. Then these expectations, actions, and judgments clash against each other. It's not your fault or his fault, it is the nature of the world, each person only sees one small part and acts based on that.
But what you can do when you know this principle, you can talk to each other and combine your parts, get them together and create one common picture, then you will be on the same page and there will be no conflict of mismatched expectations anymore.
The second problem is greedy nature, like you said. Sometimes when we are helping someone we begin to imagine the nice things we will get in return. As we keep thinking about these nice things, our mind gets excited. It wants to get something nice and it gets used to that imaginary future in which it already has those nice things. Again the problem is, the mind imagines something (in this case getting nice things in the future) and then it gets attached to that idea.
In general, the mind creates all kinds of pictures based on some information, but these pictures are only guesses. What you should learn is to never confuse these pictures as actual reality. Mind-made models are only models, and reality is reality.
If you are always aware that everything in your mind is a model, and that troubles and suffering arises when this model is wrong (and it is often wrong because it is simplified or partial) - then you can keep your mind open for new information, and when something different happens that is not in your model, you can re-adjust and get in sync with reality quickly without getting upset or angry.
If you learn to stay open (keep all your models open without conclusively completing them based on guesses) and learn to adjust your model within several milliseconds of receiving new information, then you will never be out of sync with reality - and never in trouble.


Misconception about remembering past lives? I have been digging really deep into the philosophy of Buddha. What I have come to know is that Buddha has never talked about remembering past lives in any original text. If he has then please let me know.

Now, what he may have said is the idea of Dependent Origination, that surely many past actions/events were the cause of his birth.

The other thing what I have found is that rebirth in Buddhism is not reincarnation. Keep this in mind. It is the rebirth of consciousness in this life. We go through different perception of the self as long as we cling to desires. Also, sexual desires work vaguely here to change the perception of "I".

However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.)

All the stories of remembrance of past life is fabricated as well, in my point of view, there is also a story where Buddha remembers past life after enlightenment, but it's wrong. He was just pointing out Dependent Origination.

Please let me clarify on this topic. Thank you.

However, my question is Buddha has never talked about past life as in life about past bodies before physical birth, if he has then please let me know. (Also, I have found that Jataka tales is fabricated because it is post Canon.)

The Buddha did talk quite explicitly about physical rebirths before and after the physical death of the body. And it's mentioned not only in the Jataka, but in all the Nikayas. So, it'd be a mistake to interpret rebirth as only exclusively the momentary rebirth of consciousness in the same life.


Is respect a form of ego? If a warrior chooses to leave the battlefield, he will be humiliated by his country men therefore losing his respect. Buddhist monks have attained great peace even by letting go humiliation. Is this respect or social status an ego? Is it a part of human emotions just like happiness & sadness.
Does social status or respect exists?

If you read Pali suttas, you will see how Buddha says times and again, that people's opinion about a person is in large degree a reflection of person's virtue.

Basically, human ethics and Buddha-Dharma both stem from the same Reality or Truth of how things work, so naturally there is a large overlap. Things that are considered shameful by society are, for the most part, considered unskilful in Buddhism and vice-versa.

In the example of respect, the quality that is respected in society - such as consistency in applying one's (ethical) principles despite all kinds of distractions and pressure to the contrary, map to the quality of perseverance which is one of the Six Paramitas in Mahayana.

At the same time, since the end-goal of Buddhism differs from the end-goal of lay life, there are instances when the two systems disagree. In one of the (SN or AN) suttas Buddha said, it's easy enough to act skilfully when one gets approved by society, but only a wise person can uphold it when met with misunderstanding and blame. So clearly, Buddha was aware of the occasional conflict and insisted that in such cases the ethics of Dhamma must prevail.

Then, in Mahayana this is further analyzed in terms of the Two Truths: relative vs. absolute. From the perspective of the Absolute Truth, we clearly understand that the values of the relative truth are inherently pointless and purely conventional. So, for example, such a despicable act as cursing in public - is understood to be inherently empty - neither impure, nor pure. The ethical value of sounds is assigned entirely based on social convention. The sounds themselves are just that, sounds - and what may be offensive in one country could be a greeting in another.

Then again, from the perspective of the Relative Truth, our actions have real, objective effects. If someone is actually offended at our cursing, it is kinda pointless to argue whether the sounds have inherent meaning or not. The truth of the matter is, if you know that your acts will have certain effects, should you heed that or not? The answer is yes, of course.

Finally, from the perspective of the Unity of Two Truths, which is said to be the perspective of the enlightened mind, the conventional valuations existing on the relative level are understood to have grown from, or to have roots in, the Absolute Ground of All, so in that sense they are like shadows or echos of the truth, they are like reflections of The Law in pieces of broken mirror, not entirely valid, but not completely false either.

So, for example, respect in general, however conditional and superficial it may be, and regardless of the individual judgements made in all fairness or not, is still a reflection of something real that has an intrinsic value - the consistency of virtue, which is a reflection of the fundamental steadfastness and orderliness of Dharma ("Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands".)

In Tibetan Buddhism, especially in its most ancient Nyingma tradition, there is this deep respect for the wandering yogis famous for their complete and openly demonstrated disrespect for the social norms. In East Tibetan folklore there are numerous anecdotes about such yogis e.g. pissing in public and performing many other regrettable acts. The traditional moral of the stories is, the enlightened mind does not worry about the social morals, what it cares about is helping others progress on the Path, which is considered the higher virtue overriding the social norms.

At the same time, the fully enlightened mind of the Buddha is expected to be so infinitely skilfull, that its every single act is supposed to look valid and admirable from every possible point of view! Think about it, how cool is that? There may be infinitely many perspective on things in the universe and somehow Buddha is supposed to look perfect from every one of them. It's up to you to decide for yourself, whether you take this literally or as a didactic figure of speech, but the moral of the story for me is, the wiser and the more skilful we get, the less disagreement we generate with our acts - which kinda makes sense.

As for the ego question, of course Pride (in the sense of Conceit) arising from respect, and Self-Beating arising from Loss of Respect, are not the most healthy qualities of mind, according to Buddhism. Technically, both come from an idea of Self being valued high or low in the others' eyes, therefore from the ego. Not surprisingly then, learning to let go of the deeply ingrained attachment to saving one's "face" and the panical fear of being disgraced has traditionally been a big part of Mahayana's teacher/student relationship. At the same time, on the lower levels of virtue, Pride and Self-Beating could be useful motivators stirring the sentient being towards a better path, so in this sense they can be useful to a certain degree. Check out "hiri and ottappa" for the traditional take on this.

So, to summarise this overly long answer, the social conventions such as Respect and Shame are inherently empty, partially valid and useful on the relative level, ultimately to be transcended for oneself on the path to liberation, can sometimes be overridden by the higher-level Dharmic concerns, but are nevertheless never neglected even by the fully enlightened Buddhas because of their effects on the unenlightened minds.


Insights of the Middle Path Everything in moderation is the key to the Middle Path.

There are times when one can clearly see the outcome (insight or out of experience) and actions of other person and their way of thinking.

What is the right way to react in those situations:

when one doesn't have any take away from situation / outcome.
when one can gain from situation/outcome because the action of other can affect you or you have stake in the outcome.

Does one just observe and let the nature/ karma take its course or act to moderate the outcome?

When there’s interaction with other people, and as you focus more carefully in that present moment, you begin to realize that you choose where to focus and how you want to shape the situation. You could let yourself suffer, fall victim to these things, or you could make a change. But if for instance when you’re being mindful, say, of feelings, you just watch whatever feeling comes up and don’t make any changes. Don’t meddle with it. Just be non-reactive, allowing whatever’s happening to happen. What this attitude does, though, is to drive underground some really important sources for insight: the ability to see to what extent you’re shaping your feelings of pleasure and pain right now. This applies to physical pleasure and mental pleasure, to physical pain and mental pain. So the way you think, the way you interpret, filter, make choices about how to shape the present moment is a purely internal matter. Mindfulness is to remind you that you can make choices, and that you want to learn to make them skillfully. You can learn how to think in a comfortable way, to fashion your thoughts and your perceptions so as to shape a greater sense of wellbeing. Just take time and use your powers of observation.


Steward to a monk/monastery I am trying to recall the formal/traditional way of offering help to a monk for the longevity of their ordination.

Being a steward doesn't seem like it's the answer I'm looking for.

I have both met a family that does this for a monk with travel, etc.. and remember reading something about it in 'Stillness Flowing'.

Thanks!

I believe that you are looking for the term Pavarana.
Here is a description from The Bhikkhus' Rules: A guide for Laypeople:

Normally a bhikkhu will not ask for things. Instead, he will wait for
something to be offered. This is exemplified in the alms round where
the bhikkhu makes no request, does not even look at people, although
he may quietly wait to see if an offering is to be made before moving
on. One way that lay people enable a bhikkhu to ask them for help is
by making an invitation or pavarana.
The Buddha allowed a bhikkhu to accept pavarana or 'invitation.'
Such an invitation is made when lay people decide to commit themselves
to supplying medicines if a particular bhikkhu should ever become ill,
or it can be a broader offer of help. (Although a sick monk is allowed
to ask anyone for medicine, asking somebody who has already invited
him with a pavarana invitation is obviously preferable.) Therefore
if lay people meet a bhikkhu who seems worthy of help and support,
they may make such an invitation. Quite a number of the rules deal
with what and how much may be asked for when a donor makes this formal
invitation.
An invitation can therefore be quite specific about what is being
offered and how long that invitation will last. (Obviously, if
circumstances change or the request is unreasonable, the donor has no
obligations — and a conscientious bhikkhu is always sensitive about
this.)
A clear invitation will also help prevent misunderstandings. For
instance, the bhikkhu will know exactly what has been offered and so
will not ask for more than that; and the lay person will not be
overwhelmed by extravagant requests.
The original circumstances of the forty-seventh Confession Offence
were as follows:
A lay supporter possessed much 'medicinal ghee' so he invited the
monks to make use of it during the following four months. Much of the
medicine was still left, so he extended his invitation for another
four months and then extended it for life. The Buddha allowed this.
However, that same lay donor had once criticized the 'group-of-six'
monks because of their previous improper conduct so they decided to
take their revenge by asking him for an impossibly large amount of
medicine (ghee) and then criticized him when he could not immediately
produce what he had promised. This rule was set down:
"A bhikkhu who is not ill may accept (make use of) a four- month
invitation [pavarana] to ask for requisites. If he should accept
(make use of) it for longer than that — unless the invitation is
renewed or is permanent — it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac.
47; BMC p.393) When the invitation is more vague — for example, a lay
person may just say, "If you need anything, Bhante, let me know" — the
bhikkhu should not exceed the spirit of the invitation. In fact some
communities consider that an invitation in which the lay person does
not mention any time limit is valid only for four months and that
taking up the invitation beyond that time is an offence.
A bhikkhu is always allowed to ask for requisites from his relatives
without having formal invitation first. (Whether they actually supply
anything is, of course, up to them.) 'Relatives' are considered to be
those with whom the bhikkhu has common ancestors back through seven
generations, on both the mother's and father's side. Here 'in-laws'
are not counted as relatives.
"Thus all descendants of one's great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-grandfather are counted as one's relatives... [although] a
bhikkhu at present would be well-advised to regard as his relatives
only those blood-relations with whom ties of kinship are actually
felt." (BMC p.183)


Is craving unskilful because it fuels craving? For most people it's not readily discernible why sense pleasures are unsatisfactory. In general, a lot of people know intellectually that sense pleasures are impermanent, and that virtuous thinking & acting is what makes life fulfilling. Craving as a feeling, on the other hand, when investigated, is stressful because it disturbs the stillness of the mind.

Okay, enough of rambling: From a Dhammic point of view the maxim "a little of what you fancy does you good" therefore doesn't hold true, does it? Since craving of any sort cannot permanently be ceased by means of giving into it (actually it usually grows stronger), one is advised to change one's attitudes towards it and, as best as one can, abstains from it.

Am I comprehending this correctly?

Thanks

Generally speaking, I think you're right.

  Ānanda, when one dwells contemplating gratification in things that can be clung to, craving increases. With craving as condition, [the rest of D.O. chain] comes to be…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. (SN 12.52-57, 12.60)

In addition to that standard explanation that goes from enjoying to craving, Buddha also provides an alternative - when you enjoy and relish something, your mind "settles" in that...

  Where there is fondness, relishing, & craving [...], consciousness settles there and grows. Where consciousness settles and grows, there is descent of name-&-form. Where there is descent of name-&-form, there is growth of tendencies. Where there is growth of tendencies, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging, & death, together, I tell you, with sorrow, affliction, & despair. (SN 12.64)

And in slightly different words:

  Bhikkhus, when one dwells contemplating gratification in things that can fetter, there is a descent of consciousness. With consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be... [the rest of D.O. chain goes here] Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. (SN 12.59)

So, in my understanding, when you enjoy and relish something, your mind "settles" in that. When it settles, it takes something as a position, it assumes this is how things "are supposed to be". It then identifies with that position, "this is me, this is mine". Then from this position grow all kinds of problems, like:

things change, you want to keep it the same but you can't - therefore you suffer.
someone else found pleasure in some other experience, and settled in that - now their idea of how things are supposed to be is different from yours, so when you two get in conflict you fight - therefore both suffer.

So the problem with pleasure is this very "settling" of the mind, which takes its experience far too seriously and reifies it as absolute reality, "how things are supposed to be".

In Mahayana we say, you can experience pleasure as long as you see it as empty and therefore don't settle there. As long as you clearly see that the experiencer is a construct of mind, the experience is a construct of mind, the whole situation is a temporary arrangement, and the "pleasantness" of it is an illusion. When you see all that, you can still watch it, like when a grown-up watches a magic show where he knows all tricks. He can still kinda enjoy it - but not in the same naive way as kids do.

  If he feels a pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘It is impermanent’; he understands: ‘It is not held to’; he understands: ‘It is not delighted in. [...] If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. (SN 12.51)

So, to answer your question, I don't think pleasure is only bad because it can't satisfy craving permanently, and if we look very carefully, I don't think we can say it is only bad because it fuels craving directly (although Buddha did speak about that too, as we can see above). Most importantly, from Buddha's explanations it seems that the big, "strategic" problem with pleasure is that it provides a comfortable ground for the samsaric mind of objectification and identification to grow on.

Now, you are asking, how is it possible for a non-Buddhist to realy appreciate this insight. I think the "tactical" part, about pleasure being unable to permanently satisfy craving and about pleasure increasing the craving, can be explained through the modern concept of addiction. You can say: "It is easy to get addicted to pleasure, but don't get addicted or else you'll want more and more, and will suffer when you can't get it".

The "strategic" part is harder to explain in modern language, or really in any language. Perhaps you could say, "Getting used to pleasure (really to anything "good") is dangerous, because first it becomes an anchor, then a reference point, then the center of your reality. And then you start measuring everything else against it, which determines your behavior. Then you're no longer shapeless and free, instead you are shaped and very vulnerable. Pleasure shapes you and makes your reality rigid. Once you have shape, you are mortal." - see, this part is hard to explain and hard to understand.


No compassion, goodwill for oneself? Someone, possible thought it might be compassionate, stated:

  Also (next to compassion), when you spread loving kindness, do NOT spread it to yourself. No where in any discourse does the Buddha says to spread loving kindness to your self. All the places when Buddha talks about metta, he says to spread loving kindness to all beings in each directions.

Possible to have real compassion or/and goodwill, not to speak about mudita and upekkha, without having one self floated with it.

So is this true or the very base not traced? Possible Nihilist-Trap? Possible that certain Kings at Buddhas times have been wiser and more compassionate as intellectuals may ever be? Possible not seen the qualities of Ariyasāvakas and thought in common terms?

[Note: this question is one of compassion and not thought for trade, exchange, stackes, Buddh-ism, or whatever binds to the low.]

The metta sutta was probably addressed to monks because the stanza opens with already being established in the noble eightfold path, as follows:

  This is what should be done
      By one who is skilled in goodness,
  And who knows the path of peace:
      Let them be able and upright,
  Straightforward and gentle in speech,
      Humble and not conceited,
  Contented and easily satisfied,
      Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
  Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
      Not proud or demanding in nature.
  Let them not do the slightest thing
      That the wise would later reprove.
  Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
      May all beings be at ease.

Also, the Buddha indeed mentioned to care first for oneself and then for others. This is not egoism, but intelligent self-care. The dhammapada states:

  One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only one should teach others. A wise man should not incur reproach.

Dhammapada 158

  By oneself indeed is evil done and by oneself is one defiled; by oneself is evil not done and by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend entirely on oneself; no one can purify another.

Dhammapada 165

  For the sake of another's benefit, however great it may be, do not neglect one's own (moral) benefit. Clearly perceiving one's own benefit one should make every effort to attain it.

Dhammapada 166

Also, the Buddha was a proponent of flexibility in his approach. You might know this as conventional language (to lay people) and absolute (to monks). The teachings on both addressee vary. Sometimes, the Buddha remained even silent because it was not connected to the goal, i.e., reduce suffering (& Nibbana).

Take  for example MN 20 or Capala Sutta AN 7.58. In both suttas Buddha gave a number of strategies that can be employed. The idea is to be flexible and to see what works in any given time. 'Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't'. 'If it doesn't, let me use this instead'.


What is the meaning of the "one mind" in the awakening of faith? You can read that shastra here. I'm quite fond of it, though I don't have my own meditation practice.

If I had to narrow the question down, I'd ask if it contains different practices, of different sentient beings. Not absolutely sure that makes sense, though. I like the idea of it substituting for 'heaven' on those grounds, of others.

'One mind' means reality, the reality which is in front of you now and which you are part of. It manifests in two ways - as the absolute, when you don't concieve in terms of self and others; and the phenomenal, when you do.


Can a warrior reach enlightenment? Can someone who fights, even maybe kills or dies, for a cause he considers right,  attain enlightenment?

I wonder that after reading that some Buddhists did not share the Zen samurai's vision at all.

Actually, only warriors can attain enlightenment.  All Buddhas have to die on the cushion if they’re going to wake up.  It takes tremendous courage, fortitude, and self sacrifice in order to make that happen.  Only a warrior possesses those qualities.

But to answer you question, the one really doesn’t have anything to do with the other.  It really astounds me how often people forget that the same temple that gave us Zen is the very same one that brought us the 8th century equivalent of the Apache helicopter.  Shaolin monks were no slouch with the sword.  Many of them fought, many of them died, and many of them killed.  Many of them were also deeply awake.

I hope it’s fairly obvious what distinguishes the Shaolin monk from your average mass shooter, John Rambo wannabe, or even the samurai. To put it plainly, the true Zen warrior wholeheartedly follows the dharma.  All of his decisions are made facing emptiness.  Mu doesn’t tell you blow up buildings, pick off people in the street, or to be a solider of fortune.  Shunyata isn’t a lord one serves or a stilted code of beliefs one takes up to defend.  Seeing emptiness, the zen warrior feels compassion.  His sword is drawn with compassion.  If he acts with violence, it is to further that compassion even if doing so destroys him inside.  The real warrior of zen serves mushin and nothing else.


Is "The body never lies" supported in the suttas? I recently went to a dhamma talk that I am skeptical of for a few reasons. One of the things we were told in this talk is that the mind always lies and the body never lies, which (in a mundane sense) doesn't line up with what I know.

He specifically told us to go by how our body feels when asked for money by a panhandler. He said that if we feel bad physically when asked, we should not give money, but if we feel good physically, we should. (Part of the reason I am skeptical of this dhamma talk is that he said a bunch of really negative things about panhandlers here and about the idea of giving them money, which seems not based in Buddhist thought at all)

Personally, I have had many times where I have been convinced I was suffocating during a panic attack. I have also read many studies where "gut feelings" - that is, physical feelings people interpret as guidance - are shown to perpetrate racist or other -ist biases in society. In a mundane sense, I am skeptical of the idea that bodily sensations are significantly more trustworthy than thoughts.

My question here is if there is anything in the suttas (preferably the Pali canon, but I'm also interested in other sources) regarding this idea of trusting the physical sensations of the body as some great arbiter of truth.

EDIT: Since someone mentioned not having more context, I'd like to make clear, we were not given much more context than I mentioned above. I'll do my best to explain what we were told exactly. This talk was specifically part of a once a week service for lay people who may not even identify or consider themselves Buddhist, and I do not believe the teacher expects that many of his audience even meditate outside of this once-a-week practice. The dhamma talk was centered on the Pāramitās and this discussion about the body was part of the part of the talk on generosity. The teacher briefly defined each term, and then spoke about them.

For generosity, he said panhandling was an opportunity to practice generosity, which seems fair to me.
Then he started talking about all the concerns he has had when approached by a panhandler- he spouted off a very very long list of negative beliefs or stereotypes about panhandlers, and then talked about how those thoughts were suffering. He made no positive statements regarding giving money to panhandlers, except for the initial statement that it was an opportunity to practice generosity. This is where he says that the mind always lies, but the body never lies, and that we should listen to our bodies when asked for money by panhandlers. Specifically, he said that if you felt bad and uncomfortable physically, you shouldn't give. This struck me as giving people carte-blanche to never be generous and also never consider why they didn't feel comfortable being generous.

His only reference for "the body never lies" is a mention that "his teacher" taught him this, but throughout the talk he referenced non-Buddhist western "Mindfulness" teachers more than anything Buddhist, so I am unsure if his teacher was even nominally Buddhist. There was a strange emphasis on how these virtues were also important in Christianity as well, which I couldn't place/understand.

The reason I asked the question is that I had an immediate reaction of "This can't possibly be true" but I wanted to get a second (and a third and so on if possible) opinion to be sure that I wasn't dismissing the teaching unfairly, or perhaps discover if it was at least rooted in something that was less likely to be used as an excuse for unskillful means.

Obviously, it's not really the "body" that is wiser, it is the non-conceptual mind which constitutes the underwater part of the iceberg the top of which we see as our conceptual mind. The question is, should we trust it?

Generally speaking, in western culture the body with its instincts and emotions is seen as an animal - stupid and violent, while the rational mind is seen as all that is good in the human. However, other cultures may have different basic assumptions. At the risk of overgeneralizing, I think that in Asian cultures the ancient heart-mind (the deep emotional mind - what we westerners usually call "the subconscious") - is generally recognized as a source of wisdom, harmony, and the arts - while the modern rational mind is often seen with suspicion as the source of confusion and conflict.

As for canonical evidence,  all we have are some bread-crumble trails that look cohesive enough to some but not convincing to others, as is often the case with Buddhism:

Buddha of Pali Canon spoke about "mindfulness of body" (kayagata-sati) and "the signless" (animitta). The contemporary Mahayana tradition holds that these are references to tapping into the non-conceptual mind, which is experienced as (psychosomatic) sensations in the body.

Personally, I was given a significant amount of training and instruction on getting in touch with the above through various psychosomatic practices, and in my experience it all comes together quite cohesively and makes total sense. To me these practices were presented as integral part of the teaching and I certainly see them as important as meditation and study of texts, if not more important.

As for the textual sources, the closest I can think of is Touching Enlightenment: Finding Realization in the Body by Reginald A. Ray (a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche and a Ph.D). There is also a 100% western work called Focusing, developed by a psychologist Eugene Gendlin in 1970s, which speaks about same thing from a slightly different angle (thanks to Ronald Cowen for pointing out the Focusing book to me). If you are interested in emotional intelligence and psychosomatic methods, whether Buddhist or not, these two books are recommended.

Now, to address your specific concern: you are right that in an untrained person the signals from the non-conceptual mind can come mixed up with all kinds of phobias and prejudices, so a lot of preliminary work is required to clean that up until it can be fully trusted. That said, I do believe that the more someone is "enlightened" the more he or she can utilize the non-conceptual mind to its full capacity, which exceeds that of conceptual mind.


Is it possible to eliminate all attachments? Attachment is clearly something that we have all experienced, from a baby who is attached to their mom to an adult who is attached to their family. It is clear that attachment leads to suffering, so becoming non-attached helps alleviate suffering, but should all attachment be removed(one is bound to their physical body as long as they are living). Is it even possible, doesn't just one become attached to non-attachment? So, perhaps one has to attain a "middle way" - recognizing attachment and not resisting it, but also not letting it control us. I am curious what Buddhist texts say about this.

According to Buddhism, attachment(Upadana) is caused by Tanha(craving) and according to the Second Noble Truth, craving is the cause of all suffering. According to the Third Noble Truth there is a cessation of all suffering. According to the Fourth Noble Truth, there is a way to achieve the aforementioned cessation of suffering.

Hence it is one of the core claims of Buddhism that all attachments can be eliminated. There is no Buddhism without this claim.


The proper meaning of Bhagava What is the real meaning of Bhagava? Or are there any multiple meanings?

Sutta references are appreciated.

-Metta

Comments from the following link:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Bhagava: also rendered "the Auspicious One" or "the Exalted One"; the most frequent appellation of the Buddha, though not restricted to Buddhist usage.

The word "Bhagava," can be translated as "the Blessed One"


Buddhism 101? Any first steps one should take to begin their journey as a buddhist? Good day to all! Total beginner here hoping not to bother. I was wondering if there are any suggested reads, talks, podcasts or videos one in my starter level should dive into to understand a bit more about buddhist philosophy.
 I've only watched a few video modules on buddhism and have become quite interested in establishing it as a way of life. Unfortunately there are no buddhist temples or centers in close proximity, so getting information through those means is improbable.
Thank you.

Finding your path to enlightenment is a personal experience. Everyone's journey is different. But they all start with the first step of seeking refuge in the jewel.

The "jewel" of Buddhism consists first of the seeking refuge in the Buddha. Learn about Siddartha Guatama (Shakyamuni Buddha)- his life and his general philosophy. These days that can be quite a task in and of itself as there is so much available for study. Aside from his life I'd look at his spot in actual history. Read about the ancient history of eastern religion and Buddhism's place in the mix.

If you're sufficiently enticed then learn more about the discipline by seeking the second point in the jewel: the dharma. Here we examine all the teachings and texts and techniques of Buddhism itself.

The last of the 3 aspects of the jewel is the sangha. You seek refuge in the others within the Buddhist community. In short - taking refuge in the "triple gem" means taking refuge in Buddha as founder, dharma as truth, and sangha as mentor. This is essentially how one "declares" himself a Buddhist. Then the real work starts.

After seeking refuge you become a student. Ideally you would seek a teacher within that sangha. At this point everyone's path diverges. Many take oaths as students and commit their lives to following first the 5 precepts. Some will do this within a monastic community and others within their everyday lives. It's all very flexible and the Buddha himself even warned against becoming mired in tradition and technique.

If you're not fortunate enough to have a nice Buddhist influence within your community in which to turn then I'd recommend acquiring a copy of the Upanishads and the Dhammapada. The first contains some of the most ancient religious writings on our planet coming from the Vedas and the second is the actual teachings of the Buddha. One can build a sturdy foundation of knowledge in the dharma by merely digesting the isha, katha, and brihadaranyaka upanishads. I prefer the translations of Eknath Easwaran as my sanskrit is bad.

good fortune and namaste! damyata datta dayadhvam.


What are the different ways of protecting one's practice? I am mindful of my skandas, but that doesn't prevent other's samsaric action, trying to influence me and my practice. What are the different ways of protecting one's practice?

Mindfulness will "protect" your practice.

Mindfulness is a wholesome mental factor (cetasika) and when it is present, one is not reacting to phenomena, i.e. by running away from unpleasant phenomena and running after pleasant phenomena. Instead one is standing still. One is in the present moment, clearly recognizing that it is our own reactions to phenomena that create suffering. An unwholesome thought or anger is still just a thought and a feeling. Its our own aversion towards these objects, that create our suffering.

So by keeping mindfulness at all times, one is protecting ones practice.

I would recommend the video "How Mindfulness Creates Understanding (The Buddhist TV)" by Ven. Yuttadhammo.


Tips to improve mindfulness in daily life Does anyone know any new  beginners ways to improve mindfulness in
daily life?

If you meditate regularly, the mindfulness in daily life will increase automatically. Perhaps a useful tip may be to have an activity - e.g. brushing your teeth (as suggested by a teacher in the tradition of Jon Kabat-Zinn) or showering, that you always try to do mindfully, that is, by just being aware. This is not a substitute for meditation, but it may be a way of assessing whether you are mindful at that time. SN Goenka says that it can be helpful if you are mindful when you fall asleep and just after you wake up, just observing sensations on your body and nothing else.


What is ignorance in Buddhism and what are examples of ignorance? Wikipedia describes ignorance and delusions. This appears to be academic and do not find examples that are easily related.

What is ignorance?
How is it different to delusions or are they the same?
What are real world examples of ignorance?

Ignorance in Buddhism is not knowing the the Four Noble Truths.It is not knowing the truth behind suffering.

  "And what is ignorance,...Not knowing about dukkha.
  MN 9 (Ñanamoli/Bodhi, trans.).

  Avijja, the Pali word for ignorance, is the opposite of vijja, which means not only "knowledge" but also "skill" — as in the skills of a doctor or animal-trainer. So when the Buddha focuses on the ignorance that causes stress and suffering, saying that people suffer from not knowing the four noble truths,...
  Ignorance by Thanissaro Bhikku

Ignorance is similar to delusion but with subtle differences.In order to find the difference between delusion and ignorance i will first provide a definition for 'delusion'.

  a belief that is not true : a false idea
  Merriam-webster dictionary

Comparing this definition with 'ignorance' in the buddhist context,delusion is a view based on ignorance.Delusion is similar to wrong view and ignorance is the not knowing itself.

To give a real world example,a person drives a car badly but think he is driving a car well.The person is deluded.Why is the person deluded?Because the person doesn't know what is good driving and bad driving.(Ignorance).The lack of knowledge in itself is ignorance and the actions that stem from it is delusional.


Source on the 4 types of ways to protect the 5 precepts Recently I got to know that there are 4 types of ways to protect the 5 precepts.

Such as

You don't do it
You don't make others do it
You don't support others to do it
You don't praise and talk about it.

Where can I find the sutta source? Please provide the sutta link kindly

Actually there are 3 ways (of kamma), not four ("ultimatly" one incharge of the others, mind).

"Don't support others..." can be made in three ways as well, and the teachings are full of repeating about the kamma by own physical deeds (kaya-kamma), by verbal deeds (vicāra-, this included signs and gestures as well) and by mind/thoughts (citta-, approval, taking in account for ones own benefit, agreement, joy..., ignorance).

Kammapathapeyyālaṃ might possible give ways to approve.

To protect ones Sila, only one is required: either right view (than it would work out by itself), or strong faith into it, if not gained yet. Silas without the protection of right view are not really Silas but just better or more worse rituals, not penetrating till the mind.

If sensedoor are not guided one breaks the Silas (as factors of the path) actually all the time, steals/kills forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, thoughts. Having no silas, there will be no samma samadhi > no pañña > no right release: mostly just nurishing defilements. Without leaving home and become homeless (leaving the senses behind), it's not possible to develope the path, Silas, Samādhi, Pañña and gain release.

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any worldly exchange and trade]


How do Mahayana Buddhists perceive the world? One Mahayana Buddhist said, "we act as if each person has his or her own consciousness, sensation, and thoughts."

Does everyone Mahayana Buddhist believe that he lives in a world in which all people have their own consciousness, sensations, and thoughts?
Following the Buddha, we act as if each person each person has his or her own consciousness, sensation, and thoughts. We encourage each person to become fully aware of his or her own sensations (both physical and emotional), impulses, feelings, and thoughts. This awareness, combined with diligent, common-sense effort to stop doing things that create suffering and do and improve thoughts, actions, and feelings that create healthy vitality, joyful works, and peace of mind in action and stillness lead to Awakening.
But we do not engage in philosophical speculation or take philosophical stances. The question, as stated, is not accurate because it would imply that Mahayana Buddhism holds an individualist philosophy.
We invite each and every individual to stop creating suffering and confusion, to cut off the roots of harm and evil. We do these efforts ourselves and share the work with others. We realize that, functionally, each person has awareness and makes choices. But we do not assert ideas about the meaning of words like, “person,” “people,” or “self.”

This means that every Mahayana Buddhist believes that he lives in a world in which all people do not have consciousness, sensation and emotion and he thinks that all other people are just a projection of his mind, but he treats them as conscious sentient beings?
Thank you.

Buddhist doctrine includes the idea of a "middle way between extremes" -- which is used in various contexts. In general one meaning of "middle way" is, "neither extreme", or, "avoiding to the two extremes". And philosophically or logically, I see it as meaning to beware of dilemmas or false dichotomies.
I think that the question (to which that quote is a reply) is slightly tricky to answer, and wants a careful answer. It's tricky because it invites "extreme" answers, e.g. either "yes" or "no".
But the two extreme answers are possibly too extreme -- either might be untrue, or have harmful consequence.
And so the quote is trying to provide a careful answer which is neither exactly "yes" nor "no" (not careful enough perhaps, if you didn't understand the answer; but it may require a lengthy explanation).
I think there are several fundamentals of Buddhist doctrine which are important to understand. If I can invent a simile, these fundamentals are like rocks -- and the answer is like a ship, which must steer a course which takes into account and doesn't hit (doesn't contradict) any of these rocks.

Non-self
One of the fundamental elements of doctrine is "non-self". That means (very briefly) that there's nothing which deserves to be called "myself", furthermore that a "self-view" (e.g. "this is I, this is me, this is mine") is a dissatisfactory view and gives rise to suffering.
Examples of self-views being an occasion for suffering include, "I am sick", "I am healthy now but I will be sick", "I want something I don't have", "I want to keep something I can't keep", "I'm better than you are", "I'm not as good as you are", and so on.
There's a simile here (not Mahayana but perhaps all forms of Buddhism agree on this kind of topic):

Suppose a dog on a leash was tethered to a strong post or pillar. Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, it stays right beside that post or pillar.
In the same way, an uneducated ordinary person regards form like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ They regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ When walking, they walk right beside the five grasping aggregates. When standing … sitting … lying down, they lie down right beside the five grasping aggregates.

I'm not sure what solipsism is, something like "I exist and you don't", or, "I'm sure I exist and I don't know about you". And I think that those views are not Buddhist doctrine for various reasons, and one of those reasons is the "non-self" doctrine.
I don't know if Descartes' "I think therefore I am" might be an example of solipsism. I think that according to Buddhism, proving that oneself exists is just reinforcing an unfortunate view. Possibly a more accurate formulation is, "A thought is perceived which gives rise to a (perhaps transient) sense of self".
Also classical grammar (a.k.a. "logic") implies nouns and subjects -- "If a thought is perceived therefore a 'thinker' exists". This isn't necessarily true -- "unicorns" don't "really" exist even though there are words that describe them; and some languages (e.g. Chinese) aren't as strict as Western languages at requiring subjects and nouns in every sentence.

Emptiness
There's a doctrine of "emptiness" which I feel I ought to mention if only because it's one of the more specifically Mahayana doctrines.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think its method is to look at the components of a thing -- to observe that what one might have thought was "a thing" is just a collection of other things -- and its purpose is to see things as they really are and perhaps to not get too infatuated with or attached to things (because attachment is associated with suffering), and to "unbind".
Like, I don't know, "I think therefore I am" is just a thought, a transient thought -- and not an especially worthy thought in my opinion, and contrary to Buddhist doctrine which recommends against self-views.
I think the practice of emptiness applies to everything -- to things you're attracted to or may be addicted to; to things you dislike; even to mental states (not "things" at all) for example anger etc.
So perhaps that's a reason NOT to say dogmatically "I exist" or "other people exist" -- because the non-self and emptiness doctrines are seen as beneficial, and as true or axiomatic. And so you get the circumlocution in the quote, i.e. "'we act as if' each person...".

Nihilism
It's explicitly wrong (a so-called wrong view) to interpret "emptiness" as "nothing".

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

Instead we're taught there is, if not exactly "good and bad", and least "skilful and unskilful", "suffering and non-suffering", and "consequences of actions".
That's another explanation or reason for, "We act as if ...".

Sentient beings
There's a concept of "sentient beings" in Buddhism, which might be more central to Mahayana Buddhism, which I don't know so much about. According to me that term has two meanings.

One is that it refers to, broadly, anyone with feelings. So includes all people, and also animals (and possibly beings of other worlds too, including gods and ghosts). A characteristic of a sentient being is that they're able to feel hurt (able to suffer), and as good Buddhists it's our duty and desire to at least avoid inflicting hurt (with what's called in the West "the Golden Rule" in its "negative or prohibitive form" i.e. "Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated " being used as an argument).
Perhaps you'd agree that the quoted statement is better than its opposite, i.e. "We DON'T act as if etc.", which might be sociopathic.
So if you're a sentient being for example then I don't want to kill you, steal from you, make you lose your family, nor lie to you -- that's basic ethical behaviour.

Another interpretation, and I don't know if this is a mainstream view, is that a "sentient being" is (whether by definition or axiomatically or evidently, I don't know) "self-aware" or having a "self-view". Remembering what I wrote earlier, a self-view makes a being vulnerable to suffering: "I hurt", "I want", "I have lost", etc.
With enlightenment perhaps "self-views" and the notion of being "a being" are discarded. See for example SN 5.10 where Vajira refuses to see herself as a being.
Incidentally this whole topic is described as a "thicket" that's not worth thinking about.
But that touches on your question again: perhaps a relatively "enlightened" being is not a "sentient" being in the usual sense, and being enlightened is relatively immune to any grief. EVEN SO I expect that most of us should probably act "as if" they were sentient, vulnerable.

Compassion
Compassion is important in Buddhism. Perhaps it's fundamental in Mahayana Buddhism.
It seems to me that compassion is an antidote to being self-centred (where, if you remember, being "self-centred" is a cause of suffering).
Compassion isn't "pity", note: pity implies comparison, being better-off than someone else.

A lot of what I wrote here is -- due to my unfortunate ignorance of Mahayana -- based on (possibly earlier) suttas. Maybe that's alright, because the quote says "Following the Buddha" etc. implying the earlier doctrines (the buddha-vacana, "words of the Buddha") are on-topic.
I'll conclude with a quote from the current Dalai Lama (who I suppose is as much an authority on Mahayana as anyone). There was a video where he says, I paraphrase, "If I think of myself as special -- as "His Holiness" or a "the Nobel Prize Winner" -- then I'm trapped, imprisoned [in an identity-view]. Instead I see myself as being just like everyone else."
I think that's compatible or inline with the quote you asked about, and unrelated to solipsism.


Proficiency in teaching Dhamma The more insight one gains by meditation and studying the suttas, does one also gain a higher proficiency in teaching the dhamma?

To put up an extreme example, if someone attains nirvana/full enlightenment, is he as proficient/competent in teaching the dhamma as the Buddha himself was?

I read that there can be Buddhas, which attain enlightenment by themselves, but neither have the fellowship nor the necessary skill to teach the dhamma, is this true?

The more insight one gains by meditation and studying the suttas, does one also gain a higher proficiency in teaching the dhamma?

You could be misunderstanding or misinterpreting your meditative experiences. So meditation on its own does not make you fit to teach. (Many wrong views in Brahmajala Sutta arise due to meditative experiences.) You should have theoretical knowledge also and validating the experience with the teaching. Also you should have good communication skills.

  To put up an extreme example, if someone attains nirvana/full enlightenment, is he as proficient/competent in teaching the dhamma as the Buddha himself was?

Dūta Sutta discusses qualities of a good messenger or teacher of some which I glossed over above. Nobody will have skills in teaching compared to the Buddha but if you were to aspire to become skilled what you should cultivate are the analytical skills related to teaching:

connotative meaning
denotative meaning
verbal expression
analytic insight

Mahā Vedalla Sutta, (Saṁyojana) Kotthita Sutta

Also see: THE TEACHING METHODS OF BUDDHA by Piya Tan

  I read that there can be Buddhas, which attain enlightenment by themselves, but neither have the fellowship nor the necessary skill to teach the dhamma, is this true?

Yes I believe to to be true. They are Paccekabuddhas.


In modern times what percentage of monks are female? In the question When were women first welcomed into Buddhist orders? we learn that woman have been becoming monks for a long time.  In modern times (circa 2014 CE) what percentage of monks are female?

In reply to "what percentage of Buddhist monks are female?" -

In Korea, the number of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis is very similar.  In Taiwan, the numbers of bhikkhunis now substantially surpass the number of bhikkhus.  I am not sure about Vietnam.

In the Theravada Buddhism of Southeast Asia, with the Bhikkhuni Sangha in the early stages of a revival and not yet State supported, the numbers of bhikkhunis are growing, but still much less than the numbers of bhikkhus. In Sri Lanka, there are now more than 2000 Theravada bhikkhunis, far more than anywhere else in the world.  In Thailand, there are less than 200 bhikkhunis, as compared to around 200,000 bhikkhus. In Theravada Buddhism in "the West" (in Australia, the United States, Canada and Germany combined), there are also less than 200 bhikkhunis.

Here in Northern California, there are more Theravada bhikkhuni viharas than in any other state or region in North America.  In this region there are ~60 Theravada bhikkhu temples (at last count) and 4 Theravada bhikkhuni viharas and hermitages. That's a 400% increase in bhikkhuni viharas in the past 5 years.


How long do blessings last? I recently attended a Tibetan Drinking Kagyu Buddhist retreat. During that time the visiting Rinpoche blessed several items, and I was told by His Eminence that one can renew the blessing of statues by placing them in a small bowl containing a little bit of saffron water, and then dribbling some of the water over the top of the statue. I neglected to ask how often this should be done. Does anyone know?

I went to a famous temple in Rosemead and some ancient sacred items (sariras supposedly) were brought out and I blessed my amulet on them. I left the temple literally half an hour after that and on my drive back home had an accient and my car burned down, totalled. :-(

To answer your question, karma and merit is a complicated topic to understand and I don't think anyone will be able to give you a precise answer. One would have to go into the origins of said karma that created this object and those are either infinite as some sutras suggest, incomprehensible (as Buddha avoided the questions about origins of karma), or nil (see Zen master's response to king).

You will have to feel the object yourself. Try feeling with your non-dominant hand which is usually better at perceiving these energies.

This whole enchanting thing and sariras is something that comes from Vajrayana and the newer traditions which the original branches of Buddhism did not advocate, espouse, or uphold.

As much as I believe in crystal energetics and various holistic technologies, I am now wary of "sariras" and know that the highest way to make merit is through appreciation of the Buddha, his teachings, and practice whether it is in the form of another object, ourselves, or others. Try practicing different mantras--THAT is definitely IMO way more powerful than any sarira.


Why must we not wear a hat or cap when listen or teach Dhamma? I read that we must not listen or teach Dhamma if we've wear hat or cap.

So why we must not wear hat or cap while listen or teach Dhamma even at anniversaries?

This rule has very archaic origins. When listening to a monk explaining the dhamma we normally put the monk in a more respected position (e.g. sitting in a chair while we sit on the floor); when we do this we tend to treat the monk's words as more important so being humble is helping us to learn the dhamma.

At the time of the Buddha sunshades and umbrellas were a sign of luxury. At that time if someone used a sunshade while the monk didn't have one then it is as if they see themselves as more important than the monk and they are less inclined to care about the monk's words.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu's book The Buddhist Monastic Code I has some explaination about this rule

  SN 6.2 records that the Buddha himself had the highest respect for the Dhamma
  he had discovered; that, as others might live under the guidance of a teacher,
  honoring and revering him, the Buddha lived under, honored, and revered the
  Dhamma. He enjoined his followers to show the same respect for the Dhamma
  not only when listening to it but also when teaching it, by refusing to teach it to a
  person who shows disrespect.
  The following set of rules deals with situations in which a listener, in terms of
  the etiquette at that time, would be regarded as showing disrespect for a teacher
  or his teaching. As the Vinaya-mukha notes, a few of these cases—such as those
  concerning footwear—are not considered disrespectful under certain
  circumstances at present, although here the exceptions given for listeners who
  are ill might be stretched to cover any situation where the listener would feel
  inconvenienced or awkward if asked to comply with the etiquette of the
  Buddha’s time. On the other hand, there are many ways of showing disrespect at
  present that are not covered by these rules, and an argument could be made,
  reasoning from the Great Standards, that a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma
  to a person who showed disrespect in any way.
  Dhamma here is defined as any statement spoken by the Buddha, his disciples,
  seers, or devat›s, connected with the teaching or with its goal. See Pc 7 for a
  more detailed discussion of this point.


How to experience Karma? Today I realize that , If something good or bad happen to me is caused by Karma. It gave me a huge relief. Because,Before I got aversion when something bad happen to me. But now, I believe that I am 100% responsible for whatever happen to me.

But, As I know, Not everthings are caused by Karma. There are some other reasons such as whether, Dhamma etc. So how can I know the real cause behind something for sure? (It is Karma or other cause)

It is said that Someone needs to experience the truth to understand the truth. So How can build a solid understanding of the cause behind things and Karma ?

Yes. It's true that not everything is caused by karma. Some things are caused by other reasons, like the weather. The Sivaka Sutta talks about this. There's a summary at the bottom:

  Bile, phlegm, and also wind,
  Imbalance and climate too,
  Carelessness and assault,
  With kamma result as the eighth.

The Acintita Sutta states that you can't work out karma and its results precisely:

  "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

What's more skillful is to develop one's virtue (sila), concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña) as stated in the Lonaphala Sutta. That will mitigate the ill effects of past karma.


Why the aristocrat is best of people? Many suttas (SN 6.11; SN 21.11; MN 53; AN 11.10; DN 27) contain the following phase:

  ‘The aristocrat is best of those people ‘khattiyo seṭṭho janetasmiṃ,

  who take clan as the standard. ye gottapaṭisārino;

  But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct vijjācaraṇasampanno,

  is best of gods and humans.’ so seṭṭho devamānuse’ti.

Why is the aristocrat best of those people who take clan as the standard?

Taken in the context of a conversation between the Buddha and a Brahman in the Ambaṭṭhasutta (DN 3), it is quite clear how this verse is supposed to be interpreted.

Given the hierarchy of caste, the Buddha argues, brahmans are indeed inferior to aristocrats (i.e. rulers and nobles). He depicts brahmans as subservient to the aristocratic class, and indicates that the aristocratic class is more exclusive -- an aristocrat could become a brahman, but a brahman could never become an aristocrat.

Thus, this verse should be taken as an argument against brahmanical superiority. Rather -- and this is something repeated in several other places -- a mendicant has worth not on account of their birth, but their sound ethics, great wisdom, and role as a teacher (of dhamma). This is a standard argument against caste hierarchy, which is depicted as illogical given how brahmans are subordinated to the nobility in practice. Instead, the Pali canon places the Buddha and the Buddha alone at the top of a newly configured hierarchy (ostensibly based on ethics and wisdom alone, but sometimes on the basis of Gotama's godlike preeminence among all beings).


The fourth path to attaining arahantship From the Yuganaddha Sutta, there are four paths described:

Development of insight preceded by development of tranquility
Development of tranquility preceded by development of insight
Tranquility developed in tandem with insight
Mind's restlessness concerning the Dhamma well under control

From my understanding, the first three are about vipassana (insight) and samatha (tranquility).

Questions:

How does the fourth path work? Please elaborate on the fourth path.
How does one practise that? Please provide details.
Why is vipassana and samatha not required on the fourth path?

  Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever — monk or nun — declares the
  attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of
  one or another of four paths. Which four?

  "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by
  tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the
  path is born.  .....

  "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity
  preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight,
  the path is born. .....

  "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in
  tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with
  insight, the path is born. .....

  "Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness
  concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under
  control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly,
  settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. In him the path is
  born.

  He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the
  path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his
  obsessions destroyed.

How does the fourth path work? Please elaborate on the fourth path.

By attaining “anariya jhanas”, one can attain only ceto vimutti. Thus to achieve all of the four paths, one has to practice “ariya jhanas”. Only this second Ariya Jhana will lead to  magga phala with panna vimutti.

The fourth path does not involve samatha meditation. It is completely a  vipassana meditation. In Pali this fourth method is called **Dhamma Uddhacca Vigghahita Maanasan”. Unlike the other three methods, it takes only a very short time to come to realization through this method, but only a highly developed person can do this. This method is not for you and I. The only Ariya Meditation that may help the ordinary folk is the Savitakka/Savicara mode of meditation. For those who are more disciplined and wiser, there is the Avitakka/Avicara mode of meditation.

How does one practise that? Please provide details.

This question can never be answered. The scriptures tell us of only 14 people who have realized nibbhana by practising this method.  Few of them that come to mind are Bahiya Dharuciraya, King Pukkusati, King’s Minister Santhathi, Arahant Dabbamallatissa, and Bhikku Kumara Kashyapa.

Why is vipassana and samatha not required on the fourth path?

This answer is there within the above explanation. These few individuals came to panna vimutti, but to come to this they never did any kind of Jhana. They never had to do samatha or vipassana meditation. Within a matter of minutes, they achieved nibbana through **Dhamma Uddhacca Vigghahita Maanasan”.

To explain this Pali term…. Uddhacca  means the tendency to be high-minded (restlessness) - It arises because of high-mindedness. Uddacca remains as a cetasika and is removed only at the Arahant stage. Uddacca is the tendency to get at least irritated when not treated as expected. But it is to be noted that the levels of mana, uddacca, avijja that an Anagami has, are at much reduced level.

Uddhacca Vigghahita means the eradication of Uddhacca. This is the quickest way to remove all traces of the root causes - raga, dosa, and, moha. Or in other words Uddhacca Vigghahita  is the easiest way to remove lobha, dosa, and, moha (for akusala kamma), and alobha, adosa, and amoha (for kusala kamma).


which is better staying in present moment or being aware? How staying in the present moment(here and now) is different from awareness and mindfulness, and what according to you is better?

Good householder "Son of liberty",

The Agendas of Mindfulness

Mindfulness Defined

might help, once on the path section of concentration.
Being, aware, actually means eating, eating off, burning away. If that isn't done in higher spheres, then it's just eating of ones merits.
As for the place where he might be: sati, mindfulness toward ones duties in ones relation, toward Sila, toward Generosity, toward reflecting backwards.
Keeping precepts in mind, train right there, will make the further way accessible by itself (given causes).
And right concentration has right mindfulness (remembering, keeping in mind of what is kusala) as it's prerequisite.
(And pull the hands out of your trousers, and stand straight, as such is a good sign that one prefers eating off past merits over the sati of a son of liberty)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades and gains, wrong concentration, but for exit from this wheel]


What does "joy" mean in the phrase "dharma gate of great ease and joy" Dogen's zazengi says

  Zazen is the dharma gate of great ease and joy

What does the term "joy" mean here?

And if I can feel something like that without zazen, should I cultivate it? As well as learning meditation, I mean.

When there is joy, when a person is full of happiness and joy, there is little chance for ‘Uddhacca’ & ‘Kukkucca’ to arise. These are two of the hinderances mentioned in the scriptures. Restlessness (uddhacca) is agitation or excitement, which drives the mind from thought to thought.  Worry (kukkucca) is remorse over past mistakes and anxiety about their possible undesired consequences. When one's mind is possessed and overpowered by restlessness and remorse, one cannot properly see things in a clear way. It is compared to when water is stirred by the wind, agitated, swaying and producing waves, a man is unable to see the image of his own face. Buddhists are taught to diffuse the Four Divine States of Mind: loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity towards all sentient beings, as this brings about a Joyous State of mind.

Merits, through ‘Daana’, ‘Sila’ & ‘Bhavana’ bring you joy. ….  As the Buddha preached:

  “Don’t ignore even a small merit thinking that it will not come to you! It is in fact with each drop of water that a pot is filled. Therefore, a wise person will collect all merits even if it is by bit by bit. In this way, his life will full with merits at the end.”

A joyous state of mind is important when learning to meditate. As the Buddha once explained:

  “If the thought should occur to you that, when defiling mental qualities are abandoned and bright mental qualities have grown, and one enters & remains in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for oneself in the here & now, one’s abiding is stressful/painful, you should not see it in that way. When defiling mental qualities are abandoned and bright mental qualities have grown, and one enters & remains in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for oneself in the here & now, there is joy, rapture, serenity, mindfulness, alertness, and a pleasant/happy abiding.” — DN 9


Feeling insane rushes of energy and pressure in the chest and neck during meditation I am a graduate of Islamic metaphysics and theology with a focus on mysticism and mystical philosophy. I have kin interest in spirituality in general. Recently I started trying out meditation. In the past I have had experiences of energy building up in my chest during contemplating mystical works. And I have had attempts at out of body projection without full success yet. But in either cases massive energy building up in my chest has been a familiar occurrence.
Now recently that I started the Indian style meditation, i.e. sitting in one place, chasing out thoughts and concentrating on heart beats, while gazing at the back of my closed eyelids, I feel massive energy rushing to my chest, building up there and then rushing further up into my neck. At the same time my upper body starts shaking stronger and stronger. More recently, I felt as if my jugular vein was about to explode and I felt mild pain on the back of neck.
I want to know what the heck is this all about? My feeling is that if I continue I may project out of body, as this was the feeling that I had when trying out of body projection back in older days but the pressure becomes almost unbearable. I feel nervous to continue the meditation with these twitchings and sensations.

There are no "good" answers to questions like this just as there would be no "good" answers were to someone ask about why the microwave sometimes heats your dish instead of your food.  It just happens.  You're better off just resetting the timer and trying again.  Eventually your meditation will cook properly.  If you attach to experiences like this, you are in essence eating cold food.


I feel like I'm in the wrong place I feel like I was born in the wrong place and I'm surrounded by wrong people, ideals etc.

I'm very much into buddhism, but with all the things I learned until now, that I'm 23 in Germany, I feel like this life I have right now is not right for me.

Since I grew up in Germany in a normal house etc, I can't imagine myself as a monk. But I can't also imagine myself living like I do at the moment. I'm torn between two worlds so to say. Also, I wouldn't know where to go or how to get there. If I should continue working as a developer which doesn't fulfill me since I'm not helping people. I feel lost in this world, and since this pandemic is going on all the Buddhist monasteries around me are closed.

Well, maybe you have a few tips.

EDIT: Thank you for all your replies. I did always know that I was much better off than others. I also know there are a lot of people that would love to trade places with me and give up everything they have. That day when I wrote this I was in a despair and felt quite lost. I didn't want to offend anybody or make anyone mad. If I did I am truly sorry about it. Currently I am in a existencial/spiritual crisis since I had a completely different world view just a few months ago. Where all I cared about was money, girls, sex, cars, clothes etc. and I realized that all this stuff will not make me happy in any way. So my whole world view crumbled. Then I started feeling like an alien and also started thinking about my mortality etc.

Well to get to the point: I am sorry if I offended anybody and I truly know that I am lucky now. I am working on myself a lot these past months. Thank you all I appreciate it greatly.

I feel like I was born in the wrong place and I'm surrounded by wrong people, ideals etc.
I'm very much into buddhism, but with all the things I learned until now, that I'm 23 in Germany, I feel like this life I have right now is not right for me.

Look a bit deeper and you'll see it's quite the opposite. The fact that you were born in Germany, not Syria, Iraq, or other war-torn regions in the MiddleEast or Africa is evidence. Imagine how much more difficult it'd be to try to cultivate the Dhamma there amid all the killings, rapings, famines and diseases, talking about being in the wrong place! And since you're a developer (assuming software developer), you're among the blessed few who are able to gain access to 99.99% of all the Buddha's teaching online, something even the most learned scholars in the old days couldn't even dream about. So, recognizing the good merit you're having now, try to take advantage of it to cultivate moral virtues, practice meditation, and develop insight/wisdom while it lasts, for as you probably already knew about the Buddhist teaching of Anicca, nothing lasts forever. At the same time, try to help others thru volunteer work. Your software skill can help in countless ways to do countless positive useful things, use it!


How to not slip into Nihilism from Vipassana? I am sensing this disenchantment from letting go. Meditating on impermanence feels like nihilism to me. There is a fleeting moment of joy from the liberation and just watching emotions go by. And I also notice the joy of it but I let it be and not cling. Then suddenly comes this pointlessness feeling. Something like nihilism. I also don't cling to that but it worries me I may lose control and just do things carelessly.

Any guidance on this?

There are the five hindrances (also here) to meditation and practice.

Your question can be part of restlessness-worry and also doubt. But it sounds to me more like doubt.

You can read more from the essay of Ajahn Brahmavamso:

  Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own
  ability "Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right
  way?", or even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be
  remembered that such questions are obstacles to meditation because
  they are asked at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion,
  obscuring one's clarity.

  The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
  recognising any landmarks.

  Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instruction, having a
  good map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the
  unfamiliar territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go.
  Doubt in one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces
  the sports team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one
  can, one will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and
  patiently follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'!
  Experience also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt
  whether this is the right path. As one realised for oneself the
  beautiful stages of the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable
  of the very highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.

  The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
  "How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
  best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
  meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
  when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
  meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
  the end to uncover its meaning.

  The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner
  speech. Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey
  out of trust in the driver.


Speaking falsehood is sinful. Does it mean speaking is the truth is no sinful? Sometimes by speaking truth, we fall into trouble. For example, my college is lazy in cleaning living room. When I tell, he is lazy, he becomes angry and speak no longer. So speaking truth can sometimes inflict on other. Please correct my opinion.

This page has extracts from a dozen suttas, which explain what "Right Speech" is.

Being "truthful" is an aspect, but  not the only aspect, of Right Speech: for example speech should also be affectionate and spoken with a mind of good-will, beneficial, and spoken at the right time. Also polite, not divisive, and so on.


Do Buddhists have a country or a religion to defend? How is it that militant monks can justify waging war or violence? Is nonviolence not necessarily an absolute value  for the Buddha? What scriptures are  militant monks interpreting to justify war or violence?
Are the militant monks making more or less suffering? Is it right to make more suffering than you have to? Do they have to?
Is there groups that are a threat to Buddhists or the Buddha's teaching?

Do Buddhists have a country to defend?
Do Buddhists have a religion to defend?

One needs to separate the teachings for monks from the teachings for laypeople. For monks, instructing the killing of or actually killing a human being in any circumstance is forbidden. Where as, for laypeople, killing is a training rule.

But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?
Well then, my dear, relying only on principle — honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court, troops,
aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of town and
country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let injustice prevail in the realm.
DN 26

Therefore, while a monk cannot directly instruct a layperson to engage in any type of killing, a monk can directly instruct a layperson of a duty to protect their society. If the layperson chooses to engage in killing to protect their society; that is the choice of the layperson (and is unrelated to the advice of the monk).
For example, I only once listened to a speech by the Burmese 'terrorist' monk Wirathu and I never heard Wirathu transgress the monk's Vinaya (even though I did not personally agree with the underlying intent of his speech).
Monks do not have any country to defend. But laypeople have a country to defend. Many of these laypeople consider themselves to be Buddhists and want to live in a country with a culture that is influenced by Buddhism. They don't want to live a country influenced by Judaism (such as in Palestine) or Wahhabism (such as in Saudi Arabia). They want to live in a Buddhist country, where there is metta,  patience & monks.
If Islam or Christianity, for example, ruled every country, the Buddhist religion may become extinct. History shows Christianity eliminated every religion it had power over and, under the (originally pluralistic) Islamic Empire, eventually, after about 500 years, Buddhism became extinct (when Turks and then Mongols took over the Islamic Empire).


Is there a difference between sunatta and anatta Is there a difference between sunatta and anatta? if so, which is the difference?

I think sunyata is the void that you experience when you see through the impermanence in things (anitta). The reality is always vibrating. When you sit in vipassana and start observing, you will find that all your sensations are made up of these vibrations that constantly pulsate - they appear from nowhere and vanish instantly (anitta). Now, the emptiness or background in which the reality is vibrating is nothing but sunyata.
Even modern physics has proved that matter vibrates at the quantum level, but you as a vipassana practitioner can actually observe the phenomena first hand! You don't have to take their word for it.

Anatta on the other hand refers to the realization that I am not this conditioned self. Continuing on the vibration concept above, if you keep pressing with vipassana, you will ultimately learn (with lots and lots of practice) that all perceptions, thoughts, mental formations and even consciousness are ultimately reduced to these vibrations. After vibes corresponding to physical sensations, follow the mental formations, perception, consciousness and so on. The result is that an illusion called self is created by the vibe corresponding to consciousness impacted by the vibe corresponding to perception.


Is it more important not to break precepts through proxy, or to not cause suffering to your family? An important point I see is how one furthers death and lying. Through working, you are taxed, and taxes fund the breaking of the precepts. Taxes fund war and espionage, so killing and stealing are definitely two which you break just by earning income.

If one abstains from paying taxes, then your wage will be held. So nothing is really achieved here, since you are just laying the karmic burden on another person, which is arguably worse.

Also, just being a consumer, even if say you make less then the taxable amount in your country, then you still fund abusive working conditions and abusive companies and practices. You fund massive amounts of suffering, since the money you pay goes into the company and then into warfare/espionage funding through the company's taxes.

So, to leave such a life would really upset my relatives. My question is, is it more important to not cause suffering to my mother and father, and am I just being over reactive about this issue?

Because the way I see it, I am certainly breaking the precepts of killing and stealing through proxy, yet if I were to leave, I would cause a massive amount of suffering to some of the most important people in my life. Also it may cause people who know me to really disrespect Buddhism, thinking "oh what a lazy/crazy person". Yet I cannot help but feel that contributing to the death of millions of people is less compassionate.

Any thoughts please! This is a difficult situation.

I am practicing Mahayana and am currently adapting the Bodhisattva vows.

Firstly, does your profession fulfill the requirements of Right Livelihood? If your work or business is not in weapons, human trading, meat, intoxicants, poison or anything in the spirit thereof, then it is fulfilling Right Livelihood. For now, I assume yes.

Secondly, although your profession fulfills Right Livelihood, the State requires and compels you to pay tax. So here, you do not have the intention to willingly contribute money to the government, but you do so because you are forced to and because you are a law-abiding citizen.

Thirdly, you have the opportunity to influence how your tax money is spent through the elections. So, here I assume that you have voted in the past at the ballot box (assuming that you are eligible to do so). It doesn't matter who got elected, as long as you have done your part.

Fourthly, you still have the opportunity to vote using your feet and move or migrate to another place.

However, the main point in my opinion is that, what the government does with the tax money, is not caused by your intentions and you did not pay tax with the intention of contributing towards warfare etc. Rather, you paid tax because you were compelled to do so.

The commentary on the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124 is relevant here.

  The monks began to discuss the matter, saying, “So Kukkuṭamitta has a
  wife, and when she was a mere girl she obtained the Fruit of
  Conversion; yet she married this hunter and by him had seven sons.
  Furthermore, during all this time, whenever her husband said to her,
  ‘Bring me my bow, bring me my arrows, bring me my hunting-knife, bring
  me my net,’ she obeyed him and gave him what he asked for. And her
  husband, taking what she had given him, went and took life. Is it
  possible that those who have obtained the Fruit of Conversion take
  life?” Just then the Teacher approached and asked, “Monks, what is it
  that you are sitting here now talking about?” When they told him, he
  said, “Monks, of course those that have obtained the Fruit of
  Conversion do not take life. Kukkuṭamitta’s wife did what she did
  because she was actuated by the thought, ‘I will obey the commands of
  my husband.’ It never occurred to her to think, ‘He will take what I
  give him and go hence and take life.’ If a man’s hand be free from
  wounds, even though he take poison into his hand, yet the poison will
  not harm him. Precisely so, a man who harbors no thoughts of wrong and
  who commits no evil, may take down bows and other similar objects and
  present them to another, and yet be guiltless of sin.” So saying, he
  joined the connection, and preaching the Law, pronounced the following
  Stanza,

  If in his hand there be no wound, A man may carry poison in his hand.
  Poison cannot harm him who is free from wounds. No evil befalls
  him who does no evil.

Also, the commentary on the story of Ven. Chakkhupala, the blind arahant, from Dhammapada 1, is relevant here:

  While residing at the Jetavana monastery in Savatthi, the Buddha
  uttered Verse (1) of this book, with reference to Cakkhupala, a blind
  thera.

  On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
  intention of killing and so was quite innocent." On being asked why
  Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told the
  following story:

  Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had
  deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him
  to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were
  completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to
  become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes
  were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The
  physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her
  another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this
  evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later
  existences.

  Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 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' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox
  that draws the cart.


How does "thought-provoking dissonance" in Zen Buddhist dialectics differ from "wrong speech"? Zen question-and-answers and talks like the ones described here don't seem like commonly accepted 'right speech'; yet, they are believed or intended to trigger spiritual progress.

In what way do such Zen interactions deliver benefits? For example, are they meant to be thought-provoking dissonance, discomfort and anger, and thereby cause dissatisfaction with habitually-held positions, and thereby create scope for spiritual progress?

Have the teachers specified (in any writings or talks) how to distinguish such dissonance-causing dialectics from "wrong speech" which causes hindrance in spiritual progress and delivers no spiritual benefits to listeners/readers?

First off, I think it's important to understand that Zen isn't something that should be greased up and crammed into the strictures of traditional Buddhist teachings.  Zen makes no overt attempt to follow the path as laid out in the Sutta Pitaka (i.e. in the Samanaphala Sutta) nor does it conform to the gradual training as described in texts like the Vissuddhimagga.  Topics like right action, sila, and virtue, while undoubtedly present in the Zen tradition, are meant to be arrived at through direct insight.  They are realities to be discovered, not guidelines to be followed during the initial stages of practice.

The particular quotes that you are referring to are from two koans.  Specifically, they come from cases 1 and 21 from the koan collection entitled the Mumokan.  In Zen practice, koans are designed to point at some subtle experience of reality (i.e. big mind) that is often missed by our discursive and discriminating smaller minds.  They are not designed to be "thought provoking", nor do they try to be necessarily humorous, provoke anger, or instill discomfort.  They don't even try to cause dissonance.  For these reasons, they can often sound completely nonsensical.  In fact, koans are "none-sense" in the purest definition of the word.  No amount of reasoning will help you arrive at the experience they are pointing to.

That being said, koans are surgically precise.  They aren't just "right speech" they are "exact speech".  The experiences that a koan points to are ridiculously specific and, in the hands of a master teacher, can be used to great affect in awakening a student.  A good teacher knows exactly when to introduce a certain koan.  Like someone playing a game of Jenga, he knows just what block to pull out in order to get a student's whole mental edifice to come toppling down.

All koans seek to awaken the mind.   Not a single word of them is tossed off haphazardly.  They are skillful means - upaya - but are functionally quite distinct from anything you might find in the Theravadan tradition.


What is the difference between access and absorption in Vipassana meditation? I've been studying Visuddhimarga and facing this doubt. In 3.1 (Kammaþþhána-gahaóa-niddesa), regarding how many types of concentration there are, I can get the concepts of distration/non-distraction, bissful/non-blissful, with equanimity/not, etc. However, I don't get what is meant exactly by the terms access and absorption:

  (1) First of all it is of one kind with the characteristic of non-distraction. (2)
  Then it is of two kinds as access and absorption; (3) likewise as mundane and
  supramundane (4) as with happiness and without happiness,

The author gives the following explanation at the bottom of the page, but I'm finding it difficult to understand. I can hazard a guess that absorption here means our thoughts gradually absorb (attain the state of) the object of our concentration, but what is meant by access?:

  “Applied thought that occurs as though absorbing (appento) associated states in
  the object is absorption (appaná). Accordingly it is described as ‘absorption, absorbing
  (appaná vyappaná)’ (M III 73). Now since that is the most important, the usage of the
  Commentaries is to call all exalted and unsurpassed jhána states ‘absorption’ [as well
  as the applied thought itself], and likewise to apply the term of common usage ‘access’
  to the limited [i.e. sense-sphere] jhána that heralds the arising of the former, just as the
  term ‘village access,’ etc. is applied to the neighbourhood of a village” (Vism-mhþ 91).

This is more an unfortunate example of problematic translation than anything. appento, for example, means rushing forward, plunging or entering into, or fixing upon. The commentary surrounding this word,

  sampayuttadhamme ārammaṇe appento viya pavattatīti vitakko appanā

would better be translated as

  "Applied thought that proceeds as though plunging into the object with its associated states is called appanā"

vyappanā could mean several things, since it is just appanā with a vi prefix. You'd have to be fluent in Pali colloquialism to understand the meaning, but PED says

  Vyappanā (f.) [vi+appanā] application (of mind), focussing (of attention) Dhs 7.

At any rate, "absorption" should be understood in the sense of "becoming absorbed in (i.e. fixed upon) the object", I think.

"Access" is another ambiguous term; it is used in the sense of moving (cara) close to (upa), as it is a translation of the term upacāra. Other translations are "neighbourhoood", "approach", etc. It is more often used in a mundane sense to refer to the area surrounding (e.g.) a dwelling. e.g.:

  vihārassa upacāre - in the surrounding area of a dwelling (Vin. Pāc. 2.5)

In regards the section of the Visuddhimagga you are reading, we should first be clear that this section pertains to samatha meditation, not vipassana. The two terms are not commonly used in the practice of insight meditation, since it is understood that appanā samadhi doesn't allow for insight to occur. Insight meditation requires momentary concentration similar to that described as upacāra in this section, in that it comes close to but doesn't reach samatha jhāna.

The main difference between the two is that appanā is fixed on the object from moment to moment, unwavering and unchanging - it is sometimes described as "trance" concentration; whereas upacāra is still not fixed on a single object. The main similarity is that they both have the power to suppress the five hindrances from the mind.


How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism? How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism?

I'm just intrigued, because the texts I've spent longer trying to 'get' seem to be more inspired by the lotus sutra.

We say that contaminated virtue perpetuates samsara. The intention mental factor in the retinue of contaminated virtue is a contaminated mental karma that gives rise to suffering in the aspect of pleasant feelings (suffering of change). An example of contaminated virtue is the virtuous intention to give - generosity - in the continuum of an ordinary being. An example of uncontaminated virtue, however, is the mind of generosity conjoined with a wisdom of emptiness.

Here, when generosity is conjoined with both the wisdom of emptiness and bodhicitta, it is a skillful means because it is a uncontaminated virtue in the continuum of a being that never forsakes the welfare of others. So, every virtue in the continuum of an arya bodhisattva is a skillful means, since it is conjoined with both wisdom and bodhicitta.

In the Ornament of Clear Realization, Maitreya/Asanga say:

  The mind generation [i.e. bodhicitta] possessing skillful means, as
  the subject, is like a virtuous spiritual friend because by way of the
  four immeasurables, the method for not rejecting sentient beings, it
  never forsakes the welfare of sentient beings.

In his Commentary on Seventy Topics and Ornament for Clear Realizations by Geshe Jampa Gyatso:

  “Skillful means” refers to the fact that a bodhisattva with this mind
  generation is able to transform every single virtue into a cause for
  enlightenment. A virtuous spiritual friend is one who guides sentient
  beings on the spiritual path; in particular, one who is fully
  qualified is able to guide his disciples appropriately. “Not rejecting
  sentient beings” refers to not rejecting even one sentient being which
  if done would create negative karma and break both the bodhisattva and
  tantra vows.