Can an Icchantika make any form of progress along the Buddhist path? For those Buddhists who claim that some sentient beings are Icchantikas, do they mean that those sentient beings cannot make any form of progress along the Buddhist path?

All I know is that, following tao-sheng, most Buddhists think that the Icchantika has buddha-nature, and that the term can also refer to Bodhisattvas, who postpone their Buhddhahood. What I'm especially interested in is whether an Icchantika can make progress toward arhatship, anything like that?

"Possessing" grave wrong view (niyata micca ditthi) is one of the 6 reasons why one is, better does (since holding a view is an action) incapable to grow in Dhamma, incapable in reaching even paths or fruits, yes. But! ...to think that the view of a being is something inherent, lasting, not conditioned, for it's own, is already near niyata micca ditthi. So beware of Mohayanas.

  The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:

  (1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),

  (2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),

  (3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

Those who hold such views are for the most already on the "highway to hell".

Those views are actually not seldom, even under "Buddhist" and therefore it's very importand, even if having tendency toward such views, to do an effort and seek out for people with right view to assosiate with. See How to address wrong view?

To be incapable to change one view has to do with "stupidy" or mental defect, and as such is also a root reason that no grow in Dhamma can be attained for the time such may last, arises.

Thinking that being have such as a inherent Buddhanature or not, the current potential to awakening, or not, such is also grave wrong view. And it's mostly the case that things which one makes himself busy outwardly are very related to ones own case and so take care.

Whether there are being generally not able to gain way out, how many beings would reach awakening... all such answers the Buddha did not gave into, using to teach "simply" cause and effect, "from this comes that", "with the arising of this, that arises", and it's good to watch out simply this, giving much faith into focus just on causes, for effects of them come by themself.

(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment supposed to bind but as an exit out of the wheel here.)


Why are the Perfection of Wisdom sutras seen as a coherent collection? The Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in 8000 lines and others are grouped together as Prajnaparamita (perfection of wisdom). Why is this?

Why are they seen as a coherent collection? Are they thematically similar or is the link because they were written at a particular geographic and historical period? Are they maybe linked because of they a reaction against other schools of Buddhist thought at that time? Should they be linked together at all?

All of these sutras are on the subject of wisdom, or "voidness", "sunyata", or the "emptiness".

Śūnyatā
Introduction to Meditation on Voidness (Emptiness).

There are many good teachings on the concept; here's one: Advice for Studying Voidness (Emptiness)

Every school has its own teachings on the subject. Indeed, all of them (I think) advocate meditation on the concept at some point. One form of Mahamudara meditation advocates using it from the beginning: Mahamudra Meditation Manual.

Good stuff!


Breath getting shorter and shorter Practice : Meditation using breath

I'm practicing sitting meditation using breath according to  Thai Forest Tradition method.

Mentally reciting of "Buddho" .

I practice at home so would like to get help based on my experience so far

I noticed my breath getting shorter and sometimes period of no breath or "nano/very short" size of breath .

When it is a series of "nano/very short" size of breath , mostly what I experience is "waiting" for next "in" breath ? Is this right or where should I concentrate during such occasions ?

This may not be directly related to your tradition but maybe of some value to you or perhaps another reader.

Generally when your bodily fabrications calm down, your breath becomes very short, becomes far apart and even stop for a while. At this point you have to switch to sensations. Generally this will be pleasant sensations but sometimes maybe even gross. If you want to increase your concentration keep it at a point in your upper lip. If not you can choose your whole body.

There are 16 stages of Anapana. This is where you transition at the 5th stage.

Also see: Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Author), Santikaro Bhikkhu (Translator) which is a good book to read.

Also another and free books is: Manual of Mindfulness of Breathing (Anapana Dipani) by Ledi Sayadaw Mahathera, Aggamahapandita, D. Litt.


Where does a person go after attaining Nirvana? After attaining Nirvana, what happens to the person(conscious) after death?

Does the person cease to exist?

If not, does the person go to some peaceful place?

In one sense he continues just as we do. Once he attained nirvana under the Bodhi tree, the Buddha carried on teaching for another 50 years. It was only on the death of his physical body that he underwent parinirvana, that is to say final release. However this just pushes the question on from nirvana to parinirvana.

The question of what happens to an enlightened being after death is one of the unanswered questions i.e. does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death. The Buddha refused to address metaphysical issues such as these. He teaches one thing and that thing is liberation. He views other issues such as this, the nature of the universe, the nature of the 'soul' as a distraction.

It's not to say that this isn't a good question but it is one that is deliberately unanswered by the Buddha. As such I'm probably not going to be able to do it either.

It's the answer of no answer

NOTE

This answer is based on Theravada teachings and is not the stance of all Buddhist schools. Other answers here will be from different perspectives and should be considered along with this answer.


Giving not outside in relation to merits, how should this proper perceived? "Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower. Which five?...He/she has conviction; is virtuous; is not eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts kamma, not protective charms & ceremonies; does not search for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings here first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower." An05.175

What does one think is meant here by gifts and by outside, the Sangha?

How would a wise understand it correct in line with the Dhamma?

(not sure if MN 142 Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ might help for investigation the question on topic without going astray)

(Note that this has not been given for trade, exchance, stacks and stucks but for exit from this wheel)

I think this is merely a reference to a typical aspect of religious life. Whenever we have a body of people who dedicate their lives to religious pursuits — be they clergymen or monastics — those people have no means of support other than the generosity of lay people. This binds the lay followers and the devotees together: the lay followers put their hopes for salvation on the full-time adherents; the full-time-adherents get their subsistence from the labor of lay followers. Someone who gives donations to a different group is breaking that bond; that has an impact both on the community as a whole and on his own progress on the path.

Imagine someone who attends a Christian congregation, but gives a good part of his donations to a Hindu temple down the road. There are reasons one might do that, but it inevitably calls into question his commitment to the Christian congregation and Christian teachings as a whole. Is he trying to hedge his bets, in case the Hindus are 'right'? Is his boss Hindu, and he is trying to curry favor? Hmph.

It's often a good idea when faced with lists like this to focus less on the individual items and more on the common theme. The goal here is to convince lay followers to show a commitment equivalent to that of monastics, within their means. They shouldn't split their attention between this and that; sometimes being committed to the sangha and sometimes being committed to other groups or principles. If you think about it, it is difficult to violate any one of these precepts without simultaneously violating the others, and that is the essential concern.


Did Shakyamuni Buddha say anything in regard to fear I'm sure that at some point Shakyamuni talked about fear, but I am wondering more specifically if he had listed something like "the five types of fear" or something like that(e.g. Four noble truths, ten worlds, ten factors, five eyes).

In the Cātumā Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya, 67) Buddha talks about four types of fear in the case of Bhikkus just as there are dangers and hazards in a sea like stormy waves, crocodiles, whirlpools, and sharks. Those four fears were temper (ill will against those who instruct them and guide them); gluttony (dissatisfaction with training rules such as those concerning taking of meals), women and pleasures of senses.
(http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/34.7-Catuma-S-m67-piya.pdf)
Also Buddha spoke of four reasons as to why we fear death. They are:  attachment to the body,  attachment to sensual pleasures; knowledge that we’ve done cruelty to others and the resulting fear that after death we’ll have to face consequences for it,  and lastly the fear of not having seen the true Dhamma, or for still having doubts about its truth.
Then in the Sangaha Bala Sutta, (The Discourse on the Powers (in connection with conciliation) Aṇguttara Nikāka  9.5)  Buddha talks about how to free yourself from five common fears.
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2.21-Sangaha-Bala-S-a9.5-piya.pdf
Those five fears are the fear of livelihood; ājīvika bhaya (2) the fear of disrepute; asiloka bhaya (3) the fear of nervousness before an assembly; parisa,sārajja bhaya (4) the fear of death; and maraṇa bhaya (5) the fear of a bad destiny [rebirth]. duggati bhaya
Another Sutta that talks about fear is  ‘Pancha Bhayavera Sutta’ or the discourse on the five fears and hates. [Disadvantages of breaking the Five Precepts] (Anguttara Nikaya  5.174)
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6.4-Vera-S-a05.174-piya.pdf
A noble disciple will overcome these five factors that caused fear and hate. The first is to abstain from killing. The second is to abstain from stealing. The third is to abstain from wrongful sexual conduct. The fourth factor is to abstain from falsehood. The last factor is to live refraining from intoxicants.
The Dutiya Anagata-bhayani Suttam (The Discourses on Future Dangers )  is another of interest:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/05_fives/an05.078.than.ati.htm

"Monks, these five future dangers, unarisen at present, will arise in the future. Be alert to them and, being alert, work to get rid of them. Which five? …
"There will be, in the course of the future, monks undeveloped in body,[1] undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment. They — being undeveloped in body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment — will give full ordination to others and will not be able to discipline them in heightened virtue, heightened mind, heightened discernment. These too will then be undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment. They — being undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment — will give full ordination to still others and will not be able to discipline them in heightened virtue, heightened mind, heightened discernment. These too will then be undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment. Thus from corrupt Dhamma comes corrupt discipline; from corrupt discipline, corrupt Dhamma.


What was the reason behind Colonel Henry Steel Olcott and Anagarika Dharmapala split Though the two of the worked together in the early years I have heard there was a split between them later on.

When did this split happen? What was the cause? What is the implication and aftermath of it?

The reason stated in Anagarika Dharmapala's wikipedia page for his split with the Theosophical society is that he was against the idea of a universal religion that the Theosophists were aiming at.

Dharmapala eventually broke with Olcott and the Theosophists because of Olcott's stance on universal religion. One of the important factors in his rejection of theosophy centered on this issue of universalism; the price of Buddhism being assimilated
into a non-Buddhist model of truth was ultimately too high for
him."Dharmapala stated that Theosophy was "only consolidating
Krishna worship." "To say that all religions have a common
foundation only shows the ignorance of the speaker; Dharma alone is
supreme to the Buddhist".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagarika_Dharmapala

Later, in 1904 he had split with Henry Steel Olcott as well. The reason given in the book Relics, Ritual, and Representation in Buddhism is,

Dharmapala broke with Olcott in 1904 when the latter showed disrespect toward the relic of the Buddha's tooth, one of the most sacred relics of the Buddha worshipped in Sri Lanka.

The author cites Return to Righteousness: A Collection of Speeches, Essays, and Letters of the Anagarika Dharmapala as the original source for this and quotes the following phrase from this book in a footnote,

Col. Olcott insulted the feelings of the Buddhists by showing disrespect to the Tooth Relic, a copy of which he had placed under the shelf.

After the split I don't think there was  enough time for something significant to happen, because Henry Steel Olcott died on 1907.


Going to first session I'm pretty new to buddhism, I come from a christian family and as such I attended church for the earlier part of my life.

I'm wondering what to expect from my first session in comparison to that of church.

I'm also asking if there's any general advice/tips you can give me for my first time.

At a Theravada monastery:

You have to be familiar with taking refuge in the Triple Gem and taking of the five precepts:
http://refuge.sirimangalo.org/
Remove shoes and hats when you enter the monastery.
Wear conservative clothing. White color clothes are more appropreate.
Avoid shouting, idle chatter and laughter(can smile when appropriate) while you are there
Avoid running. Walk quietly.
While listening to Dhamma talks or meditating with others, turn off your phone or keep it in silent mode. If you need to answer an urgent call or text, quietly go outside the room.
If you make an offering to the Buddha or the Sangha, do it using both hands and bow afterwards.
If you offer food, do it well before noon as monks cannot accept food after noon. Make sure the food is prepared for consumption as monks are not allowed to cook food.
Do not offer food that is already consumed by another.
When offering food to monks, don't place it on the table expecting them to take, like in restaurants. You must personally serve every curry into the bowl or plate. If they don't prefer a certain dish, they will indicate by covering the bowl with hand as you try to serve.
Don't consume food while attending meditation sessions or listening to Dhamma talks.
Don't smoke inside the monastery.
If a monk is standing and addressing you, don't be seated. If a monk is seated on a couch/bench, do not sit on the same at the same time. Sit on the floor or sit on a chair which is lower and less luxurious. Do not sit directly facing a monk or a Buddha statue. Sit to the side. When sitting(chair), do not put one leg over the other or sit with your legs wide open or stretched  infront.
Do not address the monks by name. Use respectful terms like 'Bhante', "venerable sir" etc.
Do not try to shake hands with the monks, pat on the back etc. Avoid all unnecessary physical contact within the monastery.
Do not take selfies with Buddha statues or monks. Do not take pictures with your back turned to the Buddha statues.
Do not try to practice your own method in the monastery. Follow the instructions by the teacher.
If you wish to make a donation, don't hand money to the monks as they are not allowed to handle money. Instead, look for the donation box or ask them how to make a donation.


New Year Resolutions What are some resolution that we can made in order to make the upcoming year more peaceful ,fruitful. Resolutions which may bring some major changes in our life?

In school, teachers was asking students their resolutions, they can be not to lie, getting high score and so on.
But after some days or times gone no one seem aware of resolutions they had made at start of new year. Seldom of them aware of it; so if I've made resolution as not to lie, first thing I need to remind myself about it for practically achieve it. Need to mind control to not to lie. And so you asking for making year peaceful and happy then you can set it as practicing better than before and so many as you wishing. Meditation is there also you can made resolution of it and you'll have peaceful and bright year, not even year but life.


Why focus below your bellybutton in meditation? My roshi tells me to focus here. Before practicing, I spent most of my waking hours thinking, analyzing, living in my head. With practice, it has gotten easier to think when thought has a purpose, and to listen to my body and environment otherwise.

The book that introduced me to zen said to picture your breathing below your bellybutton. A friend said to focus your energy there.

As I build focus here, it is easier to let go of distraction and delusion. But why is this place significant? Why not focus on my chest of elbow or toes?

Many types of meditation focus on the breath entering and leaving the body or moving through the body as a main object of meditation.
In the tradition of meditation which I practice, (Mahasi Sayadaw style), we focus on the rising and falling of the abdomen as a way of being mindful of the breath, but without focusing on the nostril area, which is considered to be more soothing. Focusing on the rising and fall of the abdomen is not soothing and works well as a meditation object which will keep us mindful of the three characteristics of impermanence, dissatisfaction, and uncontrollability/anatta which is useful in Vipassana meditation.
But you mentioned zen, so your roshi's reason may be quite different and it would likely be best to ask your roshi directly. But if you cannot, here is a quote from Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh's book "be free where you are".
(In this chapter Thich Nhat Hanh is talking to prisoners about how to handle feeling overwhelmed by a strong emotion.)

So when you notice that an emotion is beginning to come up, it is very important that you put yourself in a stable sitting position, or you lie down, which is also a very stable position. Then focus your attention on your belly. Your head is like the top of a tree in a storm. I would not stay there. Bring your attention down to the trunk of the tree, where there is stability.
When you have focused on your belly, bring your attention down to the level just below the naval and begin to practice mindful breathing. Breathing in and breathing out deeply, be aware of the rise and fall of the abdomen. After practicing like this for 10, 15, or 20 minutes you will see that you are strong - strong enough to withstand the storm. (page 38)

So while both styles of meditation focus on the abdomen, the reason is a quite different. In one, the rise and fall of the abdomen is considered somewhat unstable as we notice slight irregularities in breathing. In the other, the abdomen is considered the stable part of the body as a tree trunk is to a tree.
Due to the many differences in interpretation, best to ask your own teacher if possible. But something to think about until you get the chance.
Welcome to Buddhism.SE and glad to hear of the benefits meditation is bringing to you. :)


Rebirth in regard to AI First time poster here. I am very new to buddhism, so my understanding is very basic. My previous world views were very materialistic and deterministic. It might not be surprising that the most confusing concept I find so far is rebirth.

Lets take this theoretical situation: We created AI that is indistinguishable from a human, capable of superior understanding of all the scientific concepts known to human and beyond.

Will something have to be rebirth into it?
Imagine this AI starts to multiplicate unstoppably, from where will we source all the consciousness to get rebirth into it?

Thank you for your help!

AI is a concept. Not a reality. AI in essence is simply electrified hardware.
A computer is Rupa. Electricity is Rupa. There has to be Nama involved to talk about rebirth or having a consciousness. A computer might beat a man in Chess. But it's still just matter. No mind involved.


"The Blessed One", is it bad translation? I found "The Blessed One" in English translation of Suttas. Because in Buddhism blessing is not legit/proper word to use to anyone, especially Buddha need not to be blessed, is it loosely translated or in purpose? I didn't see any part of Sutta that one can be blessed or a meaning that blessing can be done so far. What should be proper translation of "The Blessed One" in Sutta if it is bad translation?

A couple of dictionary translations:

  Bhagavā: venerable, fortunate, blessed, sublime. Generally designates the Buddha.

  Bhagavant (adj. n.) [cp. Vedic bhagavant, fr. bhaga] fortunate, illustrious, sublime, as Ep. and title "Lord." Thus applied to the Buddha (amhākaŋ Bh.) and his predecessors. Occurs with extreme frequency; of fanciful exegetic explns of the term & its meaning we mention e. g. those at Nd1 142=Nd2 466; Vism 210 sq.; DA i.33 sq. Usual trs. Blessed One, Exalted One.

Also, perhaps as an etymology:

  Bhaga [Vedic bhaga, bhaj, see bhagavant etc.] luck, lot, fortune, only in cpd. dub˚ (adj.) unhappy, unpleasant, uncomfortable It 90; DA i.96 (˚karaṇa). -- bhaga (in verse "bhagehi ca vibhattavā" in exegesis of word "Bhagava") at DA i.34 read bhava, as read at id. p. Vism 210.

Here are some definitions of "blessed" from an American dictionary (perhaps Protestant culture):

  Simple Definition of blessed
  : having a sacred nature : connected with God
  : very welcome, pleasant, or appreciated

  Full Definition of blessed

  a :  held in reverence :  venerated
  b :  honored in worship :  hallowed
  c :  beatific
  :  of or enjoying happiness; specifically :  enjoying the bliss of heaven —used as a title for a beatified person
  :  bringing pleasure, contentment, or good fortune

I think you might see that many of these definitions are suitable.

You're right that it's probably not blessed in a Catholic sense, i.e. sanctified via the agency of a priest.


Are there any attempts to prove the eternal blissful etc. self? The mahaparinirvana sutra seems to claim that there is an eternal blissful and pure self

'Self' appears in the positive very many times in that sutra, e.g. here (Chapter 33) ,,,

  Knowledge ["jnana"] sees the Void and the non-Void,  the  Eternal  and
  the  non-Eternal,  Suffering  and  Bliss,  the  Self  and  the
  non-Self.  The  Void refers to all births and deaths. The Non-Void
  refers to Great Nirvana. And the non-Self is nothing but birth and
  death. The Self refers to Great Nirvana.

or here (Chapter 37) ...

  ""The Eternal of Great Nirvana is the Self.
  "The Self is the Pure.
  "The Pure is Bliss.
  "The Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure are the Tathagata.

  "O good man! For example, space is not the east,
  nor is it the south, nor the west, nor the north, nor the four directions, nor up or down. It is the same with the Tathagata

etc. e.g. here (Chapter 23) ...

  The Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha truly exist, and the
  Tathagata always expounds the essentials of all laws [Dharma]

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?

I might start by saying that I don't know how a philosopher can prove anything.

A mathematician proves theories by defining axioms and showing that the theories derive from axioms
A physicist proves laws by defining laws and showing that the laws predict observed physical behaviour

This topic about 'proofs' in philosophy says,

  [Except in "formal logic"] the best you get is an analytically-reasoned argument.
  If I can show that a given position is self-contradictory then I have proven the position false. In terms of positive proof for a position, then it does not seem that there is anything available quite equivalent to mathematical proof in either rigour or epistemic certainty.

So I don't understand the question as-asked. But (instead of answering the question) perhaps analysing the text and looking at definitions of the words will be a partial answer instead.

I just read Chapter 37 (only).

It's translated from Chinese, which is difficult -- I must read an English translation.

I do't entirely trust that because I think that word-for-word translation are inevitably inaccurate -- e.g. the Pali word dukkha has various translations, like "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness" etc. -- or Pali has three words for different aspects of "mind" -- but anyway I'll try what I can with the English translation.

To start I note it starts with orthodox/standard doctrine ...

  Because of this, know that Sramana Gautama has no father and no mother. If he has, how can he say:

    "All things are non-eternal, suffering, void; and all have no self, no doing, no feeling?"

... i.e. it says that the Buddha's doctrine is as quoted above (e.g. "all things have no self").

I'm not sure what "have no self" would be a translation of, if the original were in Pali -- I think it could be anatta or sunyata -- but the previous clause said "void" which I take it was a translation of "empty" or sunyata so I guess that "have no self" is a reference to anatta.

Incidentally the Pali phrase or doctrine is something like sabbe sankhara anatta (i.e. "all things are non-self") -- but "things" there isn't a great translation of sankhara, a better translation might be "compound things" (or "things put together from other things" or "things which depend on other things"), and perhaps specifically in contrast to nibbana which is called a dhamma and not a sankhara.

Anyway I think the word "self" (in common English and in English translations of buddhist texts) might be ambiguous and depending on context it could refer to different things:

Something eternal (a soul, a god, perhaps something "space" or "light" or "time")
Something unconditioned, which exists independently of other things
Something in the I/me/mine kind of realm, e.g. "my soul" or "my consciousness" etc. -- or conversely that the Self is the possessor not the possessed, etc.

The first mention of "Self" seems to be here:

  That is to say that all things are non-eternal, suffering, non-Self, and non-Pure, and that only the Tathagata is the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure.

I have to guess at what "non-self" and "non-pure" mean; but the Wikipedia article you quoted says some things about that.

The "six masters" then say something like, "Well if you have Self then so have we. For example maybe Seeing is Self (and we see)", and the Buddha replies that seeing isn't Self. Here is the Buddha's argument:

  The Buddha said to the six masters: "If seeing is the Self, you are wrong. Why? You take up the analogy of an object and say that we see by it. Now, man uses together the six sense-organs to one object. If there surely is the Self and we see unfailingly by (means of) the eye, why is it that we do not cognise all objects with that one sense-organ? If one does not meet with the six sense-fields, know that there is no Self to talk of. If things are thus with the sense-organ of sight, there will be no change even if years pass and the sense-organs become ripened. As "man" and "object" are different, one sees one's own self and the other. If it is thus with the sense-organ of sight, there must be the seeing of one's own self and the other at (one and the same) time. If not seen, how can we say that there is the Self?

I think that's saying:

Seeing isn't Self because we cognise sense-objects with several senses (not just seeing)
Seeing is dependent on contact (with the sense-fields), if there's no contact then is there no "Self"?
Sense organs (e.g. the eye) change with time
Another argument I don't understand

I wanted to analyse the argument in order to understand (or reverse-engineer) the definition of "Self" that's being used.

I think the first bit of the argument is that if something (e.g. seeing) is Self then there can't be something else (e.g. hearing) that's also self.

And so on. If you analyze subsequent paragraphs in a similar way you derive different characteristics or definition of Self, for eample:

  If one cannot do as one wills, know that this indicates that assuredly no Self is there.
  The body of the Tathagata is not based on causal relations. Because there are no causal relations, we say that there is the Self.
  If the Self does (i.e. performs actions), how can we say (it is) Eternal? If it is Eternal, how can a person do good at one time and evil at another?

I think this is more-or-less the conclusion:

  The Buddha said: "If the Self does (i.e. performs actions), how can we say (it is) Eternal? If it is Eternal, how can a person do good at one time and evil at another? If a person does good or evil at (different) times, how can we say that the Self is boundless? If the Self does, why would one practise evil things? If the Self is the doer and if it is the wise, how can one doubt about the selflessness of the being? So, we can say that there can definitely be no Self in the doctrine of the tirthikas. The Self is none other than the Tathagata. Why? Because his body is boundless and there exists no doubt. On account of non-doing and non-receiving (of karmic consequences), we say Eternal. On account of birthlessness and deathlessness, we say Bliss. As there exists no defilement of illusion, we say Pure. As he does not have the ten aspects of existence, we say Void (i.e. void of all that causes suffering). Hence, the Tathagata is none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure, and the Void, and there is no other aspect to speak of.

I think that's not a clear (or it's a difficult) explanation of why "the Self is the Tathagata" -- I think the reasoning is that it's consistent with the definitions or properties of "Self" -- e.g. (I paraphrase) "seeing can't be self because it's limited, light can't be Self because it's caused by (dependently originated from) a lamp, but the Tathagata is unbounded".

You might like to see also Why is the Buddha described as trackless? -- because I think that's an example of the Tathagata's being called unbounded in the Pali suttas.

I'm not sure what the point is, what the benefit is, for having this kind of doctrine abut Self. It's unusual, the Wikipedia article Ātman (Buddhism) which you quoted says,

  Most scholars consider the Tathagatagarbha doctrine in Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra asserting an 'essential nature' in every living being is equivalent to 'Self', and it contradicts the Anatta doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts, leading scholars to posit that the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.

So if the Brahmins are teaching about the Self, then the Buddha has two ways to contradict them:

"There is no Self"
"The Self is the Tathagata"

Another theory is that it might be intended to contradict the Three marks of existence -- i.e. if things are "negative" (unsatisfactory and non-self) maybe there's something else that's "positive" ... even attractive.

Finally I note there's something else in that same Wikipedia article:

  According to Paul Wiliams, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra uses the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. He quotes from the sutra:

    The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self.

  In the later Lankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that the tathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not.

I haven't tried to find the location in the sutra where it says that, you might find it interesting to do that.


No self and individual responsibility If there is no self, no "mind" or "I" that can be found, then what does Buddhism call that faculty which exercises personal responsibility?

There is such a thing as a self, but it is not independent and standalone.

Please see this answer for details.

The Buddha used the analogy of a lute. There is such a thing as music, but if you break down the lute into its constituent components, you will not be able to find music. Music only arises out of the inter-working of the different parts of the lute, when it is assembled, constructed and tuned correctly.

There is music, but it does not exist standalone or independently of other things. The self similarly arises virtually from the interplay of other phenomena. To say that the music or the self do not exist at all, is incorrect. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means in all phenomena, there is no self, just as in all constituent parts of the lute, you cannot find something called music.

And there is also the mind.

"Sabbe sankhara anicca" means all conditioned things are not permanent. The mind and the self are not permanent. They are always changing, ceasing and arising, dependent on other things. Anicca does not mean that they do not exist.


According to buddhism, do demons exists? I have heard a lot about this kind of things called demons, satan, evil spirits from other religion. But is their any mention in buddhism about existance of such creatures or spirits?

According to Buddhism Demons exist. The Four Great Kings in the Cāturmahārājika Heaven keep watch over us of harm from these demons. There are a handful of (few) good demons too who have seen the Dhamma.)  These four Devas are Virūpākṣa (he who sees all), Dhṛtarāṣṭra (he who upholds the realm), Virūḍhaka (he who causes to grow), and Vaiśravaṇa (Kubera) (he who hears everything).  All four Devas serve Śakra, the lord of the devas. All demons have spontaneous birth (opapatika) like the Davas and the Petas (Hungry Ghosts). You may know by now that there are four kinds of birth - namely, egg-born (andaja), womb-born (julabuja), moisture-born (samsedaja), and spontaneous birth (opapatika).

There are four lower planes of existance = Niraya = devoid of happiness. There are four kinds of niraya - namely, woeful state (apaya / hell), the animal kingdom, the plane of Petas (hungry ghosts) and the plane of Asura-demons (Titans). None of these states is eternal. According to their unwholesome / unskillful kamma beings may be born in such woeful states. Departing from those states, they may be born in blissful states according to their past good kamma. In the sense-sphere (kamaloka) the human plane and the six celestial planes are regarded as blissful states. They too are not eternal.

Devil is referred to as MARA, in the scriptures. Mara means killer. He is the personification of the force that kills virtue and also kills existence. His armies are poised to attack all persons; they even tried to overcome the Buddha on the night of his enlightenment. But Mara is a post that is been held by a person.  If you are attached to the six senses, you are in the Mara (Devil)s grasp (a firm hold or grip). He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making mundane things alluring, or the negative seem positive.

At the time of Kakusandha Buddha – our Gautama Supreme Buddha’s chief disciple, Ven. Maha Moggallana was the Mara, chief of demons, lord of the lower worlds.  Kakusandha is the fourth of the Seven Buddhas of the last 91 Kalpa (Aeons), and the first of the five Buddhas of the present kalpa. The present day Mara is his sister’s son (nephew). When someone talks about “God’s grace” and “God’s mercy”,  it can more likely be that the blessings are of Mara and his hosts. This is possible. As the great jealous one, Mara has the power to bestow blessings on his hosts and subjects.

Getting back to the subject of Demons, here is a question & answer session that once took place between a King (Milinda) and an Arahant ( Ven. Nâgasena):

  'Venerable Nâgasena, are there such things as demons (Yakkhâ) in the world?'
  'Yes, O king.'
  'Do they ever leave that condition' (fall out of that phase of existence)?
  'Yes, they do.'
  'But, if so, why is it that the remains of those dead demons are never found, nor any odour of their corpses smelt? '
  Their remains are found, O king, and an odour does arise from their dead bodies. The remains of bad demons can be seen in the form of worms and beetles and ants and moths and snakes and scorpions and centipedes, and birds and wild beasts.'


Is understanding a practice? Enlightened people doesn't have any desire, because they see impermanence in everything. All the things are useless to them. To achieve enlightenment , one required to practise deattachment, uncertainty through out the samsara. So , Is understanding a practise ?

If it is: We loose skills when we don't do somethings for long time. But enlightenment can not be undone.
If it isn't: When we do vipassana meditation for a long time, we started to see impermanance in every day life. We loose attachments to lot of things . What is happening there ?

I'm not sure I express and structured the question as I want . So Improves are well come.

OP: So , Is understanding a practise ?

Understanding arises through the practice.

  OP: If it is: We loose skills when we don't do somethings for long time. But enlightenment can not be undone.

Yes. As enlightenment is understanding of reality as it is and this does not change in light of new experiances.

  OP: If it isn't: When we do vipassana meditation for a long time, we started to see impermanance in every day life. We loose attachments to lot of things . What is happening there ?

Attachment leads to pain. When you understand this through Vipassana you do not get attached.


To introduce Dharma, what categories of people are there? Buddha tailored his teachings to meet the particular needs of his audience.
What are the different audiences then?

Here is a slightly related question: Should a beginner try to educate others about the benefits of Vipassana?

It is difficult to group the audience s into categories as the differences are many. Each person differs in each ones' level of understanding. The skillful and unskillful qualities of a persons mind differs from person to person. Then every questioners need is different from one to another. Some questions call for analytical answers, and others require categorical answers.
The Buddha had ten special powers. One of them was the ability to know positive and negative attribute of every being. So Buddha tailored the response depending on the person’s beliefs, or need, or level of knowledge.
The examples are many. One that came to mind was that of Cula Panthaka. The Buddha helped him to remove his ‘kleshas’ & ‘upakkleshas’  and finally release his mind from all defilements. The story goes like this:

At the time of the Supreme Buddha, there were two brothers. They ordained in the Dispensation of the Buddha. The elder brother was very talented in remembering the Dhamma really well, but the second brother was unable to remember even one stanza. So, the elder brother asked his young brother to give up the monkhood and leave, “You can’t remember the Dhamma. You must go back home and start cultivating some plants.” But the younger brother didn’t want to leave the monkhood.
At the end, the younger-brother monk went to the temple’s gate and sat there crying. The Supreme Buddha came to him.
“Chūla Panthaka, why are you crying?”
“Oh dear Sir, my brother asked me to leave the temple.”
“Why was that?”
“I can’t remember any stanza I read. Therefore, he asked me to leave the monkhood and cultivate a field at home.”
“No, that’s not what you should do. Your brother doesn’t own this dispensation.”
The Supreme Buddha gently touched the monk’s head and took his hand, “Come with me.” The Supreme Buddha gave this young monk a small piece of cloth. “Dear monk, rub this cloth saying ‘cleaning, cleaning (rajō haranhan)’.” The young monk did as the Buddha told him. He saw that even though his intention was to clean the cloth, it was actually getting dirty gradually, “I rubbed this saying it to clean, but it is actually getting dirty.” His mind was well concentrated on to what happened to the cloth. The Supreme Buddha preached the Dhamma, so that the monk’s mind will be cultivated. In a moment, the young monk became an Arahant. See how his talent of realizing the Dhamma was concealed within him. If it was not the Buddha himself, who else would be able to do such a miracle? How many chances we may have missed and how many talents of us realizing life may have been concealed within us? Who would know how to unveil that talent in us?
It was this Chūla Panthaka Thero who became the first among the Bhikkhus who were able to create mental (Manōmaya) bodies. His brother monk didn’t know about it. He thought Chūla Panthaka Thero has gone home by that time. On that same day, all Bhikkhus went to alms-offering invitation. The Supreme Buddha told them that one monk is missing. Nobody knew about Chūla Panthaka Thero. The Supreme Buddha asked someone to go fetch the missing monk from the temple.
When he went to the temple, he saw one thousand monks. They were all alike. They were walking, cleaning the ground, and meditating. That person who came to fetch the monk ran back to the house and told the Supreme Buddha, “Dear Sir, there are thousand monks in the temple now.” The Supreme Buddha told him, “Please go back and ask what his name is. Touch the robe of the monk whoever answers first.” So, that person went back to the temple and said, “Who among you is called Chūla Panthaka Thero?” Then all thousand monks came forward saying, “I am… I am… I am…” As soon that person touched the monk who first answered, all other nine hundred ninety nine monks (bodies) disappeared.
He said, “Dear Sir, please come to lunch.” Chūla Panthaka Thero answered, “Dear devotee, you go please. I will come later.” The Supreme Buddha had the devotees at home to make a chair for Chūla Panthaka Thero. Then a Bhikkhu appeared from beneath the ground and sat on that chair; it was the Chūla Panthaka Thero.


In Buddhism what is 'the will'? Is there a Buddhist concept that maps to the western concept of the will? For instance the will to get up on a morning, to go to work, practice Buddhism etc... One of my teachers said that it is just another name for our greed, hatred and delusion. I really like that concept but I wonder if the will is discussed in Buddhist texts or by established teachers and in what terms.

The will to do something would probably be equivalent to the term cetana, which means intention or an act of will. The term itself doesn't have any particular positive or negative connotation, as you can have a cetana that is good just as easily as a cetana to do something bad.

Most significantly, the cetana formed with an act is what determines the kind of karma that is produced, as is explained in AN 6.063 where the Buddha said:

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


What is the 'key' to these tantrika works? At the end of this article, First Principles of Buddha Dharma, in the  'Summing Up' section, it says,

  In the sense of Dharma being the 'teachings' of the Buddha, the teachings that explain the Path of Awakening, we find them composed in twelve types of scripture.

and,

  (12) Upadesa, concerning esoteric doctrines, the equivalent to Tantra ('tradition'), in which the Buddha appears in various archetypal forms, for the illumination of beings. These tantrika works are quite numerous, but not readily comprehensible except for those who have the correct key to their meaning.

What is that Key ?
What is the meaning of it?
Is it a secret of that tradition?

From Lotus Sutra:

  He has thus taught this sutra in many places for the sake of the
  sentient beings. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of Brahma. Sometimes
  he has appeared in the form of Śakra. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of Īśvara. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of Maheśvara.
  Sometimes he has appeared in the form of the great commander of the devas.
  Sometimes he has appeared in the form of Vaiśravaṇa. Sometimes he has
  appeared in the form of a noble emperor. Sometimes he has appeared in the
  form of a minor king. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of a wealthy
  man. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of a householder. Sometimes
  he has appeared in the form of a state official. Sometimes he has appeared in
  the form of a brahman. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of a monk, nun,
  layman, or laywoman. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of the wife of
  a wealthy man or a householder. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of
  the wife of a state official. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of the wife
  of a brahman. Sometimes he has appeared in the form of a boy or a girl. Sometimes
  he has appeared in the form of a human, or a nonhuman such as a deva,
  nāga, yakṣa, gandharva, asura, garuḍa, kiṃnara, or mahoraga.
  “In this way he has expounded this sutra and saved those in the states
  of being of hell-dwellers, hungry ghosts, animals, and those in difficult circumstances.
  Sometimes he has transformed himself into a female in royal harems.

...

  If he is able to save them in the form of a śrāvaka, he teaches
  the Dharma by changing himself into the form of a śrāvaka. If he is able to
  save them in the form of a pratyekabuddha, he teaches the Dharma by changing
  himself into the form of a pratyekabuddha. If he is able to save them in
  the form of a bodhisattva, he teaches the Dharma by changing himself into
  the form of a bodhisattva. If he is able to save them in the form of a buddha,
  he teaches the Dharma by changing himself into the form of a buddha. Thus
  he transforms himself in various ways according to the capacities of those
  who are to be saved. If he is able to save them by means of parinirvāṇa, he
  manifests parinirvāṇa to them.


I hate human beings how can I develop metta? I don't like human beings because of their ego centric nature. They have destroyed nature- plants, species, morality, love, harmony etc. I just wish whole human species vanish or come to end. They have messed up the perfect nature. How can I develop love or Metta towards human beings? What are the ways by which I can develop love towards who are not doing such works to be loved?

I have posted a few times recently, to focus on developing equanimity (upekkha). Unlike Abrahamic religions, Buddhism teaches what creates the (social) world is ignorance. In Buddhism, that people are ignorant is just the way things naturally are. It is the true nature of the world (refer to the Lokavagga). Buddhism teaches people who are truly humane or human are "rare" (SN 56.47).
Therefore, Buddhism instructs to practise equanimity (upekkha) to free the mind of irritation & aversion. Once this is done, more positive mental states can be practised, such as forgiveness, to remove hatred & cruelty. When hatred & cruelty are removed, metta & compassion will arise.
'Metta' ('friendliness') is a social value, which can be difficult to practise in today's world, which has become extremely immoral & corrupt over the last 30 years or so.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "The Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has two Dhamma discourses given in sequence. Which two?
'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there, released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse.
These are the two Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — has given in sequence."
Iti 39


Does Nibbana mean not self? I have found a text which states that

  nibbāna is a description meaning not-self.

The meaning of the text is clear. Nibbana is nothing but not-self.
Moreover I have also found a sutta(SN22.45) which says that after understanding and realizing not-self the person attains Nirvana.

  At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent is
  suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be
  seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this
  I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees this thus as it really
  is with correct wisdom, the mind becomes dispassionate and is
  liberated from the taints by nonclinging

.
.
.

  “By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by
  being content, he is not agitated. Being unagitated, he personally
  attains Nibbāna.

My question is :Does Nibbana mean not self?

Everything is not-self including Nibbana. But Nibbana is much more than that. It is the end of suffering.


How to practice Mindfulness Meditation? I have been researching this lately and thought it was amazing. I just don't know where to begin or know any techniques. Can someone list some?

The word 'mindfulness' means 'to remember' or 'keep in mind'. In the context of Buddhism, it means 'to remember' to practise the factors of the eightfold path.

For example, if you are speaking/talking, you remember to speak in a manner that is honest, pleasant/gentle, cordial & beneficial. This is practising mindfulness meditation when meditating upon speech.

If practising formal sitting meditation, mindfulness is to remember to keep the mind in state that does not have desire for or get distressed about anything in the world.

Therefore, in formal sitting meditation, how to practise mindfulness meditation is to sit without desire or worry & just sit with natural quiet. When this is done properly, awareness of breathing will arise naturally as a sign of right mindfulness & later pleasant feelings will arise as a sign of right mindfulness.


Is working too much (for money) a form of indulgence? I have a tendency to take up many job opportunities for the sake of earning money beyond what is necessary. Can working too much for monetary gain be considered a form of indulgence that leads to the development of greed?

Sutta or other textual references are appreciated.

Buddha admire wealthy people who earn their wealth by right lively hood.
However he encourage people to use their wealth wisely for their benefit and the benefit of others.
Link to two major Suttas are:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.06.nara.html


Ledi Sayadaw Raised a Few Points in Contrary to the Commentaries. What are They? Initially some of the writings of Ledi Sayadaw were considered to be controversial and they differed from the commentaries. What were the points that differed?

One of the controversies and many others were concerned with attribution of the work of Abhidhamma and that some books contained errors

"4. Paramatthadipani-Tika, "The Elucidation of the Ultimate Meaning," by
Ledi Sayadaw. Ledi Sayadaw of Burma (1846-1923) was one of the greatest
scholar-monks and meditation masters of the Theravada tradition in recent
times. He was the author of over seventy manuals on different aspects of
Theravada Buddhism, including philosophy, ethics, meditation practice, and
Pali grammar. His tika created a sensation in the field of Abhidhamma
studies because he pointed out 325 places in the esteemed Vibhavini-tika
where he alleged that errors and misinterpretations had occurred, though
his criticisms also set off a reaction in defense of the older work."

Excerpts of some of the controversies


What is the effect of giving 'Dana' to the gift recipient's mind? The Buddha said a gift given as an ornament for the mind will lead the giver to the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. So the benefit to the giver when done right is incomparably great, but what is the effect to the mind of the recipient?

So far as I know the Buddhist perspective is that the Sangha is a "field of merit", that giving to the Sangha is an opportunity for laypeople to acquire merit -- and therefore, I suppose, that the Sangha are giving -- giving this opportunity -- and making their alms round with this in mind.


How is consciousness measured? There is a sphere of infinite space and there is sphere of infinite consciousness.
It is easy to comprehend what is infinite space is but it is not clear what is meant by infinite consciousness?
Does it mean infinite history of experience?
Or does it mean infinite presence of sentient beings with consciousness?

In MN121 the Buddha explains his step by step method for achieving Liberation or Nirvana. This method relies on the gradual removal or abandonment or "giving up" of objects and any boundaries/limits, any separation, any division. First, the gross objects/limits/separation is removed, then medium-gross objects/limits/separation is abandoned, then subtle objects/limits/separation is "given up", and this process of incremental iterative refinement is repeated and perfected all the way until Final Liberation.
This process can be compared with a loop in a software program, a cycle:
var A = AttendTo(any object);
repeat until(A==Nirvana){
    var notA = FindComplement(A);
    A = AttendTo(A + notA);
}

On each iteration of this loop our current object is A. Next, we find its counterpart, the NOT A. Next, we combine the total of A + NOT A and make that our new A. This is repeated until Nirvana.
The first step of that process is to start where you are. Let's say you are looking out of your window and see a parking lot with cars and people. When you focus on one of those people, that's an A. When you focus on another person, that's another A. Any single person or any car can be your object. Then you try to find the counterpart (or the mathematical complement) of that A, the NOT A. If you take one member of a mathematical set, then the complement is the rest of that set. If you take any one object (person or car) on the parking lot, then its complement is everything else on that parking lot except that first object. Next step is to put together A + NOT A and make that your new A. When we combine our first person with the rest of the parking lot, the resulting A = A + NOT A is "the entire parking lot". This is the end of the first iteration.
The next iteration is when our A is "the entire parking  lot". The NOT A is the rest of the world. The A + NOT A is "the entire planet".
The next iteration is when our A is "the entire planet". The NOT A is the rest of the universe. The A + NOT A is "the Infinite Space". The reason it's called "infinite" or "boundless" or "limitless" is because it is spatially all-inclusive without any borders or separation. It is our first serious attempt at attaining an undivided meditation object.
The next iteration is when our A is "the Infinite Space". This is where it gets a bit more tricky. What is the NOT A, what is the complement of the Infinite Space in an even broader context? Can we expand from the Infinite Space even further out? In other words, if the A of Infinite Space is one member of a larger set, then what could those other members be?
(...drum roll...)
The other members are all other phenomena, all other contents of our consciousness! Then A = A + NOT A is the entire consciousness with the entire totality of all its possible states and objects. When this becomes our new A, our new object of our iterative meditation refinement process, this stage is called "The Infinite Consciousness". Again, the reason it is called "infinite" or "limitless" or "unbounded" is because it is our new standard of all-inclusive undivided object of meditation.
The next iteration of this goes as follows. If A is The Infinite Consciousness, then what is its counterpart? What is beyond all phenomena, beyond all states of mind, all contents of consciousness? It is the complete absence of any content, complete Nothingness. This is our NOT A. And what is the superset of both A and NOT A? It is that which includes both "entire realm of conscious experience, with all its possible states" and "the complete absence of anything". This A + NOT A is called "the realm of neither (just) perception nor (just) nonperception", in other words it is the common ground for both consciousness and nothingness. But what is it, really? It is the point of view that comprehends all conscious experience as well as comprehends nothingness. It is the ultimate reference point.
Finally, taking this last object as an A, we need to work harder to find its complement. Could there be anything beyond the ultimate reference point that comprehends both consciousness and nothingness? It seems impossible to imagine. However, if you look very-very carefully you can realize that this ultimate reference point is nothing but a sign of "I", the sign of "subject". The complement of that A is complete cessation of I-making, complete cessation of being a point of view. Which means, it is complete cessation of interpretation, evaluation, discernment, and recognition, complete cessation of semiosis. This NOT A of "neither perception nor non-perception" is traditionally known as "cessation of perception and feeling". And if we combine these A + NOT A, that is if we find the common ground of both, then finally we are done.


Separating meditation into vipāssana or samatha Did the Buddha teach a single meditation that includes jhāna and insight, or do the scriptures have him separate meditation into different techniques? In what Buddhist traditions is it necessary to qualify meditation as vipāssana or samatha?

It is said in the scriptures that depending on the type of person, that person falls into the PATH in four different ways. That happens through insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha). If a person listens to true Dhamma, take part in Dhamma discussions, and practise Samatha and Vipassana properly, dispassionateness with understanding definitely take place in him/her. That’s a given. If not so, then the fault is in that person. It is because of doing something which appears as correct thinking, or erroneously thinking that what one does is the correct thing. That is where the mistake is and not in the Suttas or in the Noble Eight-fold Path.

In the Yuganaddha Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 4.170), it is said that insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha) is developed in Tandem. In this sutta, Ven. Ananda describes the paths to arahantship by which insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha) work hand-in-hand.

There are people in whom the other three ways may work. These three are:

Samatha followed by vipassana - after which the path is born in him/her;

Vipassana followed by samatha - after which the path is born in him/her; &

The mind stays fixed internally and become one-pointed - after which the path is born in him/her.


Does Nibbana lie within The All or not? The Sabba Sutta (SN 35.23) (trans. Thanissaro) states:

  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."

The commentary on this sutta by Thanissaro Bhikkhu states:

  Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is
  to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be
  abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be
  realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be
  done.

  Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to
  limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to
  the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse
  shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and
  feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana
  would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another
  point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest
  of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even
  dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10).

  This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana,
  does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena
  are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174
  states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining
  (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is
  to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify
  the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of
  differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or
  not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond
  the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all
  differentiation is allayed.

On the other hand, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in the book The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Vol II:

  On first consideration, it would seem that the six internal and
  external sense bases should be understood simply as the six sense
  faculties and their objects, with the term āyatana, base, having the
  sense of origin or source. Though many suttas lend support to this
  supposition, the Theravada exegetical tradition, beginning already
  from the Abhidhamma period, understands the six pairs of  bases as a
  complete scheme of  classification capable of  accommodating all the
  factors of existence mentioned in the Nikayas. This conception of the
  six bases probably originated from the Sabba Sutta (35:23), in which
  the Buddha says that the six pairs of bases are "the all" apart from
  which nothing at all exists. To make the six bases capable of
  literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma
  Pitaka defines the mind  base (manāyatana) as  including all classes
  of consciousness, and the mental phenomena  base (dhammāyatana) as
  including the other three mental aggregates, subtle nonsensuous types
  of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbāna (see Vibh 70-73).

So, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that Nibbana is not included in The All. Bhikkhu Bodhi says Nibbana is included in The All. Who is right? And why?

What is also interesting is that Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation would put all types of consciousness within the classification of the six sense bases.

I didn't read the question but Thanissaro says as a footnote:

  To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.

Nibbana is the same. Nibbana is not experienced due to passion & desire for Nibbana. Therefore, passion & desire for Nibbana is also abandoned.

Nibbana is included within The All, i.e., included as a sense object (per Ud 8.1) experienced by the mind sense organ. Thanissaro is wrong translating 'dhamme' as 'ideas'. 'Dhamme' is 'mind objects'. Nibbana, per Ud 8.1, is a mind object or 'ayatana'.


Are absences empty / conceptual constructions, according to all Buddhists? Are absences empty / conceptual constructions, according to all Buddhists? Or is it -- perhaps -- a fact independent of language that there is no elephant in this room? Does anyone know?

A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative
facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the
world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are
devoid of causal powers.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dharmakiirti/

Are absences empty / conceptual constructions
I thought this answer implied that an absence is unconstructed:

So the absence of remorse is conditioned, but not being an existing thing, not having been constructed (sankharaed)-- it was the result of not-doing, is not itself subject to ending and is a small taste of Nibbana.

is it -- perhaps -- a fact independent of language that there is no elephant in this room?
I don't know -- sense-contact with the room gives rise to various perceptions, but none which I would label "elephant".
they are devoid of causal powers
You're saying that as if that's a bad thing. :-)


Dharma Name in tibetan tradition I took refugee and got a dharma name.

Why do I get a dharma name?
How does a Lama usually choose the name?
Do I make use of this name in Dharma related context? (Like for example writing a letter to a Lama or maybe even introduce myself)
Best and thank you for answering.

Like you, when I took refuge, I received a dharma name—and so did the other twenty, or so, people who took refuge at the same time. We all received the same dharma name. I can’t answer your questions 1 and 2, but I do have a first-person account of a teaching related to dharma names in Tibetan Buddhism.
I once attended a weekend course on meditation in New York City given by a well-known Tibetan lama, and at one point, he digressed to tell a story about what are called “Buddhist names” and a time that he tried to teach a student that his desire for such a name was an attachment that was holding him back.
He related that this student had come to him to ask the lama to bestow a Buddhist name on him, pointing out that he had been a good and earnest student for many years. The lama asked the student what his given name was, and the man replied, “John.” The lama said: “Ok, your Buddhist name is John.” The student, as the lama recounted, stood there bewildered. So the lama, after a sufficient pause, explained to the man that his idea of a Buddhist name was an attachment.
I found the story the lama related very useful myself, especially given the predilection of many people to become attached to symbols and traditions, rather than the underlying wisdom that they stand for. I don’t know what the purpose of a Buddhist name is, but I believe it may be more a way to fulfill a ‘Western’ need, than a substantive accomplishment.
It’s different, of course, if you have a more direct relation with your teacher, and he gives you a Buddhist name. In that case, it is a direct recognition of your efforts along your path.


Is there a free (libre or open) version of Visuddhimagga in a digital text or HTML format? I can't use the Path of Purification PDF version of AccessToInsight.org because ...

I want to restructure/retranslate Visuddhimagga into english.
I want to add the reference link in each word of Visuddhimagga to the source in tipitaka.
I want to make the link directly to the expected page of Visuddhimagga and make the highlight to the expected text when I answer or make an article.

... so I want the computerised text version, to publish in HTML format on the internet.

It requires a very long time to do a new translation of it all, because English is not my native language -- and I require a very long time as well to translate pāli even in my native language -- and so I think it would be faster and more effective to restructure from another's version/translation.

Therefore:

Is there a free (i.e. libre or open) version of Visuddhimagga in a computerized text format?
Is there a computerised text version of the Budaedu's Visuddhimagga version?

Or can you tell me about obtaining permission (and the data) from a copyright holder?

I'm principally looking for something like a license which allows:

Distribution and
Creating a derivative work

... and a corresponding text format which can be converted to e.g. HTML.

on archive.org you usually get several file types, for the text alone
https://archive.org/download/Visuddhimagga-ThePathOfPurification


Noting craving for food : Ven. Mahasi Saydaw tradition Practice : Ven.Mahasi Sayadaw

I mostly practice "daily life" meditation and I found this specific question very important ( I have got some illnesses due to this too)

I get intention to eat when I see "sweets" even I'm not hungry . Also eat more if it is a food I really "like" .

So I use mental notes "Craving  , Craving " and "liking , liking " respectively .

Sometimes it passes away . But mostly it moves to " intending , intending " and then "eating" steps.

"Suppressing" works temporally but I know this is not the purpose of meditation.

I always try my best to follow below instructions,

 - When you look at the food, looking, seeing.

 - When you arrange the food, arranging.

 - When you bring the food to the mouth, bringing.

 - When you bend the neck forwards, bending.

 - When the food touches the mouth, touching.

 - When placing the food in the mouth, placing.

 - When the mouth closes, closing.

 - When withdrawing the hand, withdrawing.

 - Should the hand touch the plate, touching.

 - When straightening the neck, straightening.

 - When in the act of chewing, chewing.

 **- When you are aware of the taste, knowing.**

 - When swallowing the food, swallowing.

 - While swallowing the food, should the food be felt touching the sides    of the gullet, touching.

And I found "- When you are aware of the taste, knowing" is extremely momentary compare to other steps (relatively longer when having a beverage like coffee or soft drink) . Sometimes I miss that step completely .

How should I handle "intention"(cetanaha) of eating without "suppressing"?

It is not Mahasi noting, but the core of the Buddha's teaching: Dependent origination(D0) and others.

Depending on contact feeling arises, depending on feeling craving arises, depending on craving, clinging arises, depending on clinging becoming (this is when intention arises and action(kamma) begins.

The first point is contact, don't go near food when it is not meal time!
For your mindfulness is not strong enough yet!

When feeling, craving arises you still have the choice of breaking away from contact with the food (move physically or mentally away)for clinging to arise. All this comes from the very basic practice which the Buddha taught guarding the senses or sense door.

If you have strong attachment for food there is a practice recommended by the Buddha contemplation of the foulness of food, that the end product of eaten food is faeces. See food as also only the four great elements..and other insight practices to actually deal with the craving.


As per buddism, how is it possible to leave behind my obsession with drugs? I don't want to consult any doctor about my obsession. I do not even want to speak about it to my family and friends. I wish to get an answer tailor-made for me about my obsession with getting dead-drunk and practicing self, the meditation.

Please don't take it otherwise but a question to Buddha & his disciples. I am so fed up of the dependence of me on drugs. It happens, believe me (i have seen many others, too). Please provide/mark/show/point wordings of Buddha if he has said something near to this. If any modern Buddha is reading this than please share actual revert of you with example. I am standing at a dead-end (may be here's some way ahead but my thought isn't going beyond my confusion.

My philosophy about buddhism says that it's a way of living that is worth living. I am practicing meditation in routine in early morning timings. The rest of the day i depend on drugs to stay connected to the will of mine to become a Buddha, it appears like a bridge that i can walk and i walk across it, everytime.

How is it possible to leave behind my obsession with drugs? I want to quit my drugs. I wish to be free.

I would like to answer this not from the perspective of a knowledgeable Buddhist, but from the perspective of someone who has been clean and sober for over 9 years. Disclaimer: I am a recent Buddhist and know very little about the mechanics or the theory of it all. I simply practice daily meditation with the intent of awakening someday in this lifetime (or the next, or the next...). I also do not claim that what worked for me will work for you. That said, I know how to get and stay sober from a practical perspective and feel obligated to share that path when someone asks.

The only thing that worked for me was to get involved with a 12 step program. Built into all 12 step programs is the concept of "prayer and meditation." I had to turn over my life to a higher power who I didn't really think existed and in whom I had no confidence. And I had to take action by working through the steps. But I was amazed early on that by doing so, I was relieved of my compulsion to use. By taking small, simple daily steps every day and following good, orderly direction, I have managed to stay away from any mind altering substance for quite a while now, and I hardly ever think about it at all. I cannot even begin to describe to you how much better my life is since I made that small decision back in 2006.

A key detail about 12 step programs is that you don't have to believe in any one particular conception of God (or higher power, or whatever you think to call him/her/it). All you have to do is believe that there is a power greater than yourself and that you ain't it. This means that the programs welcome Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics...anything you like. And this is what made it acceptable to me. If it were strictly a Christian thing I would have been screwed.

I have thought a great deal about whether or not it is possible to recover from addiction through Buddhism...I assume by reaching a certain level of non-attachment. But for me, I know that 12 step programs work so I am not about to go screwing around with a proven formula. The stakes for me are just too high (haha).

OTOH I am VERY interested to see if my compulsion for foods like cookies, candy, ice cream, bread and meat will be abated through continued practice of meditation. I'm hopeful, but in this case it isn't likely to kill me nearly so fast as going back to active addiction is.

I don't know what your particular substance of choice is (or should I say, substance-of-non-choice...once I start to use, all choice is out of my hands and I am engulfed). But there is undoubtedly a group in your area that you can connect with. And even if you live out in the middle of nowhere, in today's world there are hundreds of meetings and support groups available online for just this purpose. Use Google to find that is appropriate to you.

I wish you the best. You are brave for coming on here and baring your sole. Keep reaching out and exploring and you will find the answer that is right for you.


Is it possible to achieve universal detachment? How? I have, for some time, tried to detach from things in my life so I can find true happiness without needing anything. Although I have had some success detaching from some things, like the need to be right or material stuff, I still am too attached to some other things, like girls and people that should not be a source of attachment.

I can tell myself I don't need something(and I really don't) but something deep inside still makes it come up on my mind every so often, and mostly together with fear of loss, desire and imaginary situations of both good and bad outcomes.

So my question is about detachment.. how can I practice to be more and more in control of what I feel attachment for, regardless of what it is? It seems that it controls me, and makes me miserable sometimes.. how can I let things go?

I have, for some time, tried to detach from things in my life so I can find true happiness without needing anything. Although I have had some success detaching from some things, like the need to be right or material stuff, I still am too attached to some other things, like girls and people that should not be a source of attachment.

Any external object brings pleasurable, painful and neutral sensations1. It is these sensations you have to let go there by letting go of the external object thereby letting go of the roots which create this attachments2. Say you are still reacting to external sensations by you have let gone of external objects your mind still can crave for them.

  I can tell myself I don't need something(and I really don't) but something deep inside still makes it come up on my mind every so often, and mostly together with fear of loss, desire and imaginary situations of both good and bad outcomes.

You are doing this at an intellectual or conceptual level. There are other religions which preached non attachment but inevitably they got attached to the view orr concept of non attachment which would have been more subtle and difficult to eradicate than external attachments.

The way to go is the be able to objectively observe the arising and passing of any sensation from contact. May it be you stay in one posture and want to shuffle around (pain in the old, pleasure in the new posture). May it be sensation just arising. Also thinking caused sensations.

  So my question is about detachment.. how can I practice to be more and more in control of what I feel attachment for, regardless of what it is? It seems that it controls me, and makes me miserable sometimes.. how can I let things go?

The method to do this is as described in Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 and Pahāna Sutta, whereby cut the source of attachments, through being aware of arising and passing of the sensations in what is felt.

1

    Then there remains only consciousness,
    purified and cleansed.
    What does one know [cognize]
    with that consciousness?
    One knows, "It is pleasant."
    One knows. "It is painful."
    One knows, "It is neutral."
    On account of a contact that is felt as pleasant, there arises a pleasant feeling.
    When one feels a pleasant feeling one understands, "I feel a pleasant feeling"
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as pleasant,
    the pleasant feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."On account of a contact that is felt as painful, there arises a painful feeling.
    When one feels a painful feeling one understands, "I feel a painful feeling."
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as painful, the painful
    feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."
    On account of a contact that is felt as neither pain nor pleasure, there arises a neutral feeling.
    When one feels a neutral feeling one understands, "I feel a neutral feeling."
    One understands, "With the cessation of that same contact that is felt as neither painful nor
    pleasant, the neutral feeling conditioned by that contact ceases, it is stilled."

Source: Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

2

See: Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 and Pahāna Sutta


Lotus position right knee floating? This isn't a Buddhist question per se, maybe better placed in a yoga or Taoist thread but anywhere here I go:

When I am in the lotus position (classic right leg over left leg as instructed in all Buddhist guides) for the past 10 years, my right knee has always floated a quarter of an inch off the ground, even if I try to adjust my position by sitting offset on my mat.

Anatomically speaking, I don't see how anyone can have both of their knees on the floor..

Although I feel energetically blissful whilst maintaining the posture, the posture feels uneven, imbalances my torso, and I feel uneven pressure on my right thigh and must end my lotus posture in about 10 to 20 minutes due to the pressure on my right thigh...
Sometimes I switch reverse full lotus and that makes me feel more balanced.

Am I doing something wrong or is this something all advanced lotus meditators must deal with?
How can I remedy, deal with, compensate (et cetera) my lotus posture?

Also, this is a separate question but are there any passages in the canon that speak about posture?

Any suggestions in any realm, physical, environmental, or even mental are welcome.

The position is something that your should choose to help in meditation, i.e., being able to be in the position for a long time without issue. Dwelling too much on what is the right posture is leaving the main task at hand and concentrating on auxiliary tasks. The danger in this is that this can lead to trying rights or ritual like practices which has been case in some schools of Buddhism and in India.

Also any your posture can be taken into practice of the 4 frames of mindfulness. The posture it self (sense through the outline of sensations) and the pain that results from being in it for a long time.


Directing attention on body parts In daily life I'm trying to sense my body by directing  my attention to a body part ( e.g lips , throat ) while still engaging with activities . I know when I feel a sensation on that body part my attention is there or that body part is now included in my attention . Emotions and thoughts are so fast and most of the time I get Identified with them . But at rare moments where I manage to keep my attention on part of my body, help me to view my emotion or thought without totally identifying .

I really want to practice , so would like to start from most basic , Mindfulness of body .

I tried mindfulness of breathing . I had following experience ,
When I pay attention to breath , its natural rhythm changes . Feel like I forcefully control the breath .

Is there any teaching in Buddhism , that could use every day life to keep the attention on body? Instead  of sitting meditation .

You should keep your attention in the 4 foundation of mindfulness from the time you wake to the point you sleep.

Two key elements for a beginner is:

you have to make your body fully sensitive
you have to calm the fabrications

The key ingredient in mindfulness is what ever you sense you should not react with craving and clinging noting the sensation is impermanent.

To make your body sensitive

You should make your body sensitive since all mind matter creates sensations and any changes in the aggregates is sensed through the sensation it creates. So in doing any of the 4 foundation of mindfulness sensation play a key role.
Scan your body from part to part systematically without missing any part until you feel some sensation in the part you examine. Start with small areas and linger on the part during the start but keep increasing the pace you move and the size of the area seeing if you are fully sensitive to any sensation in the whole area when doing so, i.e., when you sense something in the whole area move on to another area systemically - the time to sense any sensation will become shorter and shorter until it becomes instant and through out the body.

Calm the fabrications

You have to calm all fabrication before realising the final goal.

Passive

You keep looking at sensation the fabrications will disappear. First the gross sensations and then pleasant sensation leaving you with neutral sensations. After some practice, mere looking at any fabrication
it disappears.

Active

Calm the breath by looking at the process its speed and length, make the efforts to anchor the mind, if there are body sensations look at it until it disappears (it happens in a short duration) until you have pleasant or neutral sensations

Overcoming some of the hindrances

As I see it, there seams to be some hindrances to your daily practice. They might be the following:

Agitation

If your mind seams very active and restless then more from part to part fast scanning large areas but progressively staying longer and making the area a bit smaller. Note the speed and length or breathing also.

Mental Lethargy

Increase space of scanning to arouse energy. This is also a mental fabrication do generally you should do this in a medium pace (not too long or too short in any part). Do some intentional breathing increasing the length and speed marginally.


Is it true that Lord Buddha was born in Sri Lanka? I've heard there's a rumor saying that lord Buddha was born in Sri Lanka and ancient "Dambadiwa" is not India but Sri Lanka. There's a "sal" tree in Sri Lanka which matches to the exact tree that we believe which was there in the birth of baby prince  "siddhartha" . I dunno whether they're true or not I just wanna know whether there's a truth behind it, whether what we believe so far is just a lie?! (Ps not Buddhism but the life story of Lord Buddha)

Lumbini, Nepal has been recognized as the birthplace of Siddhartha Gautama since a stone pillar was placed at the site by the emperor Ashoka circa 245 BCE.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumbini


What does MN 18's "delineate a delineation" phrase mean? What is the meaning of the phrase "delineate a delineation" from MN 18?

What is its message?

Is it connecting papanca (objectification-classification or reification) with dependent origination?

  "Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is
  eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. (Note1) When there is a delineation of contact, it
  is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of
  perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that
  one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions
  & categories of objectification.

  "When there is the ear...

  "When there is the nose...

  "When there is the tongue...

  "When there is the body...

  "When there is the intellect, when there are ideas, when there is
  intellect-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is
  possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there
  is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a
  delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception,
  it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When
  there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will
  delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions &
  categories of objectification.

  "Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no
  eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is
  impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of
  perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible
  that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the
  perceptions & categories of objectification.

  "When there is no ear...

  "When there is no nose...

  "When there is no tongue...

  "When there is no body...

  "When there is no intellect, when there are no ideas, when there is no
  intellect-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a
  delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is
  impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When
  there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will
  delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of
  perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of
  thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible
  that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the
  perceptions & categories of objectification.

  Note1 (Thanissaro commentary):
  The artificiality of this phrase — "delineate a delineation" — seems
  intentional. It underlines the artifice implicit in the process by
  which the mind, in singling out events, turns them into discrete
  things.

Ven. Bodhi's MN 18 version:

  "When there is the eye, a form, and eye-consciousness, it is possible to point out the manifestation of contact.233 When there is the manifestation of contact, it is possible to point out the manifestation of feeling. When there is the manifestation of feeling, it is possible to point out the manifestation of perception..."

and footnote:

  The Pali idiom phassapaññattiª paññ›pessati, in which the verb takes an object derived from itself, is difficult. Ñm originally rendered “that one will describe a description of contact.” “To point out a manifestation” is less literal, but it should do justice to the meaning without jeopardising intelligibility. MA says that this passage is intended to show the entire round of existence (va˛˛a) by way of the twelve sense bases; §18 shows the cessation of the round (viva˛˛a) by the negation of the twelve sense bases.

Prof. Piya Tan shares similar explanation:

  So vat‟āvuso cakkhusmi sati rpe sati cakkhu,viāe sati phassa,paatti paāpessatîti hāna. Comy says that this passage shows the entire round of existence (vaā) by way of the 12 sense-bases. The next section [§18] shows the cessation of the round (vivaa) by the negation of the 12 sense-bases. (MA 2:78). The structure paatti paāpessati (lit “he describes the description,” “he defines the definition”) is idiomatic, meaning simply “he describes; he defines.” Paraphrased, this sentence may also read “It is possible to define contact as the meeting of sense-organ, sense-object and sense-consciousness.”


Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system? Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system?

  Buddhism: An Atheistic and Anti-Caste Religion?
  Modern Ideology and Historical Reality of the Ancient Indian Bauddha Dharma
  by Edmun Weber

  Hans Wolfgang Schumann has statistically proven that almost all of Buddha's disciples were high caste people and that the Brahmans comprised the majority of the Sangha.

  Buddha tells about the earlier Buddhas in the so-called Mahapadana Suttanta- Great Sermon on the Legends.21 He refers to their membership of (high) caste as the first characteristic of their full enlightenment. According to this report the Buddhas belonged all to the high castes, to the Kshatriyas and Brahmans. Buddha says proudly about himself "And now I, the venerable and fully enlightened one, was born a warrior and have come from the caste of the warriors, O monks.

  21  Buddha - Die Lehre des Erhabenen. Aus dem Pali Kanon ausgewählt und übertragen von Paul Dahlke, München 1960.

Also:

  The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the Brahmanas and of the warriors (Kshatriya).

So my question is, did the Buddha endorse or uphold the Vedic caste system?

Did Gautama Buddha endorse the caste system?

Of course not. There's a whole chapter in the Dhammapada where it shows what qualifies one as a brahman. None of them use high birth or high caste as the criteria:

  Whoever does no wrong
      in body,
      speech,
      heart,
  is restrained in these three ways:
      he's what I call
      a brahman. ~~ Dhp 391 ~~

About the Buddha being born in the high caste, we shouldn't blame Him for that. If any, the blame should be on the way folks treated one another in ancient India. It's simply a skillful mean to be born in whatever condition that is most conducive and effective in propagating the Dhamma. The Buddha was a Kshatriya and He already got all kinds of attacks from all kinds of religious sects. Now imagine being born an Untouchable in ancient India and trying to propagate a whole brand new religion, well, good luck with that!


Is Buddhism life negating? Thinking of Buddhism a lot lately and I really love the concepts in it, however I just can't seem to find Buddhism to have a potential to become an universal philosophy as it seems very life negating.

Let me explain my self. In Buddhism we are constantly reminded how all problems are an illusion and should be ignored. But are they really? Buddhism seems like a perfect ideology for rich white people or other population isolated from real problematics hitting this world. Buddhism not only says: "You have so nothing to care about, you really should just enjoy yourself" it also gives you a relief that other people are unfortunate since it reminds you all problems are only illusion of ego.

That all problems are only illusion of ego is not true however, since there are serious problems like hunger, wars etc. troubling this earth. Buddhist ideology doesn't have any clear directions on how to resolve these problems but only works as an outside observer.

What I am asking is, isn't Buddhism life negating? Is Buddhistic ideology more inclined to ignores / detach from problems rather than to try to present exact solutions?

Thank you for your answers and critics of my views.

Buddhism(as well as other contemplative religions & methods) is life affirming. Most people are asleep to what reality actually is. They are too busy worrying about and planning for a future that never exists and judging things based on a past that never exists. They are hardly ever in the present moment were reality actually is. This is why we are so stressed all the time.

Being asleep to reality like this is the very definition of "life negating" and it causes us such unnecessary suffering.

In Buddhism we are constantly reminded
how all problems are an illusion and should be ignored.

Who told you that? Nothing should be ignored, that is what we already do.  Problems are not illusions and at the same time problems are illusions. It depends on the level of reality we are working with. The practices of Buddhism are meant to make the individual happy and capable of coping better with lifes problems.

The Buddhist way is to be selfish in a good way. If someone has a problem the appropriate thing to do is to help that someone and this good action(karma) helps the practicing Buddhist. You see, the reason Buddhists help people is to help themselves even after the ego is transcended.