Different Reasons of Dhamma's Decline In many suttas the Buddha stated different reasons for the decline of the Dhamma. Why and how it happens. The different causes. Can I have the references of those suttas?

-Metta

Ani Sutta - have desire to learn the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha and not anyone else
Anagata bhaya Sutta - teaching not practiced in earnest and procrastination
Sugata Vinaya Sutta - monks become unapproachable and have wrong understanding
Ovada Suttas - boastful about preaching ability, lack of faith, moral shame and fear, elders not setting a good example
Kimbila Suttas - lack of mutual respect towards the teacher, Dhamma, Sangha, practice, each other, heedfulness and hospitality
Saddhamma Patirupaka Sutta - counterfeit Dhamma emerging and unspiritual people lead to decline
Appamada Sutta - heedlessness,  indolence, excessive desires, unwise attention, lack of full awareness, evil friends, neglect of the wholesome lead to decline. Opposite preserves the Dhamma.
Thiti Sutta / Parihana Sutta - Satipatthana not being practiced. Practicing preserves the Dhamma.
Mahā,parinibbāna Sutta - being anxious to learn and practice Dhamma will result in the highest attainments [and preserve it]
Vinaya Cullavagga - admission of women
etc.

More on this see the references of: The Dharma-ending Age by Piya Tan

In addition the commentarial literature has the 5 antaradhāna which is mentioned in another answer. They are:

adhigama-antaradhāna - attainments disappear, because the practice is polluted with miss conception.
paṭipatti-antaradhāna - because attainments are disappear, the practice is neglected, hence it disappear
pariyatti-antaradhāna - because practice are disappear, the learning is neglected, hence it disappear
liṅga-antaradhāna - because learning are disappear, the monasticism (Sangha) is neglected, hence it disappear
dhātu-antaradhāna - because reverence to wards the Dhātu disappear, the Dhātu is neglected, hence it disappear
So ends the Sasana and beings the dark ages


can any one please explain me the significance of Talipot fan in Buddhism? Namo Buddhaya,
can any one please explain me the significance of Talipot fan in Buddhism ? is it part of any traditional process  ? I have seen many photos in internet as Bhikkus holding the Talipot HandFan, some covers their face while chanting. Is there any particular significance ?
thank you
Reference Images -

In the book "Buddhist Ceremonies and Rituals of Sri Lanka" by A.G.S. Kariyawasam, there is a sub-chapter on the Pirit Ceremony which states:

Pirit (or paritta) is a collective term designating a set of
protective chants or runes sanctioned by the Buddha for the use of
both lay-men and bhikkhus. Pirit-chanting is a very popular ceremony
among the Buddhists of Sri Lanka. As the term itself implies it means
a safety rune (paritta = protection), the ceremonial recital of which
is regarded as capable of warding off all forms of evil and danger
(vipatti), including disease, the evil influence of the planets, evil
spirits, etc. These may be real dangers to the safety of persons and
property as well as superstitiously believed-in calamities. In
addition to this curative and positive aspect, pirit is also chanted
for the attainment of general success (sampatti,siddhi).  In the
domestic  and  social  life  of  the  Sri  Lankan Buddhist no
important function can be considered complete without this ceremony.
However, the ceremony may vary from the simple to the highly
elaborate, depending on the occasion and the status of the sponsor.

Going deeper, it states:

Until the monks arrive for the pirit chanting, the devadutaya is
kept  confined  and  guarded.  Once  the  monks  arrive  and  take
their seats inside the pavilion, a dialogue takes place between the
devadutaya and a monk, the purpose of which is to reveal to the assembled gathering that the task of the messenger, which was
to invite the gods to partake of the merits, has been done and that
all the gods have arrived. The devadutaya makes this statement
standing and guarded by the swordsmen, at the entrance (dorakada) to
the  chanting  pavilion  within  which  the  monks  have  taken  their
seats. It is this statement of the devadutaya which thus comes to be
called the dorakada-asna, meaning “the message read at the
thresh-old.” The gist of this statement, written in the same kind of
stilted language as the vihara-asna referred to earlier, is that all
the gods invited have arrived for the pirit ceremony so that they
may dispel all misfortune and bring about prosperity to all.
After the dorakada-asna,  another  monk,  standing  within  the
pavilion, reads out a similar text called the anusasana-asna,
wherein all the gods assembled are requested to rejoice in the merits
of the entire ceremony. This monk holds in his hand a round-handled
fan made of the talipot leaf, elaborately decorated, a symbol of
authority and  high  ecclesiastical  position.  These  three
ritualistic  texts  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  account  (i.e.,
vihara-asna, dorakada-asna, and  the anusasana-asna)  were  all  composed  during  the  Kandyan period (18th century) when ceremonies
and rituals, especially those connected  with  the  gods,  became
more  popular  than  during  the earlier periods.

So apparently, the use of the talipot fan (as a ceremonial fan) originated in Sri Lanka in the Kandyan period (18th century) and its use is as a symbol of authority and to show the high ecclesiastical position of certain monks. From there, it's not surprising that it spread to other Theravada countries.
I speculate that to say that the purpose of the talipot fan (as a ceremonial fan) is for monks to hide their faces for anonymity and humility, is perhaps a modern spin to shift the purpose of the talipot fan from being a symbol of authority to being a symbol of anonymity and humility.
Further note: I think the talipot fan originally was used just as a fan to produce breeze or to shade from sunlight, but at some point, it was given a ceremonial function and became elaborately decorated.


Discernment or blind belief? Recently I was chatting with some Christian friends and we were recollecting some of Jesus' teachings - I, particularly, specified a couple aspects of the New Testament that were downright absurd; one is resurrection: one group of Christians believe Christ had actually raised from the dead, and the other that it was a metaphor. The first view is obviously non-scientific, and one might actually argue it makes no sense.
I have been reading the nikayas myself and although I have found them to be beautiful, I cannot avoid detecting leftovers of Hinduism and absurdity in Buddha's sayings - if taken literally. I have already asked a question about the absurdity of interpreting rebirth literally, and was satisfied with Buddhadasa Bikkhu's view that it should be interpreted metaphorically - even though Buddha explicitly said that rebirth also happened after death (references can be found in the linked question). I now have read more suttas and am very dislocated with regards to many passages. I list some of them below.
Buddha affirms ugliness is a direct consequence of past lives (MN 135):

There is the case, where a woman or man is ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, he/she grows offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; shows annoyance, aversion, & bitterness. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is ugly wherever reborn.

Buddha affirms conception is only possible with the presence of a lesser metaphysical creature to be reborn in the foetus (MN 93):

"'Do you know how there is the descent of an embryo?'
"'Yes, master, we know how there is the descent of an embryo. There is the case where the mother & father have come together, the mother is fertile, and a gandhabba [the being about to be reborn] is standing present. The coming together of these three is the descent of the embryo.'

Buddha affirms that Dhamma practise will turn a person into, let's face it, some sort of superman (DN 2):

With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.

If taken metaphorically, the last quote can make sense. The first and second are fruits of a mind that was born in the VI BCE, before the discovery of genetics and physiology.
A previous question has answers that say that to be a Buddhism a person has to have "unwavering faith in Buddha". Does that mean that to become a Buddhist I must give hand of science and start believing nonsense like this? Is it part of being a Buddhist believing everything the Buddha said is true, or must I be discerning and throw away things that are now know to be false?
I have already understood that the role of Buddha is taken to be showing mankind the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. These do make sense for me, completely... But I'm stuck with those esoteric aspects of Buddhism.

Sometimes, the Buddha puts in check any blind faith his listeners might have about himself or the dhamma itself. A notorious sutta here is the  Cūlahatthipadopama Sutta, where he explains that the reasons for Pilotika to believe the enlightenment of the Buddha are insufficient to have him to state it to surely. In this case, he uses the simile of the elephant's footprint:

  “Brahmin, suppose an elephant woodsman were to enter an elephant wood and were to see in the elephant wood a big elephant’s footprint, long in extent and broad across. A wise elephant woodsman would not yet come to the conclusion: ‘Indeed, this is a big bull elephant.’ Why is that? In an elephant wood there are small she-elephants that leave a big footprint, and this might be one of their footprints. [...]

On other occasion, the Buddha approaches people who are not his followers and starts his speech telling them to be careful about the reasons one believes in something. Such is the famous Kesaputtiya sutta also known as the Kālāma Sutta:

  The Kesaputtiya Sutta is a classic discourse on Buddhist epistemology, that is, theory of knowledge, or an investigation into what constitutes valid knowledge and what does not. [...] A remarkable feature of the Kesaputtiya Sutta is the comprehensive manner in which it covers the range
  of human knowledge and experience, that is, the cognitive, the conative, the affective and the spiritual. The cognitive aspect of the Sutta is covered by the Buddha’s reassuring that the Kālāmas have the right to doubt what is doubtworthy and exhorting them on the 10 doubtworthy points.

  -- Piya Tan

Another sutta that deals with the acceptance of views and how this acceptance affects one's life is the Apaṇṇaka sutta, which Thanissaro Bhikkhu has translated as "a safe bet".

  One of these means [the Buddha resorted to] was the pragmatic argument, which differs from empirical arguments as follows. An empirical argument presents facts that logically imply that A must be true or false. A pragmatic argument focuses not on the facts related to A, but on the behavior that can be expected from a person who believes or rejects A.

  The Buddha's main pragmatic argument is that if one accepted his teachings, one would be likely to pay careful attention to one's actions, so as to do no harm. This in and of itself is a worthy activity regardless of whether the rest of the path was true.

  When applying this argument to the issue of rebirth and karmic results, the Buddha sometimes coupled it with a second pragmatic argument that resembles Pascal's wager: If one practices the Dhamma, one leads a blameless life in the here-and-now. Even if the afterlife and karmic results do not exist, one has not lost the wager, for the blamelessness of one's life is a reward in and of itself. If there is an afterlife with karmic results, then one has won a double reward: the blamelessness of one's life here and now, and the good rewards of one's actions in the afterlife. These two pragmatic arguments form the central message of this sutta.

  -- Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Finally, the Brahmajāla Sutta is an important discourse that exposes what the Buddha calls wrong views. It is a great source to understand indirectly what the Buddha approves to be knowledge -- by understanding how he exposes faulty inquiries of many different kinds.

So, I hope suttas like these clarify that Buddhism does not demand one's blind faith on any matter. Not only it doesn't demand blind faith, but assertions about the Dhamma that have not being actually made known by those who proclaim it are subject to criticism (if the simile of the elephant's footprint is at all relevant).

Of course, all buddhists aiming at the goals of Buddhism have to have some faith in things beyond their current reach. That the goal (end of suffering) is reachable, and that the path presented truly moves one toward that goal  are two obvious instances.

But this faith is the very same faith one has on math class, or say, rock climbing class: faith that the teacher knows his trade, that it's possible for you to learn it, and that by the end of the course, you will know it. There's then a gradual "substitution" of that faith by knowledge; as you learn, the more confident in the path and teacher you become. This is daily activity, we all do it, and in Buddhism is not different.

Now, consider the situation were the student really, really needs the class and ponders over the options carefully. Then, the "unwavering faith in the Buddha" is just this: without fully trusting the teacher, one comes to believe one won't learn the class as well as one expects, or worst, one may think they are not safe under the care of the teacher. So right there the motivation ends and one abandons that class. That is why this strong confidence is required for those truly dedicated to realize the attainments declared by the Buddha, otherwise they will doubt the very possibility of it and abandon the training.

Strong as it may be, however, the faith is provisional. It's mere confidence. And if the suttas above are at all important, they point to the very same attitude that mature scientists show: that we should never assert things we don't know as true if we have not come to know them as true -- we can always say "according to the suttas", but that's different than saying "this is true".

On the other hand, no one interested in finding truth should discard nonsense because it's perceived as nonsense. For one example, for centuries the idea that the earth moves around the sun, and that the earth is actually spinning was nonsense (to our senses, it still is: I don't feel I'm spinning at all, and I can clearly see the sun moving around).

No one should also believe in science for so many reasons. One of them, is that science is supposed to be known, not believed in (that was the whole point of the scientific revolution centuries ago) -- this is quite aligned with Buddhism.

But the point is that rebirth has never been under sufficient scientific scrutiny, enough to yield any conclusive information. The same can be said about the brain. That doesn't make the brain "non-scientific".

So, throw away what is false, yes. But one better be cautious so one is not mistaken about it -- since we usually are not cautious and we usually are mistaken.

Last but not least, there are other interpretations of the quotes you provided, and many people believe rebirth in the suttas to be either a mis-interpretation or that it's presence in the texts are due to other reasons. Secular Buddhism, for example, is one branch that takes the so-called supernatural elements with grain of salt.

But many monks are actually agnostic about rebirth or put this subject aside. Ajahn Brahmali from the forest tradition thinks that this is appropriate middle way on this matter.


Satipatthana bhavana versus Vipassana bhavana Is there a difference in the practice of satipatthana bhavana and vipassana bhavana? Or are both terms synonyms?

Vipassanā is the same as satipatthana bhavana. Essentially the practice is from Satipatthana Sutta and/or Anapanasati Sutta or similar Suttas are called Vipassanā as they help to see clearly the true nature of phenomena.


Should a Buddhist feel offended by misuses of Buddha's name or image? I have just found out that there is a person producing and selling a beer in my town called "Buddha Beer" with Hotei's picture on it.

Initially I found it offensive and disrespectful (marketing Buddha's name, associating it with alcohol and putting the image in the trash just like every bottle when it's empty). Well, I'm sure the person meant no disrespect, I know the producer, but I still didn't like it.

Allow me to give more context: We live in a country with almost no Buddhism in it. People have no idea regarding what Buddhism is all about and commonly confuse the Buddha with Hotei.

Even though the person meant no disrespect I found it disrespectful and so this question came to my mind: If I felt offended by it, is this a problem that I have with attachment? So, where is the real problem, in the beer or in myself? Or maybe in both?

I thought about talking to the person and explaining why this is a bad idea but I'm sure it will be completely useless (let's face it, no one will change a brand because of that as the commercial impact is irrelevant here and people dont believe in Kamma) and I will also look like "that boring guy" that complains because of religion. I guess I will do nothing unless someone asks for my opinion.

That said, how a Buddhist should behave in such a situation. Shoud we feel offended? Should we discuss it with someone not Buddhist?

What would be your plan of action, if you saw someone running a brothel with your mother's name and picture on it? Feeling angry or not depends on if you have eradicated anger. You can do Metta meditation to deal with your anger. But that doesn't mean it is wrong to take action against such establishments, even if they mean no disrespect. There's nothing wrong in peacefully protesting, trying to make them come to their senses or using any legal options available. You don't actually have to get angry while doing it. You are doing them a favor since they are committing bad Karma due to their ignorance. Buddhists don't always have to accept people's ignorant acts meekly in the name of Metta.

Once there was this cobra practicing loving-kindness in the forest saying: May all beings be well, may all beings be happy, may all beings be peaceful. And an old woman who was collecting firewood saw this cobra and mistook it for a rope. So she used it to tie up the firewood that she was carrying. As the cobra was doing loving-kindness practice, it allowed this woman to do anything. So after the woman carried the bundle of firewood home, the cobra escaped, but with a lot of wounds and physical pain. So he went to meet his teacher who was the hermit(Bodhisatta) staying in that forest. The cobra said: See what happened to me! I was practicing loving-kindness, and now see the wounds and all the pain that I'm experiencing in my body! The teacher very calmly said: You have not been practicing loving-kindness. You have been practicing idiotic compassion, because you should have shown that you were a cobra. You should at least have hissed! So with regards to people like the person you've described, you have to learn to hiss, and in doing so you'll also be doing a service for that person.

So if you have any crowd pull, go hiss without biting. :) Or use social media to protest and let them know about it. If business owners get the idea that whenever they do something like that, there will be negative consequences, they will be reluctant to do it in the future as it is bad for business.


Question about the Samādhirāja-sūtra I have a similar question about the Samādhirāja-sūtra.

Is the Samādhirāja-sūtra, a mahAyAnA sUtra or does it occur in the nikAyas or somewhere else? What is the historically accepted date of this sUtra? Does this sUtra precede nAgArjuna or is it a post-nAgArjuna sUtra?

It's a Mahayana sutra. Info. about the Samadhiraja sutra from the wiki page here. Full infos. and whole sutra is available here.


Can you do labeling and tai chi? Im doing mahasi style meditaiton with labeling  - is it possible to do thai-chi and this type of noting ?    should it be just  "moving moving moving"  non stop ?

also to save me some time  - when people usually do thai chi what are they thinking about exactly (if they are good practitioners of thai chi)  ?  cause i tried to find out online and couldnt

why i practice thai chi ?   manly as a positive way to pass the time and  but also i really want to get some cool out of the norm experiences to help strength my believe in not "normal" scientific stuff

i wanted to gain cool out of the ordinary experiences in meditation to increase my faith and by that my will to meditate more  -   but i hope maybe thai chi  can  do it more easily - cause  my vipassana practice is just boring no cool nimmitias  just good old worries doubts and expectations etc

Im doing mahasi style meditaiton with labeling - is it possible to do thai-chi and this type of noting ? should it be just "moving moving moving" non stop ?

Of course. Noting can (and should) be applied to all mental and bodily activity.

But do not use "moving, moving" for all movements. As in walking meditation we use both lifting, moving, placing, touching. You can use similar noting in Tai Chi, e.g. moving, turning, lifting, pushing, pulling etc.

Keep it simple.

Btw - Tai Chi is great. I teach it to my coworkers 2 times a week followed by sitting meditation. I too note movements when doing it.


Recalling Neither Perception nor Non-Perception for Nimittas In the state known as neither perception nor non-perception, it seems impossible to cognize the relative particulates that allow it to occur as an event, but one can emerge mindfully from its attainment, as is stated in the Anupada Sutta. Hence, there is a beginning and an end to the event. In this way, I can only define it by what is absent rather than what is present - similar to exiting a noisy nightclub and resting in the dead of the night, then entering the nightclub again, taking with me only the memory of the still night.

Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment.
Anupada Sutta

This leaves a trace-memory of the event that can be recalled, but even that itself is tenuous for two reasons, 1) by its very definition (neither perception nor non-perception) - from beginning to end - its particulates are so subtle, so indistinct that one can not confidently declare "I am emerged in neither perception nor non-percpetion". 2. The recall itself poses some accuracy issues, that since it is now in the memory, it is open to all sorts of interpretations including how I have chosen to define it here.
In the instance of neither perception nor non-perception, it seems the ability to discern and cognize are nimittas that are absent. Please correct me?
Is it sufficient for the mind to have experienced the presence of neither perception nor non-perception or must it be investigated further?

I'd argue that its largely irrelevant.  The content of meditative experience really has no bearing on ones practice.  The insight that is attained when one emerges from those states is what matters.  The only value of truly deep meditative absorption is that it allows for equally deep vipassana.


How can Buddhism help with bad habits? I have been suffering with addictions. Addictions are complex. Both that I suffer from are in abatement. I am in recovery as they say. I am getting medical support.
Besides the addiction I have bad habits in relation to being abusive to people when angry. Verbally abusive. Textually abusive.

I realise the self is false but it's very hard to shake it off. Before I know it I'm operating from an ego state. Any advice?

My first Buddhist teacher was extremely helpful with this. Basically, he explained that all these problems come from attachments. "Ego" is just a name for a tangle of attachments. Someone says something that goes against your attachment and you get triggered. You think "this is right, this is the way its supposed to be - and what they did is wrong". That "supposed to be" is the attachment. They are like mind worms, you should get rid of them. If you start now, in five years you will have none. Just don't get angry at people who still have attachments, because that's an attachment too. Makes sense?

It's called "attachment" because you think this is the only right way it should be - but in reality it's not the only way. Nothing in the world has to be one way. Letting go of attachments involves catching yourself getting triggered, identifying the attachment, and then expanding your perspective to include other possibilities. This process goes deep, very very deep - until you completely lose all shape, any ground under your feet - so it's is not for the faint of heart. Following this path is like a robot disassembling itself, piece by piece - until there is nothing left. That "nothing" is freedom.

Attachments are the real issue. Addictions are secondary, just a side effect.

What's kinda interesting and cool is that reality you find yourself in is always the reverse projection of your hidden attachments. It's really amazing. The circumstances and the overall mood of the situations that you get in, is a reflection of your attachments. So the more you hold on to them, the worse it gets - and as you let go, a different reality is assembled around you.


Sleep and meditation I'm a spiritual and somewhat crazy person, and have been taught both zen and samatha meditation, though I rarely practice either.

I just underwent a series of short micros sleeps, which were accompanied by musical hypnagogic hallucinations. I've had both experiences many times, but never together - and it was the closest thing I can imagine to the "sound of one hand clapping".

I felt sleepier, stopped fighting, right after I closed my eyes would hear someone singing, and then immediately seem to wake up again. This process repeated itself some four or five times, until I stopped being amazed by it (see the first paragraph) and just fell asleep (- until now).

Do any sleep experiences, like hypnagogic hallucinations, micro sleeps, or even sleep paralysis, or anything else, have anything to do with meditation? It strikes me as one way that science might come to terms with the states associated with meditation.

I have.  The hypnagogic/hypnaponic state is known for the interesting and even intense phenomena that can arise.  Here's my most vivid experience:

  I woke up one morning, paralyzed.  This happened before (sleep paralysis), and I knew it was a symptom of the hypnagogic/hypnaponic state. Well, I had recently read a book on out-of-body experiences (OBE), and it stated that I should simply will myself to lift out of my body.  So I did.

  I then felt a buzzing sensation up and down my body that grew to a
  fevered pitch.  It was INTENSE.  Then I felt myself lifting out of my
  body, with a static-electricity-like sensation at every point I exited. Then I
  saw the ceiling coming closer through CLOSED EYELIDS.

  I was terrified, so terrified I wanted back in.  I ended up
  snapping back in, and literally shivered myself to sleep.

  Then I woke up again, and heard strange music.  I never heard this song
  before, but the voice sounded like Sinead O'Connor's.  I then felt the
  buzzing again, like it was a spontaneous OBE.  I fought it hard, and
  it stopped.

The above was very vivid, more vivid than my waking experiences.  I chalk it up to the hallucinations (or lucid dreams) possible from this state.


Should a Buddhist have Children? In Buddhism having a rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas. Doesn't it imply that Buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth. This leads to a more generic hypothetical question as to what happens if all people in the world stop having children?

I would like to have the answer in the Buddhist perspective.

rebirth is itself a origin of all the Dukhhas.

Not quite. Birth has a requisite condition as well. It's not the case that our birth was the ultimate origin of our suffering.

  Doesn't it imply that buddhist laymen who are married should not have children to stop this cycle of rebirth.

Not having children will not stop those beings from being reborn. There are plenty of other organisms to be reborn as on Earth and there are other realms like the Deva world as well.

  what happens if all people in the world stop having children?

The entire population of humans could all die and be reborn as insects today and it wouldn't appreciably increase their overall number: adding six billion to 10 quintillion doesn't even amount to a tenth of a percent.

So removing the human path as a rebirth target does nothing in the way of removing suffering.


What is the origin of the Buddhist expression "Practice as if your hair is on fire"? I remember this phrase but I have not been able to locate it in the texts.
I do not recall the correct words but it's something like this: "Meditate/practice as if your hair is/were on fire".
I have searched on Buddhism SE and on Google and found the phrase mentioned a couple of times but no solution to the origin of it. This article mentioned by Matthew says;

"Practice like your hair is on fire!
A traditional aphorism, which probably goes back to Buddhism in India. Gelek Rinpoche makes it the theme of his recent article in Buddhadharma. And it shows up in the Zen tradition and elsewhere."

And this article says:

Zazen makes waiting into a science. I'm intrigued by the Zen injunction "Sit as if your hair were on fire."

Still no solution to the origin of the phrase. I'm looking for valid sources such as the Theravadan, East Asian and Tibetan texts.
Thank you for your time.

Tissa (Thag 1.39)   {Thag 39}

  As if struck by a sword,
  as if his head were on fire,
  a monk should live the wandering life
      — mindful —
  for the abandoning of sensual passion.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.01.00x.than.html#passage-39


Buddhism is practiced in many countries by many different peoples. How do Buddhists in America differ in their beliefs, values Buddhism is practiced in many countries by many different peoples. How do Buddhists in America differ in their beliefs, values, rituals, practices etc? Or, is Buddhism fairly uniform wherever it is practiced?

The transmission of Buddhist teachings to the United States (and the West in general) can be described in three general categories: migration, appropriation, and adoption. The last category is, in my opinion, the most interesting to explore, but for sake of completeness, let's discuss the other two first.

Migration

The most direct and obvious transmission of Buddhism to the US is through the immigration of practitioners from Buddhist majority countries. As these communities grew, they established temples. These temples are largely a direct continuation of whatever tradition the immigrants adhered to. As a result, a wide variety of Buddhist traditions have some representation in the US.

Appropriation

I acknowledge that "appropriation" is a loaded term. I have no intent to demean or antagonize anyone, but I do feel the word adequately describes how some Americans have borrowed specific Buddhist practices while ignoring the rest.

In particular, mindfulness meditation is following a path similar to yoga. When Western psychologists studied meditation extensively, they discovered genuine, tangible, scientifically verifiable benefits for practitioners. Mindfulness meditation is now being promoted and even prescribed as means of improving mental and emotional health, much in the same way that a doctor might recommend yoga as a form of exercise.

The beliefs of such practitioners would be difficult to summarize as there is presumably little that ties them together. It would be like asking about the personal beliefs of weight lifters or tennis players; the only common thread is an appreciation for a shared activity.

Adoption

The third category of American Buddhists are those who've adopted the teachings as a supplement or (more likely) an alternative to predominant Judeo-Christian traditions. Though these individuals are often white and educated liberals, the truly unifying factor is their shared appreciation of what makes Buddhism distinct from other major world religions and a desire for spiritual enrichment. These distinct elements tend to be emphasized in the beliefs and practices of what I refer to as "American Buddhists."

It's worth noting that the communities of American Buddhist practitioners vary considerably. I have personally seen everything ranging from a small group of college kids with little knowledge or connection to the large Sangha to temples with clear, official ties to existing Asian schools. (An example of the later is the Rochester Zen Center in Upstate New York.)

Some of the beliefs and practices that are more unique to American Buddhists include:

Personal Practice: Americans generally adopt Buddhism as a means to personal moral and spiritual growth. Many are isolated or in small communities and have limited knowledge of the varied traditions within Buddhism. As a result, many practitioners are apt to emphasizes practices aimed towards individual growth - particularly those suited for novice, lay practitioners. There is a general belief that the true value of the practice is the tangible effects it has on practitioners.
Secularism: Mainstream religious traditions in the US tend to promote literal interpretations of the bible quite vigorously, even when in direct confrontation of established science. Buddhism is seen as a more "science friendly" religion and thus attracts those who are skeptical of or completely reject the existence of the supernatural. As a result, American Buddhism handles concepts such as reincarnation, karma, and merit as metaphors.
Egalitarian Communities: The ratio of ordained to laity among American Buddhists is significantly skewed towards laity when compared to Asian countries. It's no surprise, then, that communities often rely on lay people to operate. However, this is also in part a reaction to how heavy-handed mainstream religious communities can be with authority. American Buddhists value ordained members for their wisdom, experience, and dedication, but won't necessarily expect them to assume all leadership responsibilities.
Engaged Buddhism: American Buddhists are quite likely to adopt Engaged Buddhism where they are actively involved in charity, politics, and society at large. There are numerous reasons for this. First, anyone who choose to adopt a "foreign" religion are apt to be free thinkers willing to challenge societal norms that they disagree with. Second, Americans generally believe that one's values should be expressed through action; someone who chooses to withdraw from the world is likely to be seen as apathetic, cowardly, or insincere. Third, American Buddhists don't have the advantage of being part of an established majority; they are more likely to find themselves at odds with majority opinion and may feel compelled to act in order to protect and preserve their values. Forth, values such as empathy and compassion are arguably lacking in American culture so there are many instances of personal or institutional greed, intolerance, and apathy to address.

Naturally, these are all generalizations based on personal experience. I am not aware of any research to understand how the beliefs of those who adopted Buddhism compares to those of Asian Buddhists.

For more on this subject, see my answer on Quora to: How is American Buddhism different from the different versions of Buddhism in Asia?


Is it a good or bad sign that meditation is sometimes a frightening and nervous activity? It can happen that one gets scared or nervous by just sitting there, one can't for example sit still. But is this a good or bad sign?

Meditation is an activity of 'mental solitude', which will bring up fear & nervousness. Fear is an instinctual emotion that probably every practitioner that "crosses over" must pass through when the instinctual 'self' or 'ego' is diminished.

For people with a history or disposition of mental instability, they probably need to be careful here and should ideally meditate with a group.


Quick-overview lists of Dhammas within Buddhism This community wiki post is about gathering lists that serve as a quick-overview of the different Dhammas in Buddhism. We are looking for dhamma-lists from all traditions.

If you have found a list and want to post it please follow the same formating style.

Theravada Buddhism

Dhamma List that contains an overview of the most essential dhammas in theravada buddhism. They are ordered and downloadable in PDF-format.

In here you will find the different theravada dhammas, pali-to-english translation of most used words and a quick-guide to the Tipitaka.


Scriptural evidence for the role and compatibility of polytheism within Buddhism? First of all, I would like to clarify that I am extremely new to Buddhism, Hinduism and Indian philosophy in general. I do not particularly consider myself an adherent of any of these traditions. I am doing research on Buddhism as part of a project I have to study the scriptures of every religion.
With that out of the way, I would like to ask practicing Buddhists here if polytheism is compatible with Buddhist doctrine or dharma, and what the role of said polytheistic traditions are within Buddhism. I am a European polytheist who worships many members of the European pantheons, such as Germanic, Celtic, Roman and Greek deities. Is the worship of multiple Gods discouraged or encouraged within Buddhism?
I know that the Buddhist scriptures mention Hindu deities like Mahakala and Hayagriva, but I have no idea where they are mentioned within the scriptural canon, and I have no idea what is said about them or in what context they are referred to.
In summary:

Is polytheism dharmic or adharmic?
If it is dharmic, what is its role within Buddhism?
If it is adharmic, why is this the case?
What is the scriptural basis for your answer?

Is polytheism dharmic or adharmic? Dhammic
If it is dharmic, what is its role within Buddhism? Different level of consciousness leads to different rebirth.
If it is adharmic, why is this the case? NA
What is the scriptural basis for your answer? There are many suttas with the Buddha encountering Deva (Gods) in Samyutta Nikaya, such as in the Devata Samyutta and the Brahma Samyutta etc.
Also refer to the popular blog about the 31 planes of existence.


Good website for sutta learning? There seems to be two prominant websites/translations for learning the suttas:

accesstoinsight.org
suttacentral.net

As I was going through DN15 I see that the translations of important words differ in the two, may be in certain context even change the meaning.
So which one is the good translation to follow, read and learn the suttas?

There are a few others that I know of too ...

http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/
https://obo.genaud.net/
https://84000.co/

... see also English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon (plus various books).
IMO the (translated) English words change (from one translation to the next), because a word of Pali might have a (narrow or broad) range of meanings, which might be translated (more or less well) by any of several English words.

I tend to use Ven. Sujato's translations, for example:

Go to https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/sujato
Click on Setting (the gear-wheel icon) near the top of the page
Enable "View original text with translation" (e.g. "Line by line"), and "Activate Pali word lookup"

Then you see the (original) line of Pali next to each (translated) line of English.

You can hover (with the mouse, unless you're using a touch-screen) over a word of Pali, to see a popup translation/definition:

And click on the title word in that popup to go to the dictionary definition:

https://suttacentral.net/define/viharati

Eventually you get to recognise various words of Pali, which then have a meaning of their own to you. You'll notice on this site that people slip words of Pali into their text -- dukkha, dhamma, and so on -- because that's less confusing than using several different English translations for the same thing.

You can see the same happening in http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn56-011.html -- i.e. the text on the right includes some Pali words untranslated, but you can hover or click on them for dictionary/glossary support.
The "Resources" on this site (see the navigation menu on the left side the home page) are a gentle introduction to some Pali words and phrases.

Piya Tan's (i.e. Dhammafarer) is interesting too what you want to study and not just read a sutta: because for some suttas he has written commentary; and read commentary (traditional and from modern authors) which he might summarise; and cross-references with other suttas, footnotes, etc.

I like the Search function on Access to Insight -- Access to Insight doesn't include all the suttas but it does include:

Essays by various authors (which a Search may find)
Some reference material (collections of sutta extracts) which I like, for example, A Path to Freedom -- A Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings.
Beginnings -- Suggested Entry Points to this Website.


How things become easier when we do things continuously / repeatedly? What are habits, and why do they stick? Lord Buddha said that we even bring habits into next lives. Why does that happen? How come it is powerful enough to continue from life to life?

There are some variations of habits. Some needs mental effort (like studying, or meditating etc.), some needs physical effort (exercising etc.), and some doesn't need any effort, meaning that every day actions (eating, playing etc.). (By effort i mean the energy needed to do something, and habits requires less actual effort to do something).

I have the general idea about how habits works. We may be able to find shortcuts, and get new ideas when we do things repeatedly. But, it is hard to understand the way our habits vary. Can anyone give me a clear / deep explanation about habits?

Or are habits conditioned by impermanence, cause and effect or karma that I should accept as the nature of existence/the world? If it is, please post the name of respective sutta where Lord Buddha talked about habits, so I will be able to believe it without doubts.

Kind regards.

Maybe your looking at it the wrong way. I am not sure of an exact sutta or even any sutta that says this exactly but habits passed onto another life can be because of the karma accumulated.

For example let take the following scenario.
If your a physical trainer, you would most likely train all your life to be physically fit. Now as a trainer, you get other people (your clients) into physical training hence you do the "dana" or "giving" of physical training to lots of people. Since you have that karma of "giving out physical training", your most likely to get "physical training" as a reward in your next life. Hence there is a high chance in your next life you will be really into physical training. While you do this, you will also inspire someone else to be a physical trainer. Again giving the "inspiration to be a physical trainer". Next life, someone will inspire you to be the same as a result of your karma.

If you inspire someone, you will be inspired by someone. You make someone do something, someone else will do the same back to you. This is the karmic law. Obviously its not this simple but in a bird's eye view, roughly this is probably the cause of a habit being born on a person and then continuing until that habit is dead.

Karma is subjected to impermanence like everything else. Hence eventually it will fade away. So you won't have a forever samsara habit.


What's the difference between monks and priests? One hears of Buddhist monks and of priests. What is the difference?

So far as I know (I may be wrong), "priest" is only used of Japan.

I've read three different theories for that.

One is that the term is for Japanese monks who marry (or who may marry). Usually part of the definition of a Buddhist "monk" (in any country) is that they keep some version of the Vinaya (which includes celibacy). I think that Japan is exceptional, for historical reasons. Wikipedia's Buddhist monasticism -- EastAsia currently says (see the original for hyperlinks and references),

  In East Asia, monastics live in greater isolation from the lay population than is observed in most Theravada countries. Because of local conditions of geography and climate, as well as local attitudes towards begging, monks generally do not make begging rounds in China, Korea, Vietnam, and many parts of Japan. Instead, monasteries receive donations of bulk food (such as rice) and funds for the purchase of food that is then stored and prepared at the monastery. Many monks and nuns are vegetarians and, after Baizhang Huaihai, many monks farm food to eat; some work or sell. Most eat after noon. The management of the kitchen and monastery properties may be the purview of a specially designated layman or a monk who has been given a special role by the abbot of the monastery. Monks chant many mantras in regular living.

  Monastics in Japan are particularly exceptional in the Buddhist tradition because the monks and nuns can marry after receiving their higher ordination. This idea is said to be introduced by Saichō, the founder of the Tendai school, who preferred ordaining monks under the Bodhisattva vows rather than the traditional Vinaya. There had long been many instances of Jōdo Shinshū priests and priestesses marrying, influenced by the sect's founder Shinran, but it was not predominant until a government Nikujiku Saitai Law (肉食妻帯) was passed during the Meiji Restoration that monks or priests of any Buddhist sect are free to seek wives. This practice influenced Korea and Taiwan. A nun in Taiwan gave birth. Some Korean monks live with wives in their monasteries.

The second is that "priest" is used for senior monks, who have graduated and are no longer students. Note the quote above, which says that "monks and nuns can marry after receiving their higher ordination".
Thirdly, some perform the role of priests in other religions (i.e. Shinto). Wikipedia's Tendai and Shinto says,

  Tendai doctrine allowed Japanese Buddhists to reconcile Buddhist teachings with the native religion of Japan, Shinto, and with traditional Japanese aesthetics. In the case of Shinto, the difficulty is the reconciliation of the pantheon of Japanese gods, as well as with the myriad spirits associated with places, shrines or objects, with the Buddhist doctrine that one should not concern oneself with any religious practice save the pursuit of enlightenment. However, priests of the Tendai sect argued that Kami are simply representations of the truth of universal buddhahood that descend into the world to help mankind.

In English (Christianity) the difference between priest and monk is that a monk lives in a monastery or priory (with other monks); while a priest will, more likely, live alone (in parish) to serve the lay community.


What is the proper Vajra Guru mantra? I see "Om ah hung vajra guru pema siddhi hung" but also "Om ah hum vajra guru padma siddhi hum".

I know the first is Sanskrit mixed with Tibetan and the latter is pure Sanskrit. I also am aware that it is about how the Tibetans pronounce Sanskrit.

Is one preferred or more authentic? Is it up to the individual?

Any elucidation on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

First, the spelling of the mantra in Devanagari ("Sanskrit") and Tibetan scripts:

Transliteration: oṃ āḥ hūṃ vajra-guru padma-siddhi hūṃ

Transliteration: oṃ āḥ hūṃ badzra-guru padma-siddhi hūṃ

The following two characters differ (Tibetan script followed by IPA): བ = /ba/, ཛ = /dza/. Why is that? There's no व "va" in the native Tibetan alphabet, so the options are ཝ "wa" or བ "ba". In this case, "ba" has been chosen. Letter ཛ /dza/, instead of the native "ja" ཇ /dʒa/, is commonly used to transliterate the Devanagari ज "ja", being phonetically closer (although not identical). The spelling of "padma" is identical, however in Tibetan the pronunciation becomes "pema". Likewise "badzra" becomes "benza", non-native Sanskrit conjuncts like "dzr" often morph like that. The literal spelling "pema" has also entered some Tibetan texts, though I haven't seen it used for this particular transliteration.

There are also variations (regional/lineage/historical) of the actual pronunciation in Tibetan, so the answer to your question, "which version is more authentic", depends largely on "according to whom". Undoubtedly each Tibetan lineage will hold that their version is the preferred one. If you should find an Indian Vajrayana practitioner from a native lineage, they would probably prefer the Sanskritic version. If you happened to find a heir to the Mahasiddhas of early medieval Bengal, chances are they'd prefer you muttering "bojro-guru podmo-siddhi" instead. To each their own, I say, and all success.

"Is it up to the individual?" Again, it depends. If you follow a traditional Lama who has inherited a certain version, then that's probably what you are expected to emulate. (Be aware that Roman transliterations in Tibetan writings available in English are often approximate, if not crude, and non-standardized. Find a recording and follow that if you want to have it 100% per the source.) If you follow your own lead, then yes, surely it is up to you, and your experience, which variant you may prefer.

If you're a lonely rider on the path to nowhere, you will want to burrow into the effects of each version and try to pin down the mind-space and energy impact conjured by each variant, along with the syllables when individually uttered. (This is worthy practice with any mantra and in any case.)

The greatest benefit follows from no particular pronunciation, but from the skill of entering the mantra and deploying it as a medium for entering the "lotus-born diamond-master" space of awareness, flanked by the energies of the seed-syllables — and in due course embodying all that yourself.


Vitakkasanthana Sutta "in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it."

How does one pay no mind / no attention to thoughts? Diverting one's attention was the 1st method, but how is this meant to be?

When you watch a sad movie, you may feel sad at some points. But you won't carry the sadness with you and become depressed, would you? When you stop watching the movie, you immediately forget about it.

Similarly, you treat the evil unskillful thoughts here like they were some movie appearing in your mind, and ignore them.


Can I attain to Satori in Walking Meditation? I like the walking meditation more than doing sitting Zazen. I want to ask if satori is possible while walking?

Yes. But the walking must be done with 'empty mind' so consciousness illuminates.


Are there situations where it is wise to remove oneself from parents? My philosophy is to set an example to others though the path of a bodhisattva. What would the buddha advise to someone considering reducing or eliminating visting a parent that causes emotional distress and fear after one has tried to practice patience, acceptance, acknowledement that this behavior is coming from their own suffeirng, metta practice, meditation, along with trying different ways to communicate so as to not arouse negative statements to an adult child? Also, a reference text, if any could be appreciated. Would distancing onself not be in accordance with the path of a bodhisattva?

These dynamics have always existed and it has become worse. Recently the sibling of this parent that distanced herself years ago from this parent and validated the narcissistic behavior of this parent.

In this specific situation and which is a factor in the level of difficulty dealing with this parent is that the other parent requires 24 hour nursing care at home and is unable to care for herself (including the inability to communicate).  The other parent/caretaker has refused to disginate the next of kin (adult child) living in a reasonable distance from their home in the event that something unforeseen happens to the caretaker.  Even a short hospitalization would require someone to step in immediately.  The rationale has to do with the fear of not being in control with money. After trying to assure this parent that this is not about money, rather the other parents coordination of outside care, in different ways and at different times, it is met with cruel, untruthful statements about the adult child that is willing to step in. The response also included a statement that if something did happen he didn't care if the estate all went to the State. Again, money and control of money was not mentioned to this parent.  This parent was told by the adult child that the statements were hurtful and not true. The response from the parent was that it was not his responsibility how this adult child felt and would not take any responsibility.

The fear and emotional distress mentioned above mainly is the result not having an emergency plan in place and second the acknowledgment of the diffence in character, values and feelings of loss of both parents. Exposure to this parent tends to water the unwholesome seeds of unsatifactory feelings of this adult child.

When offers of help are denied, one has done what they can.
I'd say a temporary distance is acceptable in this situation.

For the adult child of the sick one, maintain the intent to help and the compassion and bodhicitta for both parents.

This is a rough time for all involved, in times like these emotions tend to cause conflicts that might seem to be about one thing,  but are actually about the emotions caused by the looming death of the loved one.

To the adult child my advice would be as follows :

Try not to take things personally here.
Drop off care packages for both parents.
Make sure to let it be known (in a positive way, text or short polite letter) that if you are needed you are a phone call away.
Do not worry about or mention next of kin.
Remember that others actions and words are not an excuse to "Water unwholesome seeds"
Do not hold a grudge, and give yourself as much distance as you need.
After the parent dies, if the remaining parent needs it, be there to comfort and ease the grieving process.
Reread all the branch and root Bodhisattva vows, one by one, and ask yourself where you are doing well for each vow, and how you could improve on each vow.
Remember that the vows apply to all beings, not just family. Treat yourself to some ice cream and some activities you enjoy. Spend time with friends.

This kind of situation is an incredibly difficult one. For everyone involved.
It can be trying and emotionally draining.
I do not know the full situation, only what is in the question. I've tried to keep this advice in line with the Buddhist tradition and Bodhisattva tradition to the best of my abilities. If there is some error please comment and I will edit accordingly.

I hope this helps.


Did Lord Buddha teach, or do Buddhist sects teach, about Ghosts? The existence of Ghosts is taught in many religions. And Buddhist sites (mainly Tibetan Buddhists) claim the existence of "Hungry Ghosts".

However I didn't see sites saying that the Buddha claimed that ghosts exist.

Did Lord Buddha teach about Ghosts, or is it only Buddhist sects which teach that?

Also do ghosts exist here on this earth, do they affect or possess people, are they visible? Or are they only in some other real of existence?

There are many such stories in Petavatthu, which appear in canonical texts. Buddhist Cosmology mentions 31 Planes of Existence. The realm of Hungry Ghosts is one of these realms. Average people cannot see any of these realms other than the parts of the human realm and animal kingdom. This does not mean, what we see do not exit.

Also see:

From preta to hungry ghost by Piya Tan
Who are the hungry ghosts? by Piya Tan


Devas and their appearance Far as i know Devas are born without parents so why are they in two genders?

If they have no biological need to reproduce what is the reason for two genders and if the Devas are born after doing many good and noble things in this world, how are their companions and concubines are born, are they residing in a world inhabited by other beings?

Reproduction is not the only function of having opposite genders. If that is the case, both males and females should look the same when sexual organs are covered. Even at the beginning(Agganna sutta) of man kind, reproduction happened as a result of beings who looked different getting attracted to the differences.

Companion nymphs are beings who get born in heavens due to less powerful karma. Their main duty is to entertain the Deva who owns them.


What does craving feel like? What does craving feel like as a set of sensations (body and mind)? I'm interested the recognition of craving as it occurs in that moment and how other people's lived experience accords with my own. Also, if there are very different forms of craving that present in entirely different ways.

Many Thanks

For me, craving is obsessive imagination and cyclical replay of a momentary situation in which a key sign of the desirable object is reconstructed by the mind and the sanna (perception or recognition) of the object by the sign occurs.

This sanna is then extended through a chain of associations into a sequence of memories, both good and bad, associated with the object. Some of these memories bring somatic components, both pleasant and painful.

The basic configuration, for me, of craving is: I am here and the object is there. I can partially recreate the object momentarily in my imagination, but the contact is brief and fleeting, and so not satisfying. This helplessness, or lack of power to bring the object fully and permanently into the now, brings about a sense of frustration. This feeling of mismatch or conflict between imagined object (with its nice associations) and the present absence of it, along with helpless frustration and hopelessness - is dukkha.

Anyway, the key component of craving, for me, is involuntarily mentally being in a different place than the here and now.


Is there a conflict between dependent origination and right effort? My current understanding of dependent origination is that things cause other things to arise and cease and ultimately it a big interconnected web of influences. If that's reasonably correct (on a provisional level) then what meaning does right effort or just effort generally have in that context.

If I arise and cease dependent on other things then where does my own effort come into it? If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web?

I appreciate that this kind of questioning can be (rightly) criticised as metaphysical nitpicking. However when I meditate (or even just sit around and reflect) this kind of question comes up for me. It's like a little personal koan that keeps nagging at me so I would appreciate any input - even if it is just a reminder not to worry and get practicing.

Where we don't have a choice:

stop, maintain or prolong, create phenomena and influence, control arising and passing of phenomena. Even at a grosser level the influence is limited.

Where we have a choice:

not being reactive to sense stimulus but proactive to it
influence and regulate your mind towards skillful states and away from unwholesome states

Exercising the latter help you to fabricate better existence or stop fabrications altogether.

There are two places to work on breaking the cycle of Dependent Origination (DO).

To keep your mind free from delusion focus on arising and passing of phenomena.
Keep your mind equanimous and devoid of craving and clinging thus not reacting to sense stimulus with unwholesome mental states

Like any other processes DO needs it's fuel to continue. The fuel is an untamed mind influenced by craving. So you can extinguish this process by not feeding it with it's fuel, i.e. be equanimous without clinging and craving towards sensations and being mindful of arising and passing of phenomena of the aggregates. The existing fuel will burn out and DO will collapse. You can catalyse this process by actively calming the fabrications, i. e. do some fire fighting.


What is the Buddhist interpretation of the flow state? Rephrased question:
Sometimes we become absorbed in an activity, such as writing an article, with intense focus and absorption (intentionally). How would Buddhist principles address this state?

Previous question as definition of mindfulness incorrect:
In being mindful we are aware of our thoughts, feelings, emotions and physical sensations
Sometimes we become absorbed in an activity, such as writing an article, with intense focus and absorption (intentionally). On the surface this appears to be in conflict with mindfulness. Is this the case?

Although meditation/immersion is, in general, unification of the mind, one must be careful.

“Yā kho, āvuso visākha, cittassa ekaggatā ayaṁ samādhi;

“Unification of the mind is immersion. MN44

One must be careful here because there is Right Immersion and Wrong Immersion. Flow unifies the mind with a feeling of effortless, peaceful, and expansive limitlessness in the pursuit of an activity. Yet flow always ends and is therefore unsatisfactory. One can actually crave flow--let's go surfing (or whatever) for the rest of our lives. So flow can lead to suffering. A flowing surfer who cannot surf due to old age and illness is suffering. Although flow is peaceful, it is incomplete. We need to look beyond flow.
If we observe any well-practiced Buddhist monk, we see something quite interesting. The robes of a monk flow, but the monk is invariably steady, imperturbable, radiant, and equanimous. The world flows around the monk without clinging.
What is that monk doing?

That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss.
And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. AN5.26

Although this sounds "flowy", notice that the focus is the Dhamma, not some random activity.
Read the suttas, study the Dhamma, learn from good teachers and good friends. May that flow lead to peace.


Dualism of mind and matter in Buddhism From a source which I don't remember any more (some rather scientific book on Buddhist philosophy) I have made a note, that the psyche in Buddhism is seen or can be seen (by certain schools?) as material.

To clarify this point for me, I wonder what the general treatment of mind and matter in Buddhism is, whether they are generally seen as two distinct spheres, how they interact, etc.

The Buddha of Pali Canon held an evidently pragmatic position, never explicitly defining his view as idealistic or materialistic. He does speak of "this body" as "composed of the four properties, born of mother & father, fed on rice & porridge, subject to inconstancy". He also speaks of consciousness as "dependent on body" and therefore impermanent, something a non-returner has fully realized. At the same time, for what looks like soteriological purposes, Buddha takes a fully phenomenological stance, speaking about skandhas and dhammas as constituting all of the (phenomenal) world.

After Buddha's death, this phenomenological perspective was a subject of abuse (IMHO) by generations of Abhidharmists indulging their analytical instincts. Their unchecked tendency to reify dharmas (assigning them the status of substantially existing) has led to emergence of Prajna-Paramita movement, the main point of which was assertion of philosophical relativism as fundamental principle underlying cognition. From this perspective, primacy of mind or matter is a matter of choosing a point of reference and has nothing to do with ontological state of affairs, which by its very nature is ineffable and is not subject to assertions.

In general, it looks to me like most Buddhist schools deny substantial dualism and either assert primacy of mind (Yogacara) or philosophical relativism (most of the rest of Mahayana). Theravada is a special case, torn between pragmatism and idealism, because it historically sees itself as results-oriented and not metaphysics-oriented, and at the same time carries on the legacy of Abhidharmic phenomenology. Vajrayana, being ultra-pragmatic liberation methodology, does not concern itself with such mundane affairs as mind/matter interaction, but we can say its position remains an extension of general Mahayana nondualism.

On top of this sedimentary layer of orthodox doctrines, lies a huge ocean of skilfull means, folk beliefs, and anecdotes, most of them implying naive dualism of crude matter and some kind of soul/mind substance, a perspective sharply criticised by many prominent teachers. For one example of the latter, see Dogen's "Soku Shin Ze Butsu" (Mind Here and Now Is Buddha).


Supernatural beings and the 31 planes of existence Did the Buddha have any personal experience with maras and devas and supernatural beings in general?

And, if I'm not mistaken, the 31 planes of existence is something he taught. So, how did he come to know of them?

First, it might help to probe the meaning of "supernatural" in the Buddhist context.  I think this blog post covers it pretty well. In particular:

The very notion of ‘Supernatural’ is one that, it seems to me, arises from Western philosophical assumptions. the basic idea is that there is ‘this world’, which is rational and subject to explanation according to the laws of physics, and the ‘other world’, which operates according to a quite different set of principles, and where the laws of physics no longer apply.
In Buddhism, however, the essential description of the world is not provided by the laws of physics, or other material phenomena. The most important ‘laws’ are the three characteristics – impermanence, suffering, not-self. And these describe any other state of being just as well as they describe ours. For theistic religions, ‘heaven’ is eternal – that is, not subject to conditions, and independent from Time. But for Buddhists, heaven is just as temporary as anything else.
The Sri Lankan philosopher David Kalupahana has developed this idea in detail. he argues that Buddhism is empirical through and through; that even those aspects of Buddhist belief that seem to invoke the ‘supernatural’ in fact merely involve a refining and extension of ordinary sensory capacities.

Starting from that perspective, I would say: yes, in every tradition of Buddhism I'm aware of it is agreed that Buddha knew the beings we refer to as "supernatural" in our culture - which, from a Buddhist perspective, are  just other varieties of sentient beings. Because Buddha is omniscient, he has the same comprehensive knowledge of these beings as of any other sentient being. As summarized here, that knowledge includes:

(3) The force of being omnisciently aware of the various spiritual aspirations (mos-pa) of all limited beings (sentient beings): the inferior ones for this life, the middling ones for liberation, the superior ones for enlightenment, and those that are concealed (unconscious or expressed unclearly). In this way, he can guide each being accordingly.
(4) The force of being omnisciently aware of the source of everyone’s cognitions, as well as the source of their enlightenment (khams, their Buddha family-traits, Buddha-natures). He knows where all their thoughts, ideas, and misunderstandings have come from and also those factors in each of them that will lead to their realization of their fullest potential. In this way, he can correct all others when they have gone astray and draw out their strongest points.
(5) The force of being omnisciently aware of the superior and less-than-superior levels of everyone’s powers (dbang-po). Thus, he always teaches others in accordance with their intelligence and abilities so that they never become discouraged.

Sorry, but I am not familiar with the "31 planes of existence" so hopefully someone else can speak to that specifically. But the bottom line to me is that if Buddha knows all beings, he knows their various abodes as well however they are categorized.


Relationships : What is Love? Recently i was wondering about Love and these thoughts came to my mind, i want to know if they are correct or not.

As to Buddhism all sorts of love is "Attachment".
And the is no such thing called a person.

So essentially the "Love" we fall in can be explained as...

  Example :-

Part 01 :- Sam saw Jenny and he fell for her the second he saw her.

(Sam's eyes saw light which was recognized by his brain+mind as a woman. His mind remembers that Sam is straight so it immediately start to examine Jenny's body. There is an understanding in Sam's mind about his taste and it sees Jenny is a perfect fit. As Sam hast lust+attachments for such a body,mind starts a stream of thoughts signaling that there is a hot girl nearby.)

Part 02 :- They date for sometime and go to a serious relationship.

(Sam and Jenny both find their attachments in real life and decide to hold onto it.)

Part 03 :- Sam and Jenny are married now and its been 9 years.
(They both did not wanted to loose what they found because of the strong attachment they built in their own minds. The attachment and fear of loosing+fear of not finding a substitute kept them together for nine years.)

What i see is that there are two minds at work trying to find attachments in real life. And then two minds find those in the image of two bodies. Then the attachments grow and the minds get more attached to each other's bodies as it works as the Identity.

  Is this correct according to the teaching or is it wrong?

  If there are wrong details what are the correct forms of them?

There 3 things interplay here:

Kama Raga - attachment to sensual objects or objects arousing lust
Chanda Raga - attachments to people (lovers, loved one's, family, friends)
Suba Sanna - perception of beauty in the shape of the body

So when you see a person the following can happen:

Pleasure, displeasure, neutral sensation on how you perceive the person based on

Previous interaction and perception formed as friend or not or a person who matters or not or good person or bad person or likable or not
Perception of looks of the person

Relative to one's looks
As an object of desire

So when you see a person of the opposite sex the 1st time, what you get is Kama Raga and Suba Sanna. This is in seeking of pleasure born of such interactions.

Though Kama Raga heavily influences Chanda Raga, the main thing is that the person is influential in you life / perceived world. As the "puppet master" of the perceived world you get pleasure from the "puppets" in the show when they seem to go according to your expectations.

Chanda Raga is what might keep a relationship going even when Kama Raga subsides with time and into old age when Suba Sanna wanes off.

Though in seeking pleasure we get the above 3, in fact these give diverse sensations: pleasure, displeasure, neutral due to impermanent nature and non self nature of existance. All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha (pain - Dukkha Dukkha, pleasure - Viparinama Dukkha, neutral - Sankhara Dukkha). So to understand the 4 Noble Truths contemplate on the arising and passing of sensations.


Is there a compassion only Buddhist path? In a recent version of the Buddhist Geeks podcast Rick Hanson said that recent academic research is showing that in the Pali Canon there were teachings indicating that compassion is enough to progress all the way on the Buddhist path. He further states that this foreshadows the Mahayana developments and if this has been emphasised within the early schools it would have negated the need for Mahayana at all.

Does that ring any bells with anyone? Has anyone heard anything of this research or more broadly has anyone got any references where the Buddha really emphasises compassion and indicates that compassion alone is enough.

Note: if anyone is interested Rick Hanson says this in the last 10 minutes of the podcast.

It's at about time 29:55 through 30:48 in the podcast. Rick Hanson starts by saying (I paraphrase) that:

The Buddha talked about the three poisons: ignorance, anger, greed
Anger and greed map to the brain's two 'red-zone' behaviours, i.e. the 'aversion' and 'approaching' systems of the brain.

Rick goes on to say that the brain has a third need or drive i.e. "heart-ache" for which the antidote is "love", and,

  recent scholarship has shown that for him [the Buddha] love is a fully-sufficient path to complete awakening, and scholarship today has shown that maybe if there was a better understanding at the time that that's what he taught, after he died, there might not have been a need for the Mahayana revision if you will in terms of bringing more heart back into Dhamma practice."

He goes on to say that there's a social brain, that love and social skills are the primary evolutionary driver of the brain, etc., that we need to honour heart-ache and pay attention to the attachment system. He thinks of "heartache" as a "fourth poison".

The recent scholarship that Hanson is referring to  is probably this, by Richard Gombrich, the eminent British academic scholar of Buddhism:

Kindness and Compassion as means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism

This abstract mentions other places where Gombrich explicated his thesis:

  Gotama Buddha taught that compassion can produce enlightenment. So
  Richard Gombrich claims, based most notably on his reading of the
  Tevijja Sutta. First announced in his 1996 How Buddhism Began,
  Gombrich revisited this thesis (his “discovery”) the next year in his
  Gonda Lecture, “Kindness and Compassion as Means to Nirvana in Early
  Buddhism” and has returned to it more recently in his 2009 What the
  Buddha Thought.

Despite Gombrich's rather radical assertion, now almost 20 years ago, I have never been able to find any direct discussion of it by other authors either Western or of any tradition of Buddhism (the above paper is about the neuroscience of the issue). I suspect that is because it is so earthshaking for the Theravada -- effectively saying that they have been missing something huge in the Pali Canon for millenia -- that nobody would touch it with a ten-foot katvanga.

My own speculation (totally unsupported by any scholarship) is that Gombrich may have uncovered the hidden and forgotten roots of the Mahayana in the Pali Canon, but has mistaken it as an either-or doctrine when in fact it is meant -- and was developed by the Mahayana -- as a coordinate path to the highest enlightenment: you need both wisdom (Pañña, Prajna) and compassion, and at the highest level they actually become one.

Addendum -- 8/27/2015. I have since found this rejoinder to Gombrich by Bikkhu Bodhi, the distinguished Theravada scholar and translator. The nub of his objection to Gombrich's proposal is this:

  But Gombrich then goes on to argue that for the Buddha union with
  Brahmà is simply a metaphor for Nibbàna, and thus he concludes the
  Buddha taught that kindness ... was a way to salvation (p. 62). Such
  an inference, however, cannot stand, for in many texts the Buddha
  declares the divine abodes to be inadequate for attaining Nibbàna
  (e.g. DN 17, MN 83, MN 97, etc.); it would also mean that paññā,
  insight or wisdom, is not needed for final liberation. Gombrich is not
  unaware of the texts that contradict his position, but he casually
  dismisses them as the work of the compilers of other suttas (p. 61).
  The contrary evidence, however, is just too weighty to allow such an
  easy way out.


Looking for references to skeptical debates on the subject of rebirth I am a huge proponent of scientific skepticism, rationalism and critical thinking. As a former Christian, I enjoy watching debates and more recently, discussions on YouTube. I like the debate format because it allows for the use of cross-examination, which is a real art in my opinion; especially as demonstrated in the masterful use of rhetoric by say, the late Christopher Hitchens. Likewise, I enjoy a format geared more toward discussion as it allows me to truly "step inside the head" as it were, of people who I disagree with on a fundamental level and if the conversation is good, to grasp the concepts from angles that may never have occurred to me.

As an example of the difference between the two, let me recommend that you watch two videos. The first one being the debate between Sam Harris and noted Christian apologist, William Lane Craig that took place at Notre Dame.

https://youtu.be/yqaHXKLRKzg

Contrast that one with Craig's performance in any of the three videos that were filmed in Australia, mainly in the discussion format with physicist Lawrence Krauss.

https://youtu.be/-b8t70_c8eE
https://youtu.be/V82uGzgoajI
https://youtu.be/7xcgjtps5ks

Now, honesty dictates that I admit my bias going into these. It is that I suspect that the natural world is all there is and that my experience after I die will probably be much like it was before I was born.

However, the aforementioned should in no way be taken as a discounting or criticism of personal experience, i.e. of the numinous or transcendent. I think that people have a basic right to believe whatever they want. What they don't get to have though is automatic immunity from criticism about things they tell others as matters of fact, and this is where my question begins...

Where are the Buddhists engaging in either debate or discussion wherein they are asked simple and direct questions about their epistemology? Debates with the form

  "So you believe in and espouse the doctrine of rebirth? That's great, but how do you know it's true?"

or

  "By what method of inquiry did you come to this knowledge?" and, "Why is that method of determining what is true equally as or more valid than traditional western methodology?"

The only person I know about who has been willing to attempt this, to his credit, has been Ven. Brahmali in both debate and discussion with Stephen Batchelor. I just wish that more people for whom I have a lot of respect due to their accessible teaching, like Ajahn Brahm and Mattieu Ricard, would follow suit.

Recommendations to videos and books are most welcome.

The problem is not new. Several disputes on the subject of rebirth are recorded in traditional texts. In Pāḷi we have the Katthāvatthu - a record of various intellectual disputes with other Buddhists by the Theravādins. In Sanskrit there is Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakārikā (MMK) which disputes the Mainstream Buddhist view of karma and rebirth. Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa records disputes between Sarvāstivādins, Sautrantikas, and others on this subject.

There are a number of points of dispute, but two principle and related arguments. These arguments assume that rebirth is what happens after we die, and that karma is the driving force behind rebirth - or in other words, that rebirth is the primarily effect (vipāka) of actions (karma). It's not well understood that the early Buddhists texts in particular do not teach "actions have consequences" so much as they teach "actions cause rebirth".

Firstly there is the problem of action at a temporal distance. I first described this problem in an essay called "Does Karma Break the Rules." The basic question here is, how does karma manifest an effect (vipāka) long after the cessation of the condition? This is specifically denied by the principle of dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda), which says that when a condition ceases the effect must also cease, with the implication (in the grammar of the statement) that this happens either simultaneously or in immediate sequence. There is no question of a delayed effect from a condition in dependent arising. This argument is made by Nāgārjuna, for example, in chp 17 of MMK:

  If the action endures to the time of maturation, then it would permanent
  If it is destroyed, then being destroyed, what fruit will it produce?
  (MMK 17.6. Siderits and Katsura, p.176)

Since the main "effect" of karma is precisely rebirth, then this is a very important question to decide. Nāgārjuna answers it by saying that:

  Defilements, actions, and bodies, agents, and fruits, are similar to the city of gandharvas; they are like a mirage, a dream (MMK 17.33, p.191)

But this answer was not routinely accepted by other Buddhists, because even though it solves the problem on the surface, the implications are that nothing is real and most Buddhists found this unsatisfactory. Nāgārjuna was accused of being a nihilist. And in any case the Theravādins ignored these developments in India.

Three main theories emerged to try to show how karma might cause rebirth. The doctrine of momentariness, the doctrine of always existent (sarva-asti) dharmas, and the seed theory.

In momentariness, adopted by the Theravādins, each karma is conceived of as a citta (In AN 6.63 the Buddha says cetanāhaṃ kammaṃ vadāmi - "intention is what I call karma"). This citta arises and passes away in a very short space of time (a moment) and is the condition for the arising of a second identical citta. That citta arises and passes away and is the condition for a third citta. And so on until the final effect of the action manifests, usually combined with other cittas to produce a final citta at death (cuticitta) that conditions the first citta of a new life elsewhere (paṭisandhicitta).
The always existent theory, associated with the Sarvāstivāda, argues that if a dharma (i.e. a mental event) has an effect in the future, then it must exist in the future, else it violates pratītyasamutpāda. Similarly if a past dharma has an effect in the present, then it must still exist in the past or it violates pratītyasamutpāda. Thus dharmas must always exist, in some form, but may only be "active" in the present - which is why we only perceive them in the present. This is a much better theory than most Buddhists give them credit for. Most other Buddhists modified dependent arising to allow for karma, but the Sarvāstivādins opted to retain dependent arising unchanged and modified dharmas. Of course other schools rejected this as a form of eternalism.
The seed theory starts off as a metaphor: cittas are like seeds that are planted in the soil and grow into a plant. The plant and the seed are not the same, nor do they co-exist in time, but one develops into the other. This is an elegant metaphor, but we have no idea of the underlying mechanism. Vasubandhu takes this metaphor and formalises it - this is definitely how karma and rebirth work. He introduces the idea of the ālayavijñāna "store consciousness". But his Yogācāra followers reified the metaphor and made the ālayavijñāna a real thing, thus making the theory eternalist and a wrong view.

Of the three, only 1. and 3. are currently in use, but 2. was very prominent in North India for many centuries.  Each theory introduces a number of ad hoc alterations to the received tradition - indicating that they could not see how karma and rebirth worked as things stood. Unfortunately none of the new formulas really solved the problem (nor did any of the less influential attempts not mentioned here). In several articles on my blog I show that the logic of these solutions to the problem, though in some cases admirable and elegant, actually fail to explain how karma and rebirth work. See especially The Logic of Karma. This leaves us in the present with no workable theory of karma and rebirth. And this is before we invoke science!

Secondly, this led to another big argument, the one over the interim realm (antarābhava). The doctrine of momentariness requires that the stream of cittas be unbroken. For this purpose they had to invent a kind of "neutral gear" called the bhavaṅgacitta which is what the mind is doing when it is not doing anything. It primarily provides continuity when our mind is inactive - such as when we sleep or in the nirodhasamāpatti "attainment of cessation". In this case there can be no gap between death and rebirth or the stream of cittas would be broken.

On the other hand, for other Buddhists the idea of an instantaneous transition did not make sense. Some pointed out that a cart carrying rice from one village to another took an appreciable time to get there. How could a citta fly from one person to another in no time? So they had to invent the interim realm, the antarābhava or bardo in Tibetan, to accommodate this.

At most, only one of these views can be correct. There can either be an interim or not. This dispute is never resolved in Buddhism so that today the official position of the Theravāda school is that there can be no interim realm, and Tibetan schools make the bardo between death and rebirth a particular feature of their teaching. Ironically many modern Theravādins (such as Bhikkhu Sujato) find the interim realm plausible, even though it destroys the stream of cittas that underlies their view of karma and rebirth.

I have been writing essays on this subject for some years now including critiques of the traditionalist views of some prominent Buddhists. Some of my work has also been published in academic journals. A complete list can be found under the heading Afterlife.

In addition I was interviewed by Ted Meissner of The Secular Buddhist on the subject of karma and rebirth:

Doug Smith of the Secular Buddhist Association has also critiqued the Traditionalist view of rebirth: http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/

Someone put together this discussion between me and David Chapman on Twitter on storify.


Recovery from Meditation When a person trains a muscle, there is a necessary recovery from training before one can train again. I'm wondering if there's such a thing with meditation sessions?

If so, how much time between sessions is necessary or even desirable? Are there guidelines in Buddhism about the length of pauses to take and the amount of sessions possible in a day?

More is better.  Period.  If you want some nuance to this answer, once you start getting above three hours straight in your sits, you start to get into diminishing returns.

The untrained mind and all of its obstacles and doubts is like a game of whack a mole.  You’ve got to keep swinging, every day, if you ever expect to make any progress.


What is non-buddhism? I've been off and on following the writings Glenn Wallis, et al.

I am honestly bemused at what they are driving at. I don't mind that there are critical of something about various parts of modern Buddhism-- it's good to read criticism and write apologia, but much of it is couched in a certain, I don't know, "grad school" style.

What is non-buddhism? Is it some sort of pro-Buddhist Buddhist reform movement, or more as atheism is to Christianity?

OK, I'll have a go, based on my (re-)reading of Wallis himself at his "What Is Non-Buddhism?" page. First, I have to say that one possibility is, it's an elaborate joke or hoax. The page says almost nothing substantial, except to offer analogies with non-Euclidean geometry or Laruelle. He says mostly what non-Buddhism is like and what it is not, but very little about what it actually is. But giving the benefit of the doubt:

His point seems to be that the label "Buddhism" may be attacheable to something valuable but that "x-Buddhism" -- i.e. all the "regular" forms of Buddhism, its types and sects and lineages, and their thought, practice, culture, and so on -- sit within a framework that pretty much makes it impossible to get to that something valuable. Therefore, in order to investigate the heart of the matter, you have to stand outside the x- stuff, and take a view from there. It's an attempt to apply Laruelle's "non-philosophy" specifically to Buddhism.

On the one hand it could be much ado about nothing. It's not completely false, but to the extent that it's true it seems kinda obvious. On the other hand, it certainly is possible for there to be deep, undetected aspects of human discourse and culture that, despite being undetected, have significant impacts on our way of life, and sometimes those impacts can be limiting and negative. So it may not be as obvious as I think.

Here's an analogy. Once upon a time, Aristotle codified logic. It was cool, and helped us figure out if arguments were valid. But it wasn't powerful enough to handle certain kinds of argument. Fast forward 2000 years, and in comes Frege. He produces a much more powerful form of logic, and also helps us understand what math is. But he makes a crucial mistake. So in comes Russel, and he fixes Frege's mistake. Or, at least he thinks he does. Then in comes Wittgenstein to show not only that Russel's fix wasn't complete, but that the whole thing just wasn't fixable at all. A few years later, Goedel belts the final nail in the coffin of a specific portion of the problem, but in such spectacular fashion that everyone sits up and says "WTF!?"

The point is, Wittgenstein and Goedel spotted that not only were prior systems broken, but that they were so fundamentally broken they were simply not fixable from inside those systems. To give Wallis etc the benefit of the doubt, I think they're arguing something similar (I'm stretching my analogy very thin now) about Buddhism. It's so busted that to fix it they have to step outside it.


Are there any Buddhist suttas in the scriptures about retaining memory? As I understand, the early Buddhist teachings were transmitted orally and memorized by monks and they were written down only much later. It must have been tremendous feet of human memory to retain so many of the sutras in the Tipitaka.
I want to ask, are there any teachings, maybe in the vinaya pitaka, which will help a monk increase his or her memory in order to remember the sutras.

In the sutta quote from AN 6.51 below, Ven. Ananda explains how one learns, understands and remembers the teachings.

Ānanda said this:
“Reverend Sāriputta, take a mendicant who memorizes the
teaching—statements, songs, discussions, verses, inspired
exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and
classifications.
Then, just as they learned and memorized it, they teach others in
detail, make them recite in detail, practice reciting in detail, and
think about and consider the teaching in their heart, examining it
with the mind.
They enter the rains retreat in a monastery with senior mendicants who
are very learned, knowledgeable in the scriptures, who have memorized
the teachings, the texts on monastic training, and the outlines. From
time to time they go up to those mendicants and ask them questions:
‘Why, sir, does it say this? What does that mean?’ Those venerables
clarify what is unclear, reveal what is obscure, and dispel doubt
regarding the many doubtful matters.
This is how a mendicant gets to hear a teaching they haven’t heard
before. It’s how they remember those teachings they have heard. It’s
how they keep rehearsing the teachings they’ve already got to know.
And it’s how they come to understand what they haven’t understood
before.”
“It’s incredible, reverend, it’s amazing! How well said this was by
Venerable Ānanda! And we will remember Venerable Ānanda as someone who
has these six qualities.
For Ānanda memorizes the teaching … statements, songs, discussions,
verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing
stories, and classifications. Those venerables clarify to Ānanda what
is unclear, reveal what is obscure, and dispel doubt regarding the
many doubtful matters.”
AN 6.51


Is it not recommended to change the object of meditation during a short session? Sometimes I tend to switch my attention from the nostrils to the "up and down" of the chest/stomach

It depends on how well I'm breathing (I have serious problem with the nostrils, it can only be 100% fixed in a surgery)

I do prefer the nostrils, however this change is commom everytime it becomes impossible to keep breathing throught them (so I swith to the mounth and focus on the chest)

Is this switch not recommended for any reason, for instance, is this a problem to reach right concentration?

The simple answer is it is not. Don't change it.

If you concentrate on breathing for a while you mind will play tricks
like, Now the it is time to change the session but it is not. Buddha
has taught not to fall for that kind of feelings.
Even if you try to master elements it the same. don't fall for that
feelings. Possibly if you do it for some time it is likely that you
will get fame, but it is temporary that is a test for you. If you
simply stop everything fades away sometimes you will fall than you
were before.

Read VipasanaBavana from Balangoda Anananda Mithree thero for more info


Can't I listen any kind of music by 7th percept? Nacca gīta vādita visukadassanā
mālā gandha vilepana dhārana
mandana vibhūsanaṭṭhānā veramaṇi
sikkhāpadaṃ samādhiyāmi.

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

nacca - plays/dances
gīta - song
vādita - music
visukadassanā - visiting shows

So yes, it includes all music. Even if you hear a song by chance and you indulge in it, you break the precept.


questions on my meditation practice? My goal with meditating was related to improving my concentration for academic reasons. At first I came across a method of meditating where I count out my breadth and avoid thinking of idle thoughts.

I had a lot of success with this method and was able to focus much more but at a later point I grew curious on what happened if I didn't count at all or didn't pay attention to my breadth at all.  So I repeated this process which was now easier just without any counting or attention. I again had success but my mind was very much blank at all times, it gave me some fright, I wasn't sure if it was going to be something harmful since I usually pick up on tiny details that relate to whatever I am doing but now my mind was just blank, so I stopped practising meditation as a whole for a while.

I have recently discovered that a lot of things I have been attempting already exist so I am wondering if:

There are any better ways then what I have been doing to achieve
higher levels of sustained concentration?
What end results I will face if I venture back into completely
clearing my mind rather than improving its ability to focus through
breadth counting?
If there are other components that seem useful to my goal that
certain kinds of meditation can improve?
I also don't have much of an opinion on the forehead sensation that
is commonly called a third eye but I can control it at will, I would
also be wondering if there is anything particularly special about
increasing the sensation or not?

Any help is kindly appreciated. I have also been gradually resuming my breadth counting meditation with success.

(edited to add:)

I am happy and my mind is calm but it is filled with songs and memories that I like but are not related to the task I am working on and as a result get me distracted from it. As such I wanted to make my thoughts silent at will so I can keep focusing on tasks which make me less happy than my thoughts do.

sure here is the way to set the citta into  right samadhi, contrary to whatever wrong samadhi you have developed,
with this sutta https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html, it is first physical seclusion, which means less distraction, fewer objects cognized, then it is mano which has piti and the kaya has passambhati then sukhaṃ vediyati, and the citta has sukhha then samadhi.

the way to get piti with mano is to sort out your Vitakkas with sati, ie satisampajanna, Satipatthana, ie knowing when a Vitakka arises, then judging it as either wholesome or not, and  knowing when it vanishing , and if it is unwholesome dropping it  by thinking of something good [instead of letting the bad thought proliferate] and when you have wholesome thoughts, you get glad to have wholesome thoughts. Same thing with feelings and perceptions.

In other words, when you have good thoughts, you are happy and when you are happy the citta is calm and enters samadhi.

Of course, before that, you must learn what is wholesome and not wholesome, because puthujjanas do not know what is good and what is bad, and buddha explains that here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html