What does Buddhism teach about anger? I would like to know what Buddhism says about both our own anger and other people's anger. Especially how to cope with other people's anger, how to handle it, how to avoid suffering from it? Also what are the origins and consequences of anger?

Anger
Anger is a manifestation of one of the five hindrances, the hindrance of aversion/ill-will (byāpāda). According to the Buddha, the path to happiness and Nirvana is the path of understanding and abandoning these hindrances.

“Bhikkhus, if one were to say of anything ‘a heap of the unwholesome,’ it is about the five hindrances that one could rightly say this. For this is a complete heap of the unwholesome, that is, the five hindrances." (SN 47.5)
"This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five hindrances, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”  (SN 45.177)
"I say, bhikkhus, that ignorance has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should be said: the five hindrances." (AN 10.61)
“Bhikkhus, these five hindrances are makers of blindness, causing lack of vision, causing lack of knowledge, detrimental to wisdom, tending to vexation, leading away from Nibbāna."  (SN 46.40)

Anger, like any hindrance, obstructs the development of the other limbs of the Eightfold Path. One example is the concentration (samadhi) limb, where it's not possible to enter the first jhana, a deeper state of meditation, without being secluded from the five hindrances:

"Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, he enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion."

When meditation is obstructed, wisdom is obstructed and so on... like a house of cards falling apart.
Nutriment for Anger
Anger manifests itself when we give careless attention to that which bugs us.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the increase and expansion of arisen ill will? There is, bhikkhus, the sign of the repulsive (paṭigha): frequently giving careless attention to it is the nutriment for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the increase and expansion of arisen ill will."
-- SN 46.2

Mitigating One's Own Anger
Part of the training to dispel anger is the practice of the virtue group of the Noble Eightfold Path, in particular, Right Speech and Right Action. These are restraints on bodily and verbal action. Thus, one abandons the act of killing living beings. Also, one abandon harsh words, words that are "rough, hard, hurtful to others, offensive to others, bordering on anger, unconducive to concentration" (AN 10.211).
Furthermore, one also must restrain mental actions, which are the forerunners of verbal and bodily actions.

"There is the case where a monk does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence."
-- AN 5.140

This threefold teaching related to anger is nicely put together in the following dhammapada verses:

Let a man guard himself against irritability in bodily action; let him be controlled in deed. Abandoning bodily misconduct, let him practice good conduct in deed.
Let a man guard himself against irritability in speech; let him be controlled in speech. Abandoning verbal misconduct, let him practice good conduct in speech.
Let a man guard himself against irritability in thought; let him be controlled in mind. Abandoning mental misconduct, let him practice good conduct in thought.

Restraining anger in the mind can be very challenging. A progressive teaching on how to restrain unwholesome thoughts was given by the Buddha in the Vitakkasanthana sutta (MN 20):

"When a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome. When he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with hate are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated [...]"
"If, while he is giving attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then he should examine the danger in those thoughts thus: ‘These thoughts are unwholesome, they are reprehensible, they result in suffering.’ [...]
"If, while he is examining the danger in those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then he should try to forget those thoughts and should not give attention to them [...]"
“If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside [...]"
“If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts [...] connected with hate then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind."

The Buddha also narrated how he trained to dispel his own unwholesome thoughts in the Dvedhavitakka sutta (MN 19):

"As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of ill will arose in me ... a thought of cruelty arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of cruelty has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.‘ When I considered thus it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of cruelty arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it."

Finally, two mental factors, when fully developed, make it impossible for anger and cruelty to take over one's mind:  loving kindness (mettā) and compassion (karunā):

"It’s impossible and inconceivable, friend, that one might develop and cultivate the liberation of mind by loving-kindness, make it one's vehicle and basis, carry it out, consolidate it, and properly undertake it, yet ill will could still obsess one's mind."
[...]
"It’s impossible and inconceivable, friend, that one might develop and cultivate the liberation of mind by compassion, make it one's vehicle and basis, carry it out, consolidate it, and properly undertake it, yet the thought of harming could still obsess one's mind."
-- AN 6.13

The deeper practices of loving kindness and compassion are described in suttas such as the Atthakanagara Sutta.
Dealing with People's Anger
In one episode, the Buddha instructed Phagguna to train as follows when he is facing dispraise and violence (MN 21):

‘Neither will my mind become perverted, nor will I utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will I dwell with a mind of friendliness and void of hatred.’

The Buddha taught his disciples to endure the anger from others:

“And how is a monk an endurer? There is the case where a monk is resilient to cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life."
--AN 5.14

He taught his disciples to be tolerant towards angry people:

“And which is intolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual, when insulted, returns the insult; when abused, returns the abuse; when bickered with, bickers in return. This is called intolerant practice.
“And which is tolerant practice? There is the case where a certain individual, when insulted, doesn’t return the insult; when abused, doesn’t return the abuse; when bickered with, doesn’t bicker in return. This is called tolerant practice.
-- AN 4.164

He also emphasized the development of equanimity when dealing with angry people, and instructed the monks to remain in healthy distance so as to not obstruct their own practice:

“And what kind of person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served? Here, some person is prone to anger  and easily exasperated. Even if he is criticized slightly he loses his temper and becomes irritated, hostile, and stubborn; he displays irritation, hatred, and bitterness. [...] Such a person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served. For what reason? With the thought: ‘He might insult me, revile me, and do me harm.’ Therefore such a person is to be looked upon with equanimity, not to be associated with, followed, and served.
-- AN 3.27

The Buddha pointed out that harmlessness is a protection we give not only to others, but to ourselves:

“And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, lovingkindness, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
-- SN 47.19

He taught the disciples consistently in this path even if the Dhamma, Sangha and the Buddha are insulted:

"If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me, or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves.
-- DN 1

Finally, he also vividly illustrated how anger has no part in his teachings:

Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching."  (MN 21)


What happened to Siddhārtha Gautama wife Yashodhara? When Lord Buddha's wife Yashodhara also joined Sangha (become bhikkhuni), what happened to her ?

Did she also get enlightened ?

Did his son Rahula get enlightened ?

This, This answers says Buddha can never be a woman

When Lord Buddha's wife Yashodhara also joined Sangha (become bhikkhuni), what happened to her ?

As part of the Bhikkhuni order nothing special or noteworthy incidents through the Buddha acknowledged her past contribution to his enlightenment in realising the Parami.

And like anybody else she aged, decayed and passed away. On passing away she was truly free from suffering as she was enlightened.

  Did she also get enlightened ?

Yasodharā achieved enlightenment.

  Did his son Rahula get enlightened ?

Rāhula also achieved enlightenment.

  ... says Buddha can never be a woman

A woman can never become a fully enlightened Buddha. But a woman can achieve enlightenment as a disciple nun. Yasodara became a disciple nun not a Buddha. She was the wife of Prince Siddhartha. She became a nun later in the Buddha's Sasana. Also see: Bahu Dhātuka Sutta


Did Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī, Samantabhadra, and Kṣitigarbha exist before Śākyamuni? In other words, did they exist first, and then Śākyamuni became a Buddha later on?

From a canonical perspective, Shakyamuni is one of many Buddhas (i.e. humans who attained satori) and many lived before him, so the answer would be yes.

According to Therevada, each Kalpa has 1.000 Buddhas. Theravada lists some of these as "the named Buddhas":

Vipassī (the 998th Buddha of the vyuhakalpa)
Sikhī (the 999th Buddha of the vyuhakalpa)
Vessabhū (the 1000th and final Buddha of the vyuhakalpa)
Kakusandha (the first Buddha of the bhadrakalpa)
Koṇāgamana (the second Buddha of the bhadrakalpa)
Kassapa (the third Buddha of the bhadrakalpa)
Gautama (the fourth and present Buddha of the bhadrakalpa)

In Mahayana, Amithaba was originally a monk called Dharmakāra in very ancient times (long before Shakyamuni).

From a historical research perspective, the Mahayana deities first appear in scriptures hundreds of years after Gautama's lifetime.


Guidance for how to handle stomach problems arising during Vipassana? During concentration the main thing I can feel during the first half hour or so is the feeling of the stomach/ top part of the intestine area or feelings inside the belly. There's really nothing else for me to feel, especially when mediating topless so that the skin's interaction with fabric doesn't give a sense of rising and falling. Although I'm aware painful sensations can be expected, this uncomfortable feeling does feel like the wrong type of discomfort but is my only point of focus. It seems like something I shouldn't be focusing on, or maybe I am over extending when breathing, but I don't think so. That being said, my practice has eventually led to pleasant sensations and having a tension to wave-like movement when breathing.

Anyone have any guidance or suggestions?

NB my posture is quite straight.

Thanks!

When practicing vipassana, you simply just witness whatever sensations that are happening moment to moment. If a mental reaction arises as you focus on the belly, like a thought, an opinion or a feeling then simply note it and go back to the belly. If you can't  feel anything then note whatever reality is in your attention at that moment and if it seems like nothing then it's ok to note "nothing". Maybe you would be waiting for the breath to arise, if so you could note "waiting". You know, even if you get confused in your practice you can note "confused".

Truth itself is not dangerous but our reactions to truth can be dangerous. If you feel a bodily sensation isn't right then you might note in your head "doubt", "fear or whatever seems appropriate. Of course call a doctor if by "not right" you mean you might have something physically wrong.

Getting a good teacher is one of the most fundamentally  beneficial things a meditator can do. If you have one be sure and ask them about any outside advice you get.


Spiritual friendship with the Buddha I'm wondering what the Buddha said about spiritual friendship with the Buddha himself. From SN 45.2:

  By the following method too, Ānanda, it may be understood how the
  entire holy life is good friendship, good companionship, good
  comradeship: by relying upon me as a good friend, Ānanda, beings
  subject to birth are freed from birth; beings subject to aging are
  freed from aging; beings subject to death are freed from death; beings
  subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair are
  freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. By
  this method, Ānanda, it may be understood how the entire holy life is
  good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.

Are there any other texts that bring up this subject? What have later Buddhist teachers said about this?

References (from Sutras or otherwise) are welcome!

Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

UPDATE to make the question more clear: The question is specifically about friendship with the Buddha himself (not general friendship on the path). I have chosen to call this friendship "spiritual" but maybe "virtual" or another word would be better, or another word that describes that the friendship is different from a person alive in the typical sense

Kalyana-Mitta, ‘Noble or Good Friend’, is called a person who is fully established in this Dhamma Path, and who walks the Noble Eightfold Path, and who is the mentor and friend of his friend, or associate, or fellow traveler in this Path, ‘wishing for her/his welfare and concerned with her/his progress.

Ananda, one of many principal disciples of the Buddha, once asked the Buddha if half of the reason for the spiritual life was friendship with others. The Buddha turned to Ananda, rebuking him mildly with the words, “Don’t say that, Ananda. The whole of the spiritual life is THIS.” From this, it shows that the association with a Kalyana Mitta is the WHOLE of the Holy Life. As for you and I, being a ‘Kalyana-mitta’  (noble friend) to others is the one way that we could show our gratitude for what we have gained.

This is especially important as our minds are very deceptive. We are all hard-wired to never be able to get out of this never ending ‘samsara’. So for example if your mind says one thing and for instance a noble friend says another, you’ll have to do weigh very carefully what the noble friend advices you before going forth with what your own mind tells you.

Majjhima Nikaya Suttas 84  Madhurā Sutta - At Madhurā and 94 Gotamukha Sutta -To the Brahmin Gotamukha show how a Kalyana Mitta would act. These two suttas describe how a person approached an arahant who was renowned for the strength and clarity of his teachings. This person requested that he be allowed to take refuge in the arahant, but the arahant replied that refuge could not be taken in him but only in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.

The Noble One (Ariya) in this sutta(s) was an arahant. Still he made it clear that the Buddha-Dhamma must be our guide, and that the Sangha can only assist us to do this for ourselves. Such is the advice of a Kalyana Mitta.  In the Buddha’s words, as recorded in the Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 5.88, it is possible that even a world renowned monk, who has a large following of lay and monastic disciples and who is very learned in the scriptures, can have wrong views.

In the Anguttara Nikaya (Sutta 4.180), the Buddha told us that when any bhikku told us that such and such were the teachings of the Buddha, we should, without scorning or welcoming his words, compare the words of the monk with the Suttas and the Vinaya (the texts containing the code of monastic discipline). If they are not in accordance with the Sutta-Vinaya, we should reject them. It is only in this way that we will be able to distinguish between a teacher who teaches the true Dhamma and another who has wrong views.


Arahants, Precepts, Monasticism, & Worldly Things Namo Buddhaya!

I had four questions pertaining to conduct & the Buddha:
(I am Theravāda Buddhist)

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?
Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?
How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?
(For example (to name one of many): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkmLYAl1p7w )
"Sitting or lying down with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is [an offense of Confession.]"(Summarized Paac. 44; BMC p.385)
Source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#alone
How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Please help! Metta to all!!!

How could the Buddha have been on this Earth as an Arahant if Arahants[-To-Be] can only be reborn in a higher plane (A Heavenly plane) of existences as according to the 4 Stages of Enlightenment?

The earliest scriptures depict a 'hearer' (such as Kondanna or Upatissa/Sariputta) attaining stream-entry and soon after attaining Arahantship.

The one or two suttas (such as AN 3.87) that more strongly infer a stream-enterer has at most seven more lifetimes appear to be illogical; given they infer a "same self", which is contrary to the stream-enterers destruction of "sakkaya ditthi" ("view of real self"). For me, these suttas appear to be later Abhidhamma, inputed into the suttas.

The most well-known sutta about stream-entry, namely, SN 13.1, is often falsely translated as including the phrase "seven more lifetimes at most" but the Pali actually does not include the words "lifetimes". SN 13.1 appears to say a stream-enterer has "seven more fetters at most to breakthrough".

Also, the phrase below about Non-Returners might also be questionable in its translations and interpretations. For example, two different translations and interpretations below:

  Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṃ bhikkhusaṃghe pañcannaṃ orambhāgiyānaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā opapātikā tattha parinibbāyino anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā—

  In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of the five lower fetters are reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world.

  vs

  Bhikkhus, living in this community there are bhikkhus who are Non-Returners through having ended the five lower fetters, who are spontaneously arisen,7 who will realize perfect coolness in that existence and by nature will never return from that world. Bhikkhus such as these are living in this community of bhikkhus.

  7. Oppatika, born instantly and fully mature without going through the process of  conception, gestation, infancy, and childhood-that is, instantaneous mental birth (not necessarily "re-birth").

Also the suttas (eg. MN 123) about the Bodhisatta coming to earth from heaven seem mythological because in these suttas the Baby Bodhisatta walks and talks about 'himself' from childbirth, which is contrary to suttas such as MN 64, which say a new born child has no conceptions of self.

  Is using items within the same familial household without permission (such as a pencil, laptop, or a clothing item from a brothers room) considered a breach of the 2nd Precept?

If there is an explicit understanding in the family these items are to be used for the whole family then it does not break the precept. But, yes, if you take your brother's things without permission, it is a breach of the precept. The precept is for the purpose of developing respect for the property & feelings of others.

  How is (with all respect) Venerable Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu able to be in the presence of a nun or the nun in his presence if it breaks the monastic rules?

Many of the Vinaya rules are about monks avoiding giving bad impressions to laypeople. Without knowing the specific rules exactly, in my opinion, there is a breach of the Vinaya because the videos looks like the monk & nun are together in a private place. Also, their posture & dress looks sloppy & undisciplined. Undisciplined looking monks & nuns will only attract similar undisciplined people to Buddhism, which is pointless when these converts cannot practise Buddhism due to their sexual obsessions and lack of sexual boundaries. Keep in mind sexual desire is the 1st hindrance to entering the Noble Path.

  How do monks and nuns get their Tipitaka materials, monastic dwellings, and other worldly things while at the same time not being involved with any medium of exchange? Do they ask lay people to do so? Wouldn’t that be requesting for something, which I’m assuming is prohibited too in terms that they accept & don’t request for thing?

Lay people offer them. If lay people don't understand, I imagine the monk explains. For example, if a monk is on alms round in a non-Buddhist country, people, out of curiosity, will ask the monk: "What are you? What are you doing?". I imagine the monk would reply: "I am a Buddhist monk. I have vows of not using money. I go on alms round to collect food to feed myself for my spiritual practise. I place my trust & faith in the goodness of people to offer me food. In return, I teach them Dhamma, if they ask".

This famously happened to Ajahn Sumedho in England, who was offered land for a monastery by a non-Buddhist stranger. Read below:

  In the spring of 1978, one of those small miracles happened that stop the mind's rational expectations. Keeping to the apparently pointless routine of going out for alms every day, as prescribed by Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho encountered a lone jogger on Hampstead Heath whose attention was arrested by the bhikkhus' appearance. This jogger had acquired an overgrown forest in West Sussex called Hammer Wood, out of the wish to restore it to its former glory – but he also understood that this was work for more than one man and one lifetime. Although not a Buddhist, he had the openness of mind to appreciate that an order of forest monks might be the perfect wardens for his woodland. Subsequently, he attended one of the ten-day meditation retreats that Ajahn Sumedho held at the Oaken Holt Buddhist Centre near Oxford, and later made an outright gift of the forest to the Sangha. This marvellous act of generosity...

  How The Buddha Came to Sussex


How to juggle between the need for Prosperity and Desires for a Samsaric mind? I completely understand the second noble truth which says

origin of dukkha, which arises or "comes together" with taṇhā
("craving, desire or attachment")

in plain English,

Desire is the cause of Sorrow.

But if one has not renounced and not living as a monk one has needs to maintain the Samsaric existence. As a layperson, you need money for thousands of things, pay the bills, get the wood for the fire to cook, pay for children's education, etc etc. Now I understand that core desire like, "I want more money" will lead to suffering, but you need an intention to become prosperous as time passes, i.e. grow in the samsaric world along with a spiritual goal towards Nirvana.
How can one grow without harboring desires? I understand that, the thoughts like, "I want a Ferrari" is a blatant desire, but I do want a decent car to drive few miles to my work. How is this basic necessity dealt with without desiring? How is this situation dealt with in the bounds of Dhamma? I am not talking about attachments to already possessed things, but working towards a prosperous living. After all, Nirvana or not, nobody wants to live in adversity.

There are two kinds of right livelihood:

MN117:30.2: Right livelihood is twofold, I say.

One may give up bad deeds for good deeds and prosper:

MN117:30.3: There is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
MN117:31.1: And what is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment?
MN117:31.2: It’s when a noble disciple gives up wrong livelihood and earns a living by right livelihood.
MN117:31.3: This is right livelihood that is accompanied by defilements.

Even better, one may give up attachments:

MN117:30.4: And there is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN117:32.1: And what is right livelihood that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path?
MN117:32.2: It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and refraining from wrong livelihood in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path.
MN117:32.3: This is right livelihood that is noble.

The path is gradual and the first step is understanding the nature of good deeds. In other words, let ethics temper the siren call of desire. MN8 provides a list of ethical considerations:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’
MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’
MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’
MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’
MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’
...

For example, buying and driving a Ferrari alongside a hungry person would be cruel. But helping to ease that person's hunger would be kind and it would also be cheaper.

AN10.28:4.5: ‘All sentient beings are sustained by food.’


Silence and emptiness I never understood silence or emptiness in Buddhism and how is experiencing them beneficial?.Is it a way for experiencing the arising of experience ?

Silence in Buddhism refers to Citta Visuddhi. This means the purification of the mind, or quietening of the mind. It doesn't mean no sound. This is when the mind attains highly concentrated states called the Jhanas. When the mind is in these states, your defilements are silenced or subdued. This is a good base for the development of insight meditation.

'Emptiness' is a nature of all realities. It doesn't mean empty in the literal sense. It means being empty of a self or a soul or an entity. This is a truth one realizes with insight meditation. It is one of the Three characteristics of all condition phenomena. Realizing them lead to enlightenment.


Sharing merit in Theravada Buddhism When you are sharing merit with someone, are you visualizing the person you are sharing the merit with?

When you are sharing merit with all living beings, are you imagining all beings? How do you do that? What do you really do from Theravada perspective? Thanks all.

The idea of "sharing merit" or "transferring merit" is very popular in Theravāda Buddhism. I do not believe that it has a basis in the Suttas. I have read that this concept was introduced much later because of folk beliefs.

The closest thing in the Suttas to sharing or transferring of merit is in Pv 1.5 / Khp 7, which talks about food / drink and ghosts:

  Outside the walls they stand and at crossroads. At door posts they stand, returning to their old homes.
  But when a meal with plentiful food & drink is served, no one remembers them: Such is the kamma of living beings.

  Thus those who feel sympathy for their dead relatives give timely donations of proper food & drink — exquisite, clean — [thinking:] "May this be for our relatives. May our relatives be happy!"

  And those who have gathered there, the assembled ghosts of the relatives, with appreciation give their blessing for the plentiful food & drink: "May our relatives live long because of whom we have gained [this gift]. We have been honored, and the donors are not without reward!"

  For there [in the ghost realm] there's no farming, no herding of cattle, no commerce, no trading with money. They live on what is given here, hungry ghosts whose time here is done.

  As water raining on a hill flows down to the valley, even so does what is given here benefit the dead. As rivers full of water fill the ocean full, even so does what is given here benefit the dead.

  "He gave to me, she acted on my behalf, they were my relatives, companions, friends": Offerings should be given for the dead when one reflects thus on things done in the past. For no weeping, no sorrowing no other lamentation benefits the dead whose relatives persist in that way.
  But when this offering is given, well-placed in the Sangha, it works for their long-term benefit and they profit immediately.

  In this way the proper duty to relatives has been shown, great honor has been done to the dead, and monks have been given strength: The merit you've acquired isn't small.

Here is how I understand this Sutta... Dead relatives hang around things to which they were attached during their lives (places and relatives), but nobody cares. When you see good food and drink, you should think "May my deceased relatives be happy". When this is done, your deceased relatives will rejoice because they have been honoured. Ghosts lead a difficult life and offering the thought "May my deceased relatives be happy" helps and sustains the ghosts. Crying and lamentation does not help the deceased relatives, but offering the thought "May my deceased relatives be happy" helps and sustains the ghosts. If the food and drink is offered to the Sangha, the there is even more merit because the monks gain strength as well.

There is another popular chant sometimes called "Sharing Merit with Devas" (not sure where this originated... can't find it in the Tipiṭaka or commentaries):

  Ākāsaṭṭhā ca bhummaṭṭhā
  devā nāgā mahiddhikā
  Puññaṃ taṃ anumoditvā
  ciraṃ rakkhantu sāsanaṃ.

  Ākāsaṭṭhā ca bhummaṭṭhā
  devā nāgā mahiddhikā
  Puññaṃ taṃ anumoditvā
  ciraṃ rakkhantu desanaṃ.

  Ākāsaṭṭhā ca bhummaṭṭhā
  devā nāgā mahiddhikā
  Puññaṃ taṃ anumoditvā
  ciraṃ rakkhantu maṃ paran"ti.

The key word here is "anumoditvā", which is sometimes incorrectly translated as "sharing"; what it really means is "to rejoice" / "to be thankful" / "to appreciate". In other words, we are inviting the Devā to rejoice in what merit we have done... we are not transferring anything to them. Anyway, Devā have lots of merits of their own, so why would they need ours? :-)


Is the abhidhammic view on mind an externalist or internalist one? I'd like to try and categorize the abhidhammic view into either as an internalist or externalist or know if it's possible at all, knowing how the historical Buddha himself even refused to either ultimately deny or agree with the usual problem that would easily decide this issue.

As far as I understand my main problem is that cetasikas seem to imply an externalist view (citta comes into contact with something, they also rise and disappear with citta together) because according to externalism, for a mind content to arise, it is necessary to be related to the environment in the right way.

Citta itself seems to be an intrinsic property though, as far as every agent is capable of knowing something. This strongly implies an internalist viewpoint (there are intrinsic and unique properties of agents that mental contents supervene upon), as our contents are individuated by the properties of our bodies.

The question may be answered directly. Whenever you come across two theories that are contradictory but complementary such as internalism and externalism Buddhism denies the truth of both. This is a general rule and may be safely applied in all circumstances. This is why the phrase 'Middle Way' is said to have infinite applications.

It is an avoidance of all positive theories in favour of a neutral one. Hence the Buddha's insistence that we avoid all extreme views.

To explain or understand a neutral position is a major challenge but just knowing what Buddhism says about these things is not difficult. Wherever there are two extreme views both are rejected. This is necessary for a doctrine of Unity since all distinctions and divisions must be reduced.

Internalism and externalism are partial or selective theories and as Kant and Nagarjuna note all such theories are undecidable since neither extreme answer can withstand analysis.


Propelling the continuity of mindfulness I want to know how to prolong the knowing factor in my life .I face hindrances when thinking about solving a problem for example which is different than contemplating the receptions in mindfulness.How can it remain and become unfabricated.

As meditators, our job is to be aware or knowing as much as we can through out our daily life. And like it or not, we can't live our lives without fabricating. Right now, as you read this, your cognitive mind is fabricating. Otherwise, you can't understand these words.

However, I understand how fabrication can lead to a lot of problems. So what can we do?

Be aware of the fabricating when the mind fabricates. In that way, we're not involved in the fabrication, and so not get lost in it. In that way, we also get to understand fabrication as fabrication, whether a certain fabrication is necessary or not, and how various fabrications work, etc.


What makes a great a spiritual leader? Is it nature or nurture or something else? Two premises presumed for my question:

The 14th Dalai Lama is an especially sincere spirit
Reincarnation, beyond the scientific eg recycling of atoms / culture / dna, is an incorrect idea.

Is the 14h Dalai Lama's charisma created by being raised as a spiritual leader? Are all Tibetans especially sweet souls? Is it both or neither, but rather great luck?

I am trying to tease out nature & nurture, and squeeze out the supernatural!

Notwithstanding your (questionable) second premise ... :)

I'll say that not all Tibetans are such sweet souls and you'd be hard pressed to find many that are anywhere near as incomparable as HHDL... but the answer is simple: practice of the Dharma.

His Holiness is a Bodhisattva who has been wholeheartedly practicing according to the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra
 for many, many, many years if not many, many, many lifetimes. What you are seeing is the result of such continued and amazing practice. Consider his Holiness's favorite quote which he repeats constantly during his teachings:

  With a wish to free all beings I shall always go for refuge to the
  Buddha, Dharma and Sangha until I reach full enlightenment.

  Enthused by wisdom and compassion, today in the Buddha’s presence I
  generate the Mind for Full Awakening for the benefit of all sentient
  beings.

  As long as space endures, as long as sentient being remain, until then, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world.

If one faithfully practices and generates this Mind of Enlightenment the results will follow. You are just observing the results.


A Buddhist Point of View of Virtual Reality Buddhism teaches that what is real is experience; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking.

From this perspective, is virtual reality, (video games, Oculus Rift, and such) objectively less "real" than reality? One certainly sees, hears, feels and thinks in virtual reality.

If material objects are not real; are digital images of them any less real?

I suspect there is an objective answer to this from a Buddhist point of view and I'm interested in understanding it.

Gosh, that's a heavy question. All I'll do is point you to some potentially useful material. I suggest you take a look at comparisons between the philosophy of Wittgenstein, and that of Nagarjuna. (Professional analytic philosophers may be knee-jerking like crazy here, but I'll persist.) The central idea that connects them -- if anything does -- is the idea that what you are asking sits outside the bounds of what language can express. It -- the notion of more or less "real"-ness -- is an example of what Wittgenstein referred to in stating "Whereof one cannot speak, thereon one must remain silent."

Or, less exotically, I really do think that the movie "The Matrix" has something to offer here. When Neo asks Morpheus, inside the battle simulation, "So this isn't real?", Morpheus replies "What is real?" Put another way, why are you distinguishing between "virtual" reality, and "real" reality? Ultimately we have no idea what is "out there"; the only thing we do know for sure is that we are perceiving it.

I don't know if that is of any use whatsoever :-)


Who follows which yana (Vajrayana, Hinayana or Mahayana)? I have heard about these traditions: Vajrayana, Mahayana, and Hinayana. In today's world, Buddhist people dwell in South Asia and East Asia. Who among them follows each particular sect? Does anybody follow more than one of them?

In today's world Buddhist people dwell in South Asia and East Asia . Who among themselves follows particular sect.

Wikipedia's Schools of Buddhism article has a map.

Does anybody follows more than one of them?

I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk of "following a sect". If you think of them as "schools" then, yes, I'm pretty sure that there are some (or many?) people who learn from more than one school.

For example the Pali canon could be associated with the Theravada school, but it is studied by people who also learn from other (e.g. Tibetan or Zen) teachers.

I can't tell you how wide-spread that practice is geographically, but there are certainly some users like that on this site.

And people sometimes emphasize what the "sects" of Buddhism have on common (What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?, and One Vehicle for Peace which is referenced from that topic).

Incidentally, please refer to this topic: How should we police the use of the word Hinayana?

Also, One Vehicle for Peace (referenced above) says,

  It is universally accepted by scholars that the terms Hinayana and Mahayana are later inventions by Mahayanists. Theravada cannot be included in either of these divisions. Historically speaking Theravada already existed long before these two terms came into being. etc.

The Wikipedia map I referenced shows Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana (not Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana) as you wrote in the question.

Dhammadhatu's answer is about Hinayana ("individual enlightenment vehicle") since that's what you asked about -- it's one of the yanas which are described in Mahayana doctrine. But maybe (since you asked about different schools in different geographical places) you intended to ask instead about Theravada (which I think of as "old school" or "original school" or literally "school of the elder monks").


What is the precise meaning of anatta? This is focusing in on one specific aspect of what was asked here: What are the three marks of existence?

I often hear "anatta" explained as being an expression of the non-existence of the self. However, various places add an adjective first. For example, I've heard it said that anatta refers to the non-existence of a "permanent" self, or a "material" self, or a "separate" self (or some combination of those and others).

It seems clear to me that it cannot mean the non-existence of a self per se, because such a statement -- "There is no self" -- would be auto-refuting.

So exactly what is meant by anatta?

Anatta is used in an adjectival sense, as a characteristic of something (all things including nibbana, in fact). So it doesn't have anything to do directly with a philosophy that "there is no self". This doesn't by any means suggest that the Buddha encouraged belief in a self. The best refutation of such an idea that I know of is in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22):

  23.“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who
  clings to it.262 "" But do you see any such doctrine of self,
  bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any
  doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair in one who clings to it.

  ...

  25.“Bhikkhus, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self?” —“Yes, venerable sir.”—“Or, there being what belongs
  to a self, would there be for me a self?”—“Yes, venerable
  sir.”—“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not
  apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views,
  namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be
  permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure
  as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish
  teaching?”

  “What else could it be, venerable sir, but an utterly and completely
  foolish teaching?”

  (Bodhi, Trans)

So what does anatta mean, then? According to the Visuddhimagga, it means specifically that the item in question has no core (asāraka), as per the third stage of insight knowledge:

  ‘Materiality, whether past, future, or present, is impermanent in the sense of destruction, painful in the sense of terror, not-self in the sense of having no core,’ is knowledge of comprehension.

  Path of Purification, XX.6

The explanation of having no core means having none of the four kinds of self:

Sāmi attā - controlling self
Nivāsī attā - continuous self
Kāraka attā - active agent self
Vedaka attā - experiencing self

These four types of self are explained in the Mahasi Sayadaw's discourse on the anatta-lakkhana-sutta. Briefly, according to the Visuddhimagga:

  In the sense of having no core because of the absence of any core of
  self conceived as a self, an abider, a doer, an experiencer, one who
  is his own master; for what is impermanent is painful (S III 82), and
  it is impossible to escape the impermanence, or the rise and fall and
  oppression, of self, so how could it have the state of a doer, and so
  on? Hence it is said, “Bhikkhus, were materiality self, it would not
  lead to affliction” (S III 66), and so on. So this is also not-self in
  the sense of having no core.

  -- Path of Purification XX.16

The Visuddhimagga goes on to give five characteristics of the five aggregates that make them each non-self (the entire list of 40 characteristics is worth reading, but the rest have to do with the other two main characteristics):

  as alien because of inability to have mastery exercised over them, and
  because of intractability;
  as empty because of their emptiness of the lastingness, beauty,
  pleasure and self that are conceived about them;
  as vain  because of
  their emptiness, or because of their triviality; for what is trivial
  is called “vain” in the world;
  as void because devoid of the state of
  being an owner, abider, doer, experiencer, director; as not-self
  because of itself having no owner, etc.
  as not-self because of itself having no owner, etc.;

  -- Path of Purification XX.19

Practically speaking, what does all this mean? Not a whole lot, since the point is not to understand intellectually the concept of non-self, but rather to experience it. From a point of view of experience, non-self is understood through observing that the five aggregates (i.e. the aspects of experience) conform to the explanations above. This understandling comes naturally through objective observation of the four foundations of mindfulness, so it's not really something to ponder over or doubt about.


Why do I have swaying/floating feeling after completing 10 day Vipassana course? These sensations and a feeling that my whole body is swaying/floating started on the 7th day of the course. On the 8th day I had quite a surreal experience during one of the group sittings. My eyes would also start watering during meditation. I did share my experience with the assistant teacher and told her that I was scared something was happening to my body. I was also feeling dizzy. The teacher said that this was normal and I should just be aware of these sensations and feelings and not try to control them. The next days until the course ended, I did not pay much attention to the swaying/floating. If I focused on it, I could feel it strongly, otherwise sometimes I would just not be aware of it at all.

My question is that it's been two days that I've been back from the course and the last I meditated was on the morning of the 11th day (final day) of the course. But I still have a swaying/floating feeling. Is this normal? Has anyone experienced this? If yes, what did you do about it and did it stop on its own? After how many days?

Any insight into why this is happening and if its alright to experience this will be appreciated. Thanks!

Yes, it's alright that it's happening (assuming you didn't somehow hurt yourself in an odd way). What you are describing is a normal occurrence at retreats of many varieties, not just Vipassana. They are simply symptoms of prolonged concentration, the degree and type of which are determined by your unique body, mind, and karmic history.

Sensations of lightness, swaying or rocking, tears, tingling, heat, chills, intense joy, bright images, etc. are all common occurences of Piti (also known as Rapture). Piti occurs when a yogi concentrates in the right way for an amount of time. Piti's effects are temporary, and will fade with time, depending on how much and how deeply you experienced it.

You're having the opposite reaction most have to these things - many yogis get attached to Piti and never go beyond it, or stop going deeper because they think they've reached Nibbana. So you're ahead of the curve in knowing that these pleasures are also Dukkha. You're having an anxious reaction to it, which in turn causes additional problems like trouble sleeping, which in turn causes more anxiety, panic, and stress in an endless feedback loop. What we resist, persists. Surrender.

I've personally experienced what you're describing many times. It will pass. You may also be experiencing a new, deeper awareness of your body that you haven't had before. Your mind is now more clear, focused, and observant - it's no wonder you're experiencing new strange things. That's pretty neat! A shift in perspective may be all that you really need.

Your feeling of lightness may be akin to the early stages of what is described in the suttas and by monks as the power of levitation. ;) Just try to let go, stop worrying, and enjoy these new things for now. Get back on the meditation cushion. Observe them just like any other meditation object, investigate them. Where exactly is the sensation? What makes it so insufferable, in terms of experience? Does it have an essence? Does it change? When does judgement arise, before or after the sensation?

Hope you feel better, find peace, and liberate yourself from this suffering.


The "working-ground" (kammatthana) of the five hindrances My question is about the following passage (taken from the section on the five hindrances here):

  One who earnestly aspires to the unshakable deliverance of the mind
  should, therefore, select a definite "working-ground" of a direct and
  practical import: a kammatthana1 in its widest sense, on which the
  structure of his entire life should be based. Holding fast to that
  "working-ground," never losing sight of it for long, even this alone
  will be a considerable and encouraging progress in the control and
  development of the mind, because in that way the directive and
  purposive energies of mind will be strengthened considerably. One who
  has chosen the conquest of the five hindrances for a "working-ground"
  should examine which of the five are strongest in one's personal case.
  Then one should carefully observe how, and on which occasions, they
  usually appear. One should further know the positive forces within
  one's own mind by which each of these hindrances can best be countered
  and, finally, conquered; and one should also examine one's life for
  any opportunity of developing these qualities which, in the following
  pages, have been indicated under the headings of the spiritual
  faculties (indriya), the factors of absorption (jhananga), and the
  factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga). In some cases, subjects of
  meditation have been added which will be helpful in overcoming the
  respective hindrances.

The bolded emphasis is mine. My question is, what is meant by making the "conquest of the five hindrances a working-ground"? Kammatthana is later defined as the subject of meditation (literally meaning "working-ground").

Instructions are given right after the assertion but I am confused as to how one might extend this into everyday life and not merely during meditation. Furthermore, meditation often has some other object of focus (namely, the breath, the movement of the abdomen etc.) does making the five hindrances the working-ground change this?

More practically, if a thought arises which is unwholesome (not during a sit, but in everyday life, since it is stated above that we should make the "structure of [our] entire life" based on the working-ground) should we try to categorize the thought into one of the hindrances, then accept it merely as a thought, as part of a process which does not constitute our identity and then watch it impassively until it fades? Or how should we deal them?

There is not much to say about it, the sutta named Subhasutta (numbered MN 99) has plenty of times the word kammatthana -- also translated "occupation" in this translation.

Here is the definition from the famous ATI glossary:

  kammatthana Literally, "basis of work" or "place of work". The word
  refers to the "occupation" of a meditating monk: namely, the
  contemplation of certain meditation themes by which the forces of
  defilement (kilesa), craving (tanha), and ignorance (avijja) may be
  uprooted from the mind. In the ordination procedure, every new monk is
  taught five basic kammatthana that form the basis for contemplation of
  the body: hair of the head (kesa), hair of the body (loma), nails
  (nakha), teeth (danta), and skin (taco). By extension, the kammatthana
  include all the forty classical meditation themes. Although every
  meditator may be said to engage in kammatthana, the term is most often
  used to identify the particular Thai forest tradition lineage that was
  founded by Phra Ajaan Mun and Phra Ajaan Sao.

Anyway, the end of your question is more important -- i.e. you asked:

  More practically, if a thought arises which is unwholesome (not during
  a sit, but in everyday life, since it is stated above that we should
  make the "structure of [our] entire life" based on the working-ground)
  should we try to categorize the thought into one of the hindrances,
  then accept it merely as a thought, as part of a process which does
  not constitute our identity and then watch it impassively until it
  fades? Or how should we deal them?

Dividing your life into two parts, "trying to to get the citta into samadhi" and "not trying to get the citta into samadhi" is not a good idea, even for people who are not bikkhus (mnks). What you can do in daily life is sati sampajanna (clear and constant awareness), like when you walk, when you eat and so on -- but getting citta (mind) into the samma samadhi (right concentration) needs seclusion, which is exactly what samma samadhi is.

So first a bit of vocabulary...

For the buddha, "living in the present" means having the citta (mind) in samadhi (concentration) of the first jhana (or higher) as expressed here, and it turns out that "the here and now" is always pleasant,

so,

the citta is in the samadhi of the first jhana = living in the pleasing here and now
the citta is not in the samadhi of any jhana = not living in the present moment.

The buddha also says that it is easy for puthujjanas (wordly people -- who probably have some incorrect views e.g. about the doctrine) to confuse the samadhi of the jhanas with Sallekha (meaning "effacement").

The puthujjanas, who say that "watching thoughts come and go" is "living in the present moment", say that because watching sensuality is all they know -- and they do not know how to experience something else than sensuality. Those puthujjanas are full of thoughts 24/7, so they say that when they watch thoughts they "watch reality".

What the puthujjanas who invented dry meditation (i.e. "meditation without concentration") do is, at best (and it is really at best), is sampajanna (clear awareness) -- since they do not have sati (mindfulness or awareness or concentration), it's not really sati·sampajanna (concentrated or continuous clear awareness):

  "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where
  feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist,
  known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise,
  known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to
  him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This
  is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued,
  leads to mindfulness & alertness.

meaning they watch vedana-sanna (feelings and perceptions), and thoughts come and go, and they try to pass that as yoniso manasikhara (clear seeing r insight).

  "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where
  a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the
  five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such
  its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its
  passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its
  passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such
  their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such
  its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that,
  when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.
  http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html

There are even toxic puthujjanas who hype the "acceptance of any experience", "embrace the present moment" (which is, for those people, watching thoughts and sensations). Those puthujjanas fail to see that there are meritorious vedana-sanna, meritorious thoughts -- and conversely demeritorious vedanna-sanna, demeritorious thoughts -- and that letting demeritorious experience arise is very bad.

Sati·sampajanna is what people today call "mindfulness". It is good at preventing future lusts arise (or at least preventing them from becoming established), it is "what guards the senses" (see here and here -- but to suspend the bad feelings, you must get the citta into samadhi of at least first jhana, precisely because the vedanna-sanna of this samadhi is the meritorious vedana-sanna.

And to get the citta into samadhi, you have to memorize and put into practice right view and right intention, so first being physically secluded from other humans for a few hours or days -- then it is mano (mind) which has piti (joy associated with concentrative absorption) and the kaya (body) has passambhati (calm) then sukhaṃ vediyati (experienced ease), and the citta (mind) has sukhha (well-earned ease) then samadhi (concentration).

THe  buddha explains how he got right samadhi here and here (renunciation) -- and there's a
a page with a few quotes on nekhamma (renunciation) here.

Once he had right samadhi, the citta could know how kamma-jati (karma and birth) and dukkha (misfortune, dissatisfaction) works.
So like the buddha said, sati·sampajanna is what he did first, judging his thoughts and classifying them into two (i.e. "meritorious" and "demeritorious"), destroying the bad thoughts with seeing the danger of bad thoughts, but it is precisely this sati·sampajanna (=situational wisdom, that is: In each moment one calls to mind whatever is necessary to master the given task ) which is transformed into samma samadhi. So do not divide your life into "meditation" and "non meditation". Later on, this samma smadhi is used to turn the citta towards āloka·saññaṃ manasi karoti (perception of light) and yoniso manasikhara (clear seeing).


Did the Buddha break his promise? In MN 138, the Buddha said this:

The Blessed One said: "Monks, I will teach you a statement & its analysis. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said this: "A monk should investigate in such a way that, his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned, he would from lack of clinging/sustenance be unagitated. When — his consciousness neither externally scattered & diffused, nor internally positioned — from lack of clinging/sustenance he would be unagitated, there is no seed for the conditions of future birth, aging, death, or stress."
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said it, the One Well-gone got up from his seat and went into his dwelling.
Then, not long after the Blessed One had left, this thought occurred to the monks: "This brief statement the Blessed One has made, after which he went into his dwelling without analyzing the detailed meaning

I thought the Buddha always kept his promises. Why didn’t he analyze the statement when he said he would?

Those are two sentences. Perhaps the first is the statement and the second the analysis.

Also in the Pali it's a single compound word:

Mendicants, I shall teach you the analysis of a recitation passage.
uddesavibhaṅgaṁ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi.

uddesa

recitation, instruction; indication; brief indication, brief statement;
summary exposition instructing, specifying; inviting; food for a specific person

vibhaṅga
distribution; division; classification

So maybe there's no promise of a separate analysis -- it's just the word they use, like "explanation" or "dhamma-talk" or something like that, and this one happened to be a very short one.
Also I wonder whether uddesa is necessarily always verbal (apparently they often are, so often that one was expected) -- whether this might be a teaching-by-example instead of a verbal analysis.


How to Determine Meditation Object I have practised previously with the breath, but I feel my eyes fall automatically when setting attention on the breath, and inversely, focusing on objects makes my mind alert. Is this sufficient to switch meditation object?

Q1: What are the best ways, or the best way, to determine proper meditation objects?

Q2 : Is there any real drawbacks of meditation with a physical object or mental image as compared to the breath?

Noticing, observing and watching are greatly facilitated by an alert mind. If eyes fall then notice this as bodily phenomena. When you notice the falling of the eyes, what thoughts accompany that action? Watch carefully. You may find that mind is making something out of nothing or that it’s wanting something. An alert mind is sufficient; remaining alert for the duration of the session is quite another thing. Moreover, eyes will move. Let them so.

  Q1: What are the best ways, or the best way, to determine proper meditation objects?

There is your attention... and there is your meditation object. If anything comes between the two then attention has been removed from the object. This might include thoughts about bodily phenomena. In fact, thoughts are the number one culprit for derailing ones attention from the object. You can observe bodily phenomena without thought.

  Q2 : Is there any real drawbacks of meditation with a physical object or mental image as compared to the breath?

This is personal preference which can be understood further by experimentation.

As further reading I’d strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the five hindrances.

The Five Hindrances


What allows to make a choice For example, the body has the choice to walk on path A or B. Before the body starts walking, there must be thoughts of path A and B. There must also be a (mental?) decision/choice made to walk on one path or the other.

What is it that allows to make choices?

I have always been at loss to understand what that untouchable phenomenon is. What is it that let's me choose at all?
I have trouble phrasing the question. So I will give another example. When someone offers me a marijuana joint, there are the options to accept or decline. Both feel just as far, just as easy to make. Sometimes I accept, sometimes reject. What phenomenon chooses? I've never been able to 'touch' that phenomenon directly.

This question about changing habits is the same question as this one.

EDIT:
In another attempt to convey what is being asked (my apologies), there is now another question (this one with a bounty) What is volition?

When a person has a choice between Path A or B, on what basis would that person make that decision, for it to be the right one? For that one has to have a very good knowledge of the True Dhamma. How can one differentiate between what is the Truth and what is not. Even if there is only one path, there is a lower level and a higher level to it. How would a person know such a thing?  Take for example Generosity. Giving (dana) is one of the integral parts of the practice of Dhamma. When practiced in itself, it is a basis of merit or wholesome kamma, but only when combined with morality, concentration and insight, will it lead to liberation from samsara, the cycle of repeated existence. So it is of the recollection of one's own generosity. This is Chaganussati (meditation about generosity).

That is why I would say that you and I are living in very unfortunate times. It is very rare that you and I get to find someone who will teach us the correct path, the True Dhamma, and how to meditate the proper way. Once we learn how to, we will be able to practice these while we are walking, while standing, sitting or when lying down in bed. Then there is no such thing as ‘Choice’. We have found our guide in whom we will place our complete trust. Then we will have unflinching faith in the Path that was shown to us. Then what is important is to practice the little Dhamma that you have learnt. Today almost all the people only read about dhamma. Next moment all this is forgotten. Then there are others who only talk about Dhamma that they think that they’ve understood. They are only fooling themselves to think that they have understood, and put many others too in the wrong path, thereby creating a lot of ‘Akusala Kamma”.

The path to enlightenment is not so easy. It is a path that goes against the stream. Buddha called this "Patisothagami " or going against the stream. It is just like when almost all the fish in the water are swimming with the flow while only one fish is trying hard to swim against the flow. It's not swimming against the resistance of the flow of water but also the resistance of the other fish that may impede its path.


What are do's & dont's which should be followed for serene & calm life? I would like some rules in the form of dos & don'ts to ensure happiness & eradication of miseries for making life calm & serene.

The don'ts:

Buddhism teaches ten kinds of unskilful action the serious lay Buddhist to refrain from, namely:

Killing.
Stealing
Unwholesome (uncaring) sex
Dishonest speech
Harsh speech
Divisive speech
Frivolous speech
Greed
Hatred
Selfishness & ungratefulness (delusion).

To this add avoiding the roads to ruin (DN 31), namely:

Addiction to drugs & alcohol
Gambling
Nightlife/nightclubbing
Addiction to sensual entertainment
Bad friends
Chronically laziness.

Add to this:

Avoid borrowing money leading to living beyond your means (AN 4.62).

The dos:

The opposite of the above.
Safeguard your social relationships in the 'six directions' (DN 31).
Practise friendliness, compassion, appreciation for goodness & equanimity.
Engage in wholesome pleasures, such as exercise, sports, outdoors nature, arts, contemplative music, charity work, generosity, meditation. etc.

The entire list is here: https://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Contents.html


Is suffering caused by oneself, others, by both, or spontaneous? According to popular belief of Karma, suffering is caused by oneself. I would like to know:

Is one's own suffering caused by oneself?
Is one's own suffering caused by others?
Is one's own suffering caused by both oneself and others?
Is one's own suffering spontaneous?

The teaching of 'good & bad kamma' is not Buddhist but is merely a conventional & universal understanding about 'personal' behavior found in most cultures & religions that is also part of Buddhism. The doctrine of kamma in Buddhism is called 'lokiya dhamma', which means a 'mundane' or 'worldly' understanding based on the view of 'self' or 'persons'.

To the contrary, the suttas state (eg. MN 56) that the unique or special teaching of the Buddhas is the Four Noble Truths, which includes the Noble Eightfold Path that ends kamma (refer to AN 6.63). The Noble Eightfold Path ends kamma because its fruition renders all kamma as 'not-self' ('anatta'). Such understanding in Buddhism is called 'lokuttara dhamma', meaning 'transcendent', 'supramundane' or 'beyond the world'.

Thus, according to 'lokuttara dhamma', suffering is impersonally caused by the element of ignorance according to the process of Dependent Origination.

In short, the Acela Sutta answers the question exactly.

Note: the Acela Sutta states the view that suffering is 'self-caused' is a form of 'Eternalism' and the view that suffering is 'other-caused' is a form of 'Annihilationism'.


Choosing advantages of one tradition over another Like all religions, there are different branches, traditions, whatever you want to call them.  Why would you choose one over the others?  Do you think one is right and the others are wrong?  Does one fit with your lifestyle?  I can see being born into one you might not have a choice.  If they are all the same thing at heart, why have the differences?  What if you choose the wrong one?

The Buddha taught all, but such an attainment is rare. Even in the Buddha's time, Ānanda asked about the difference in practice.

MN64:16.1: “Sir, if this is the path and the practice for giving up the five lower fetters, how come some mendicants here are released in heart while others are released by wisdom?”
MN64:16.2: “In that case, I say it is the diversity of their faculties.”

Buddhist practice actually consists of three practices. Different teachers may be adept at one or more of these and appeal to different students:

AN3.89:1.1: “Mendicants, these are the three trainings.  What three? The training in the higher ethics, the higher mind, and the higher wisdom.

The three practices support each other. If one cannot find a teacher for all three, one can certainly choose a teacher who teaches what one lacks.
Different traditions emphasize different practices. I first trained in Zen for mind/immersion, but later studied the suttas themselves for ethics and wisdom.


First Buddhist text translated into a Western language As a follow-up to another question:

What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into a Western language? (That probably means French or Latin, but other options are also possible)

When was it translated and by whom? Was it reasonably available to those interested and did it have much of an impact within academic circles and perhaps to the wider culture?

There are Greek versions of several of Askoka's inscriptions, erected during Ashoka's lifetime. He died in 232 BC.


Is there any meditation technique to be aware of what you hear? I have observed that while meditating if I turn my awareness from breath to 'what I am hearing' I have a heightened sense of present moment awareness. If I listen mindfully to what I am hearing the mind invariably comes in present moment. As the hearing can only happen in present moment. Also, I see that there are foreground noises and constant background hum, like a low-frequency sound in the background.

I want to ask is there any meditation technique in Vajrayana or any other Buddhist tradition to remain aware of the hearing and transcend the sense spheres thereby? If yes, what is it and how to practice it?

Yeah, you could probably make that happen.  What you’re looking for is a sense sensation that has some stability.  Visually, you would use something like a kasina, but I see no reason why a sound kasina couldn’t also work provided that you’re diligent about it.  As to what this sound kasina would be made up of, you’d want something that was consistently present.  A dripping faucet would probably work, but I’d be more inclined to use something like that background hum you were talking about.  You could also plug your ears and listen to the rushing sound of your blood in your ears.

Remember though, the whole point of a kasina is to generate a counterpoint sign.  When that arises, you would abandon whatever sound you were working with.


Was Buddha deceiving others to get them on the path? I understand that the Buddha used different teachings styles, depending on the audience/people that were listening. Also, I understand that there seems to be a ,superficial', easier accessible Buddhism and a more advanced, transcendental one.

In the light of this, I am wondering if it is seen as ethically correct, that the Buddha taught some people differently than others, especially by using, I would say, manipulative techniques.

There are two examples I'd like to bring up.

One is the parable of the burning house, in which the Buddha promises playthings to get the children out of the burning house.
..."Then straightaway, intentionally devising a lie, he announced to the children, "I have various precious playthings, one for each of you, here outside the door.  For one, a goat-drawn cart.  For one, a deer-drawn cart.  For one, an ox-drawn cart.  Come out, all of you!  For your sakes I have made these carts, following the desire of your own thoughts."

Thereafter, he is offering them even more valuable carts than promised (the Dhamma I assume). But he used the first promise to lure them out of the house. Of course, as it is a parable, it can be interpreted in varying ways. However, in this case he intentionally lied to the children in order to get them to the right path. Isn't that manipulative?

The second example is about Karma and re-birth. After reading about the topic from different sources and books, it seems to me that the mechanism of Karma and re-birth primarily serves as to bring the common people to act ethically (good karma, bad karma, different realm of re-birth). However, in my understanding there is actually no self that can be re-born, as the 5 aggregates dissolve at the moment of death (where there is actually no death also). When there is no self, nothing can die nor be reborn, nor can there be a ,bookkeeping' of good and bad karma. Therefore, it seems that the teachings here bring the karma and re-birth theory up only to attract the common people and have them behave in line with Buddhist ethics. However, in fact after realising that there is no self, this whole construct becomes redundant (Simpler vs. more advanced Buddhism?).

I would be very happy to read your view on this, as this issue has kept bugging me for a while. I am convinced that there is a justification in this method, which makes it ethically acceptable (does the end ever justify the means?). Also, please point out if my line of thought is flawed.

Thank you so much.

Please point out if my line of thought is flawed.

It is an established principle since the time of the Buddha there are two types of teachings:

mundane, worldly or moral teachings (lokiya dhamma)
supramundane, transcendent or noble teachings connected to emptiness (lokuttara dhamma)

The moral teachings bring moral (non-harming) benefits but do not remove attachment.

These teaching exist because the majority of people are unable to remove attachment.

Therefore, your line of thought is certainly flawed because how can it be expected of  most people to give up attachment towards sexuality, reproductive drives, partners, children & family?

If you expect all people to give up attachment & realise not-self, when they are actually incapable of doing so, it is you rather than the Buddha that is deceiving people.

Please refer to MN 117 (linked).

  Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming];
  there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a
  factor of the path. MN 117

Please also refer to MN 12 & MN 26 (below):

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a
  Tathagata's power...

  MN 12

  Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did
  so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much,
  those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good
  attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard,
  some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world. MN 26

As for 'rebirth', the Buddha did not deceive or lie. Again, this is a long established principle.

The Buddha used certain well-defined words & it is not the Buddha deceiving people but people interpreting the Buddha's words in different ways that generate various ideas about 'rebirth'.

The commentaries state:

  The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.

  Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true.  On account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  Through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.

  Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  False speech does not arise in the Teacher,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks
  according to conventions.

  (Mn. i. 95)


Is mind the most valuable thing according to the Lord Buddha? Is mind the most valuable thing according to the buddha that we should protect by doing anything to everything?

Are there any metaphors said by Lord Buddha on the value of protecting the mind vs doing other things ?

In MN 56, we see disciples of the founder of Jainism, Mahavira (called Nigantha Nataputta in the suttas) debate with the Buddha.

Apparently, Nigantha Nataputta taught that physical deeds weigh more heavily than mental deeds.

  “Reverend Gotama, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta doesn’t usually speak in terms of
  ‘deeds’. He usually speaks in terms of ‘rods’.”

  “Then how many kinds of rod does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe for
  performing bad deeds?”

  “Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes three kinds of rod for performing bad
  deeds: the physical rod, the verbal rod, and the mental rod.” .....

  “Of the three rods thus analyzed and differentiated, which rod does
  Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describe as being the most blameworthy for
  performing bad deeds: the physical rod, the verbal rod, or the mental
  rod?”

  “Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes the physical rod as being the most
  blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the verbal rod or
  the mental rod.”

What did the Buddha teach?

  “Tapassī, the Realized One doesn’t usually speak in terms of ‘rods’.
  He usually speaks in terms of ‘deeds’.”

  “Then how many kinds of deed do you describe for performing bad
  deeds?”

  “I describe three kinds of deed for performing bad deeds: physical
  deeds, verbal deeds, and mental deeds.” .....

  “Of the three deeds thus analyzed and differentiated, which deed do
  you describe as being the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds:
  physical deeds, verbal deeds, or mental deeds?”

  “I describe mental deeds as being the most blameworthy for performing
  bad deeds, not so much physical deeds or verbal deeds.”

And later the Jain householder Upali came to debate with the Buddha.

  When he said this, the householder Upāli said to him, “Good, sir, well
  done by Tapassī! The honorable Tapassī has answered the ascetic Gotama
  like an educated disciple who rightly understands their teacher’s
  instructions. For how impressive is the measly mental rod when
  compared with the substantial physical rod? Rather, the physical rod
  is the most blameworthy for performing bad deeds, not so much the
  verbal rod or the mental rod.”  .....

  “What do you think, householder? Take a Jain ascetic who is restrained
  in the fourfold restraint: obstructed by all water, devoted to all
  water, shaking off all water, pervaded by all water. When going out
  and coming back they accidentally injure many little creatures. Now,
  what result does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta say they would incur?”

  “Sir, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta says that unintentional acts are not very
  blameworthy.”

  “But if they are intentional?”

  “Then they are very blameworthy.”

  “But where does Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta say that intention is classified?”

  “In the mental rod, sir.”

  “Think about it, householder! You should think before answering. What
  you said before and what you said after don’t match up. But you said
  that you would debate on the basis of truth.”  ......

  “Sir, I was already delighted and satisfied by the Buddha’s very first
  simile. Nevertheless, I wanted to hear the Buddha’s various solutions
  to the problem, so I thought I’d oppose you in this way.

  Excellent, sir! Excellent! As if he were righting the overturned, or
  revealing the hidden, or pointing out the path to the lost, or
  lighting a lamp in the dark so people with good eyes can see what’s
  there, the Buddha has made the teaching clear in many ways. I go for
  refuge to the Buddha, to the teaching, and to the mendicant Saṅgha.
  From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who
  has gone for refuge for life.”

And using this simile and other similes, the Buddha convinced Upali that mental deeds weigh more heavily than physical deeds and verbal deeds. Thereafter, Upali became a Buddhist.


Is it necessary to be socialize to understand dhamma? If some one is a anti-social person , there is no reason to get angry, to be jealous, to have conciet .... All those problems arise when people socialize. So, Is it necessary to be socialize ?

If it is, Why buddha said, go to a forest to meditate ? Get a free and quite time ?
If it isn't How do I recognize those thoughts ? (If we have no reason to get those feelings, we might think we haven't those thoughts)
Or should I not think about that ? (Being social or not being social is out of my control ?)

So, Is it necessary to be socialize ?

Life would be difficult, even impossible, living completely alone. There is a reason that the sangha is considered one of the three jewels in buddhism.

  If it is, Why buddha said, go to a forest to meditate ? Get a free and quite time ?

Yes. Your understanding is on point. Withdrawing into reflection is helpful for developing a buddhist practice from time to time.

  If it isn't How do I recognize those thoughts ? (If we have no reason to get those feelings, we might think we haven't those thoughts)

Perhaps you are right, one could possibly avoid developing aversion in solitude. However, to a larger extent, it seems to have a tendency to foster a feeling of alienation. Too much time alone may make us less accustomed to relate to others, even though we may have good intentions.

In the noble eightfold path, right effort isn't just about preventing aversion to take a hold of us. It is also about developing skills that we may not have right now. Prosocial virtues, such as the brahmaviharas is most likely impossible to cultivate in complete solitude.

From Magga-vibhanga Sutta:

"And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html

  Or should I not think about that ? (Being social or not being social is out of my control ?)

It is likely within your control, and i believe it is a form of control that is beneficial, and not the clinging/grasping type of control.


What is the difference between rūpa and Kāyā? In reading about the 4 Satipatthana or about the 5 Aggregates, it seems the first category of each (form) is sometimes called rūpa and sometimes called Kāyā. Are these just two words for the same concept or are there subtle differences? Thank you.

My understanding is the following:

Rupa = external and internal matter or form. Externally, rupa is the physical world. Internally, rupa includes the material body and the physical sense organs.
Kaya = the material body and the physical sense organs.


Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible? Why is it that Buddhism never compiled a reasonably concise set of canonical texts like the Bible? Buddhism itself has universal beliefs such as the 4 Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the notion of going for refuge. To me then it doesn't seem unreasonable that there could have been a Buddhist Bible that complied these central beliefs in the same way as the Christian Bible.

Even though the Christian world is diverse they still manage with one Bible (though I do appreciate there are different version such as the Orthodox Bible) and this Bible forms the basis of new forms of Christianity or new emphasis on Christian belief. However Buddhism seems to have an enormous array of texts over a number of different canons (Pali, Chinese, Tibetan) and commentaries and para canonical texts. Why the difference?

Is there something in the history or culture of these two religions that caused them to treat their texts differently. Am I wrong and the differences aren't really there if you look at it correctly? Is it a theological matter? I appreciate you could ask the same question about Islam and Hinduism (I think) but I want to keep the question as on-topic and tractable as possible.

Why is it that Buddhism never compiled a reasonably concise set of canonical texts like the Bible?

One could equally ask, "why didn't Christianity compile a lengthy and diverse set of canonical texts like the Tripiṭaka?"

The thing is, Buddhism does have a canonical set of texts that are widely viewed by all major Buddhist traditions as canonical (as far as being the teachings given by the Buddha during his life time), organized into books and sections somewhat like the Christian bible. And while the exact makeup of the set differs from tradition to tradition, the core texts (mainly the first four nikayas of the sutta pitaka in Pali - the agamas in Chinese), are agreed upon as canonical. This is not dissimilar to the situation that exists between Judaism and Christianity.

So, there only remains the question, why is the Buddhist canon not "reasonably concise"?

The first reason for the difference in length is a great amount of repetition, brought about both by 1) the fact that Buddhism was orally transmitted for so long and repetition helped with memorization, and 2) the state of having a good number of the same teachings given multiple times in slightly different contexts and faithfully recorded in duplicate, triplicate, etc.

The second reason is the discrepancy in time span. Jesus taught for around three years before getting himself killed; the Buddha lived to the ripe old age of 80, teaching for 45 years from the time of his enlightenment. One scholar (Rhys-Davids, IIRC) estimated that, all repetition removed, the Tipitaka is approximately eleven times the size of the Christian bible. Given that the Buddha taught fifteen times as long as Jesus, this seems like a fairly reasonable difference.

EDIT: removed the third reason.


Is there a better term than Hinayana? I'm aware that using the term Hinayana isn't ideal as it has derogatory undertones - being coined by the Mahayana school to differentiate themselves from what had gone on before. The implication being that the Greater Vehicle of the Mahayana is better than the lesser vehicle of the Hinayana.

So is there another term that can be used? I have often heard Theravada being used interchangeably. I'm not convinced that's right since I'm sure there are other 'Hinayana ' schools that aren't Theravadan, particularly considering ancient schools that don't exist now.

As I was just explaining in a comment to one of my answers, the term "Hinayana" is widely used by Tibetan Buddhism teachers to refer to basic/elementary/foundational (and because of this often simplified) aspects of Buddha-Dharma. If you'd go to their lectures, you'd hear this notion of Hinayana-understanding vs. Mahayana-understanding discussed in almost every other lecture. Amongst tens of books written by the teacher I consider my Root Guru, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, a recently published 3-volume set has its first book, of 680 pages, dedicated to Hinayana, with this word used on almost every page.

Again, to emphasize, "Hinayana" is not used to refer to Theravada at all. Rather, it is used in two senses: one, to refer to a primitive interpretation of Buddha-Dharma (by a member of any school, and of any standing, but usually a beginner, or a "senior junior") and two, to refer to the first phase of Buddhist upbringing, during which the student is introduced to the most basic discipline and doctrines, that serve as the foundation for subsequent education & practice.

Imagine two teachers discussing their students with each other: "I have 3 Hinayana-level students, 2 Mahayana-level, and 1 Mahamudra" or "This guy is stuck at Hinayana level, perhaps I should try Kriyayogatantra..."

Whoever thinks the term is derogatory misses the point. The term is indeed used to refer to "primitive" or "elementary" level of Dharma. But we don't consider "elementary education" a derogatory term, do we? Or perhaps, in countries where Parliament comes in two houses, we don't consider The Lower House of Parliament a derogatory term? And when the rental cars come in three classes: economy, business and luxury -- we do not insist that the use of the term "economy" should be discouraged because it hurts the feelings of lower-income people etc.

The term "Hinayana" is an important term, used by thousands of gurus over thousands of years to teach their students a very important point: that Dharma, like any other non-trivial area of human activity goes far beyond simple logic, and requires depth, sensitivity, ability to compromise, to go beyond black-and-white view of the world, to juggle multiple contradicting needs, to understand different perspectives, and in general to not get stuck at the level of mechanical application of formulaic if-then-else rules.

Besides the negative connotations ("black-n-white understanding of the beginner"), the way it was presented by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche I feel "hinayana" also has positive connotations like "fundamental basic teaching" and "spartan discipline".

Here's how Trungpa praised hinayana in his famous short talk, Never Forget Hinayana (edited for readability):

  Good evening. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a very profound time and profound experience for us to realize how important is the hinayana teaching.

  The hinayana teaching should not be regarded as something that you can just carry out and then get rid of, or discard. The hinayana teaching is the life force that carries our practice and discipline, which goes on continuously. From that point of view the hinayana should be regarded as life’s strength.

  It is [important] for us to understand that basic life [force], that basic strength. It is very important to us, and inseparable from our lives and our existence as individuals. It is the life force that carries [you] on whether you are going through the hinayana, mahayana, or vajrayana [levels]. It is our substance and our sustenance.

  NEVER FORGET HINAYANA!


Wish to Circumambulate around Mt. Kailash I wish to circumambulate around Mount Kailash on foot. This is roughly 33 miles of mountaineous terrain.

Many people do this for spiritual reasons, i.e circumambulate once to wash away your sins, circumambulate 108 times to attain nirvana.

I just want to circumambulate around Mount Kailash because I want to.

What type of physical and/or spiritual training do I require? I understand this can take years, even decades.

Some information about me.

lady in mid-30s (people swear I am in early 20s)

5'4", 140lbs (last time I weighed myself was Jan 2016)

mostly eat fruits, veggies, fiber

exercise 4 to 5 days a week, perform Surya Namaskar (started with 3 reps in Summer 2015, I'm up to 69 reps now, goal to reach 108 reps by end of 2017), plus light weights

I don't know much about Mount Kailash but I trekked in Nepal over 100km with my 18 year old sister when I was 24. My sister was not particularly athletic but we did fine. While I was an athlete, I had been meditating full time for the previous 5 months so I was not exactly doing vigorous exercise. One day of the trek included walking up the very steep 3200 stone steps at Ulleri. We made it fine.

69 Surya Namaskar shows a lot of fitness. Sounds like you will do fine. Maybe walk up a few hills to tone up the leg muscles.

The 'spiritual' part is having an open mind to take in the culture & atmosphere. Just go! With faith!

I always enjoy looking at the old photographs. Very warm & wholesome memories. It was a very worthwhile experience. Below is the Tibetan side of the Himalaya.


Tiratna Buddhist Community Curriculum What are the main texts that are studied in the Tiratna Buddhist Community? Is there a generally recommended core set of books to read, and what are the main canonical texts studied?

I've been practicing with the Triaratna Community for over 7 years and over that time I've been through a fair number of texts with various study groups. I'll try to summarise the most relevant texts here but different order members/centres certainly have their favourites so someone else in the community might give a slightly different list.

As a bit of background, the Triratna Community is an eclectic school so our texts come from all the branches of Buddhism.  However the founder Sangharakshita studied and practiced Buddhism in the 1950s in northern India around the time that there was an exodus of Tibetan lamas from Tibet. So in practice the texts we study tend to be influenced by Tibetan or Theravadan traditions. Zen and Chinese Buddhism in general is under represented. Not that we think there is anything wrong with those texts but the history of the movement means we have less exposure to them.

So the texts we study tend to be either from the Pali Canon or Mahayana texts (transmitted by his contact with Tibetan lamas I think) or texts that Sangharakshita himself has written. We run a four year study course (which I've done part of) which covers the main principles and texts so a browse through that would give you a flavour but I will attempt to summarise the main ones

Pali Canon

Middle Length Discourses generally but more specifically from the pali canon

Satipatthana sutta Some of our studying material for this here
Anapanasati sutta. There is an excellent (and free) talk by an order member on this if you are interested how it is taught in the Triratna Community.
Karaniya Metta Sutta
Dhammapada. Some of our studying material for this here.
Udana

Mahayana

Heart Sutra. We chant this during our main ritual.
Diamond Sutra. This is the first sutra read by Sangharakshita when he was 15. It was then he knew he was a Buddhist.
White Lotus Sutra
Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra
Golden Light Sutra

Also

Bodhicaryāvatāra
Life of Milarepa

Also there are a great many books by Sangharakshita which are studied and referenced. If someone was interested I would probably recommend Who is the Buddha, What is the Dharma and What is the Sangha as a good entry point into his thinking. When people are becoming ordained the read and study his book The Survey of Buddhism which is where he first put his ideas down. It's a dense read though so I wouldn't necessarily recommend it unless you were very interested.

EDIT

I've just come across this very comprehensive book, Puja Readings and Other Texts as used in the Triratna Buddhist Community, which details all the texts used by the Triratna movement. As well as been a good reference to the Triratna curriculum, I'd recommend it as a good general anthology of Buddhist texts covering Theravadan, Mahayana and Tibetan sources. Certainly worth a look if anyone is interested and reasonably priced I think. It weighs in a mighty 700 pages plus so there is a lot of reading for your money.


Can a stream enterer commit suicide? There was an incident in the 50s, a monk named Ñāṇavīra Thera commited suicide, he was believed to be a stream enterer and was suffering from amoebiasis.

So I'm curious to know, if someone knows for sure that he's become a stream enterer (or beyond) and doesn't desire to live anymore, can he decide to commit suicide?

I am familiar with the story of Ñāṇavīra Thera, and while I deeply appreciate his work, esp. on 12 Nidanas, which for me is a good evidence that he indeed could have been a stream-enterer, I feel that his suicide was a very unfortunate outcome of the bad karma he created in the past. This karma, in its turn, came from a chain of negative mind states that evidently spanned multiple lives.

While, generally speaking, anyone can decide to commit suicide, a decision to do so is more likely to be made by someone who 1) is not afraid to die, 2) sees the pain associated with continuing to live, 3) has aversion to pain, and 4) does not see much value in continuing to live.

Because stream-enterer is beyond the illusion of self, s\he is not afraid of death. Because s\he clearly sees conditions that lead to arising of pain, s\he sees the pain associated with life. Because s\he is not yet beyond sukha-and-dukkha, s\he can still have aversion to pain. What remains is #4.

The value in continuing to live falls into two categories: the value for oneself and the value for others. Because stream-enterer is beyond the illusion of self, the only reason to carry on this particular life would be the value he or she thinks s\he could bring for others.

In Mahayana tradition, the first idea you learn, right after the basic concepts of Samsara, Nirvana, Enlightenment, and Karma -- is the high ideal of compassion. By this ideal, if I don't have a reason to live for myself, if I can alleviate suffering of even one dog, it is worth to continue living, let alone if I can help one human, let alone if I can help multiple people, let alone if I can teach Sat-Dharma.

So, while stream-entry refers to the same basic milestone that is known as First Bhumi in Mahayana, a Bodhisattva of First Bhumi would only choose to die if doing so would greatly benefit more people than he could benefit by e.g. teaching Dharma. For example, participating in the repair of Fukushima nuclear station could be a great way to die for someone who has no reason to live but does not have an aptitude to teach Dharma. There are many other ways to help humanity and die a hero whose name will be on a monument, instead of becoming a topic of regret that no one wants to mention.