How come desire and sati causes sleepness? I never felt asleep,When I am watching TV.But when I am studying or listening to Dhamma, sometimes I have felt asleep. What may be the cause of this ? But I can say, if I am falling asleep while watching TV,it is because of tiredness.

How can we stop become sleepy by developing Sati? ( I read the advice from Lord Buddha to Arahant Moggollana to overcome sleepiness.But I need to know the cause of sleepiness and how to prevent it before it arises)

Sloth and Topher is the fifth Mara.
It activated when all other previous four maras are inactivated.
For instance, when you watch TV the first mara is in charge.
When you listen to Dhamma if the fourth Mara is not in charge you will go to sleep.
This is a complex case.
The way to avoid this is to practice walking meditation.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35806&p=


What is the relationship between Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature? Can someone help me out with the relationship between Tathāgatagarbha and Buddha Nature. The way that Tathāgatagarbha was described to me was it's like someone finding an amazing jewel in a great heap of dung. I take this to be like the natural state of mind been very pure or radiant in some way. My understanding of Buddha Nature is similar. So are they related concepts? Do they come from different traditions or is my naive understanding way off?

They are the same thing. Tathagatagarbha is the most common Sanskrit term, but occasionally it is referred to with different terms like Sugatagarbha or Buddha-dhatu but they all mean the same thing.


Advice for Buddhist meditation for OCD So first I'd like to say I have permission from a therapist to ask this question, so this is not "asking for medical advice".

So I have OCD. It affects me all the time, I feel this constant stress, discomfort. Thoughts and stressors bother me a lot, and tons of things cause this emotional pain.

My therapist has suggested a long meditation is the way to do it. Sitting for several hours every day until it's dead. So this is what I'm doing and want to continue to do, but I'd like some help doing it more effectively.

So I've been studying Buddhism and meditation and very unsystematic way. I think I'm starting to understand alot of it now. But ultimatelly I dont fully understand what exactly I'm supposed to be doing/not doing in meditation. I've been doing some guided mediation on vedananupassana and so far I've been feeling better. But once again, I don't exactly know how to do it... Im supposed to look at the feelings but I dont know what im supposed to do?

If I wasnt so sick right now (fatigue, acid reflux) Id probably just study buddhism formally and just practice meditation until I start feeling better. But thats not feasible right now.

So what would your advice be for me to go about this? Are there any good online courses or something?

Also an important note: Several times now, in the midst of all this stress and discomfort all over my whole body I suddenly get these pretty short lived moments of bliss. My body glows with comfort and bliss and then after a while kind of fades out. This has happened several times now and it's pretty interesting. This is what fascinates me. What do you think is causing this? My guess is I must be doing something in those moments correctly, letting go and not resisting the pain or something

Thanks.

A lot of therapists out there are well-versed in both the mechanisms of OCD and mindfulness today, especially those working with methods like CBT, unified protocol, CFT or ACT.

Regardless whether you get the help from a clinician, or someone knowledgeable in meditation practices, i recommend proceeding with the aid from someone guiding you through the mindfulness practice initially. Until you find your own way of applying mindfulness, it can be a lot to deal with on your own.

  Also an important note: Several times now, in the midst of all this stress and discomfort all over my whole body I suddenly get these pretty short lived moments of bliss. My body glows with comfort and bliss and then after a while kind of fades out. This has happened several times now and it's pretty interesting. This is what fascinates me. What do you think is causing this? My guess is I must be doing something in those moments correctly, letting go and not resisting the pain or something

Yeah, you've seem to have picked up on something important. It may be what's called sukha within buddhist meditation, a common emotion associated with the initial stages of meditation. Consider it a bread crumb trail for you to follow.


Does contemplation activity, before hand, give rise to the mental image? In deep trance / Samadhi meditation does contemplating on the subject, before hand, give rise the mental image or Nimitta, or does it arise while contemplating? Put it in another way, do you have to stop the contemplation for the Nimitta to arise or does it arise while contemplating?

The mental image (Nimitta) as per some teachers appear as a bright radiant light. You have to bring your attention to a particular stimuli and retain the attention on the chosen stimuli by continuously bringing your mind to the chosen stimuli. At some point you might get the Nimitta. This does not happen for everyone and every time. You should do active thinking about the subject of concetration followed by letting go of it altogether to progress futher before the Nimitta apears.

If you are doing the above as Vipassana you have to look at sensation (or phenomena that is know and felt) and continuously keeping your mind on it. Then you will see the arising and passing of sensations, which perhaps you can consider the Nimitta.

Also see: Nimitta: The radiant and blissful sign [How to enjoy and benefit from your meditation] and Nimitta and Anuvyañjana: Signs and Details [Sense-restraint & wise attention: how to master the senses] by Piya Tan


How does Dependent Origination relate to Vipassana Meditation? How does Dependent Origination relate to Vipassana meditation as taught by different schools / interpretations of Buddhism?

More particularly how do you break the links of dependent origination as per the meditations techniques taught by different schools / masters? What is the strategy that the cycle will break at the given link? Many meditation manuals do not relate to the development of understanding dependent origination. So how do the practice and theory of this issue relate? Also how does the practicing according to the tradition lead up to the understanding of dependent origination through self-realisation?

I can probably give this an answer if I take it in the context of the 12 nidanas as a significant application of the principle of dependent origination.

The way that I have been taught this (within the Triratna Buddhist movement) is that the nidanas can and do break at the point between feeling and craving. So to give the chain at that point

  With Contact as condition, Feeling arises

  With Feeling as condition, Craving arises

  With Craving as condition, Clinging arises

And around we go....

So for most of us most of the time when we have a feeling then the reaction is craving - each time, round and round. But with spiritual practice is is possible to break the cycle at this point and not have craving. It is at this point that liberation can start.

I suspect that up to here is will not be that controversial. But in Triratna we talk a lot about the spiral path at this point which spirals up to enlightenment - a kind of positive formation of the 12 nidanas. This is taken from the Upanisā Sutta.

But OPs question is about the Vipassana techniques around this. Although we have a system of meditation, the practice most relevant to this would be a just sitting or a noting practice where we notice the feelings arise and try to see that just as that - feelings. In that way we can see again and again that feelings are just feelings and of themselves do not have craving or desire as a neccessary part of them. Thus one day, with faith and perseverance the cycle breaks.

Another way into this might be with a mindfulness practice relating to the Satipatthana Sutta  particularly with reference to the section on feelings.


Can we reach Nirvana without removing ignorance? Namo Buddhaya.
I am learning dependent origination.

If we follow the dependent origination strictly then by cutting off craving , the attachment ceases to be and with cessation of attachment, continuation ceases to be and with cessation of continuation , birth ceases to be and with cessation of birth , the suffering ceases to be. As the suffering ceases, Nirvana is attained.

In the above sequence of happenings we do not need to mention Ignorance. However we know that dependent origination begins with Ignorance.

My question is : can we reach to Nirvana ,without removing ignorance and just by cutting off craving ? Or is cutting off of the craving is same as removing the ignorance?

Maybe you've heard of the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

  In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice.

But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.

Also you can say that the monkey's suffering originated with his ignorance of the trap.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)


Isn't enlightenment the ultimate death? Is it true that after you reach enlightenment you simply vanish into the vast space of existence, and you simply cease to exist?

Kind of like, when you have not attained to enlightenment you keep on returning and being reincarnated, but if you reach enlightenment and stop being reborn don't you just cease your existence and die forever?

If I remember correct the Buddha did not know what happens to an enlightened person after his death, or am I wrong?

By asking if a person or someone reaches Nibbana is implying that people/persons exist meaning that one is not dealing with ultimate reality but instead with conventional reality.

In ultimate reality there is no person or being that gets enlightened.

Take the "i, me, you, him, her, it" out of the sentence and just observe what is left -> Enlightenment happens. Enlightenment is reached.

The unconditioned, Nibbana cannot be understood by conditioned language or logical reasoning. In other words the unconditioned cannot be grasped or understood by using tools from the conditioned realm.

The unconditioned must be experienced and comprehended through insights into reality.

If another view is taken which is that when enlightenment happens the self is destroyed, that view is flawed too. Why? Because there didnt exist a self in the first place so there is nothing that gets destroyed. Instead what happens is that it is realized through insight meditation that a self is nowhere to be found.

In this book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammanda, on p. 70-74 there is a chapter about what happens to a Buddha after death. Its a conversation between the Buddha and Ananda where 4 propositions are mentioned. They are;

A Tathagata exists after death;
A Tathagata does not exist after death;
A Tathagata exists and yet does not exist after death;
A Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’

A Tathagata is a Buddha. You can read a bit more about the meaning of the word here.

Lanka


Getting started young with many attachments I realize that at least the first part of the title is probably the most easily researched question with relevance to Buddhism possible, but I'd say I've read quite a bit and though I've seen very appealing and interesting ideas, I have no idea how to actually apply many of them.

I'm a fourteen year old male. I've always sorta felt like there was something more but that Christianity always looked outside yourself seemed wrong. Recently I had a spiritual experience and soon after read Be Here Now and it all seems to fit perfectly. I just have no idea what to do. I have little choice in what I eat, wear, how I look, none in what I live (etc)... what do I do? I'm trying to meditate and though it does make me conscious and alert, I feel like soon after I feel a strange warm sensation I "snap out of it" automatically.

More than the actual lifestyle changes, of course, I'm looking for changes in the way I think and act. The spiritual experience sorta let me see the degree to which almost everything around me is fake and wrong. I feel like I'm a much better person compared to the guy I was before but I'm just having incredible difficulties making it stay because though my state of mind and experience has changed, my surroundings have not and I feel like due to my confidence problems I conform.

I realize that this journey lasts a lifetime and forever, but I'm afraid that if I don't make progress and begin it'll just be a forgotten memory. Has anyone been in a similar situation? Any tips? What did you do that finally made you adopt the lifestyle? I'd be perfectly satisfied with a link or a name of a book but I need something.

Even if you might not see it, you are very lucky to start this journey (Buddhism?) at such a young age. Just having a sense of a direction shapes to some degree the choises you make and the way you approch life situations.

At this age you might not have control of many decisions that affect you,so becomes even more important what you do with the aspects you can control ( who you spend your free time with, the books you read).

I think it's very important to be kind with yourself. Like you've said, it's a long journey. Try to rejoyce for the smallest progress you make (maybe you're controling your temper for 5 minutes longer than you normally do, maybe you are a little bit kinder to stranger than you were before); don't condamne yourself for the mistakes, just make a mental note to try to do it better the next time.

If you are interested in Buddhism, the precepts are very important guides in our life journey. The important thing is they are trainings, aspects we can continuously work on. So maybe you would like to read more about it.

Then there is the Eight Noble Path, the important training in morality, concentration and wisdom. I found very helpful the book of Lama Surya Das - Awakaning the Buddha within. There are many books on the topic, so just give it a try.

Venerable Yuttadhammo has a series of youtube videos on diffrent aspects of life and meditation. I highly recommand theme.

As one last idea, try to focus on the things you can control, understand that continous insight takes a lot of work and meditate.
Good luck!


What practices can aid (or not ruin) the mahasi style meditation? This question goes specifically to theravada insight practicioners - but everyone  can answer if they think they have something useful to add - even from other traditions

since my mahasi style practice is going slow and even though i tried in many ways  i cant maintain a steady practice - and my doubt increases - i want to freshen up my practice - maybe get some "results" wheter its improvement in concentration or metta or some "cool" results like seeing images or feeling strange stuff ect

i wonder :

whether some practices can ruin my main mahasi style practice (which i want to keep as my main path cause i have access to teachers in it) maybe kundalini and third eye and stuff like that can ruin my practice ?
whether  some practice can aid in my practice - im pretty sure metta can be helpful but maybe pure concentration focus can distract me and do more harm than good to my practice ?
i read that some food can be good for opening the third eye - can this food be helpful to the practice of insight meditation as well ?

The easiest thing to do to aid in your practice is to stop being so scattered!  Pick one technique and stick to it.  That you're all over the place exploring other systems and looking for results indicates to me that you are having a hard time staying focused on the cushion.  Trust, trust, trust in the process!  It's the only way you are going to make any progress.


Is it disrespectful or unlawful to have dharma tattoo in Sri Lanka? I read sometime ago that a woman with a Buddha tattoo was deported from Sri Lanka.

Is it illegal because it's a Buddha image? Or other symbols like the dharma wheel are not allowed as tattoo as well?

What about tattoo images that resemble these symbols (e.g. a meditating person or a circle with eight spikes representing the Noble Eightfold Path)?

Thanks

I'm a Sri Lankan dear user. As I know It's is not unlawful. But it can be considered as a disrespectful thing or as an insulting to Buddhist religion in Sri Lanka.

The problem was tattoos were not familiar in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankans aka 'Theravada Buddhists' believe that things related to the blessed one (the supreme Buddha) shouldn't be in our body as a tattoo, and shouldn't even be in our bed rooms (where we may do disrespectful things in front of the blessed one. But all of these are not laws just the tradition.

In the case you mentioned, that women had a tattoo of thw blessed one I guess. Some people misunderstood it as that women was trying to insult Buddhist. But she was released immediately.

Sri Lanka doesn't have tough laws related to religion. It's very kind hearted society. So if you are going to visit Sri Lanka just cover those tattoos and then people won't misunderstand you. And kindly explain that you are not insulting Buddhists and It's just a tradition in your country. May the triple gem bless you!


Mindfulness with Pride, Anger, Hatred I've recently tried doing a more open form of meditation where I put the least amount of alteration on what I experience, therefore letting everything arise non-judgmentally. However, I realize some problems I'm experiencing with this.

I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?
I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.
Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?

Thank you for any answer relative to any of these questions or all of these questions together.

1-I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?

You can try to experience fully all emotions and states as you apply an antidote. You wouldn't have to stop being mindful in order to do this other "antedote" practice, you can be mindful of the other practice too. When we "experience fully all emotions and states" moment by moment, that is mindfulness.

2-I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.

You can be compassionate towards yourself as you are mindful of your reactions to attempting to be compassionate to yourself. If you see you are suffering, tell yourself "it's okay". Be nurturing to yourself and be mindful of your reactions to your own compassion being aimed at you. Maybe you  dont feel your worthy of compassion grom yourself. Then tell yourself "Its Okay".

3-Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?

Always go back to the breath. This is what grounds the practice and facilitates peace. The breath gives the practice a home.

You will grow more and more weary of everything arising, if you are practicing correctly.


Getting confused by various methods I have been practicing meditation for quite a long time now and sadly I haven't entered any jhana(which I want to enter).

I think the reason for me not progressing is because I switch between methods of meditation a lot, for example if I'm practicing meditation where I simply see my mind wandering and after a week or so I stop and look for another method, like focusing on nostrils and same happens for a week and then I start to look my muscles moving while breathing(I do that because I think I'm not good at this, maybe another one will work), as a result I don't get anywhere and day by day my faith that meditation is helpful gets less and less.

I don't want to do that! But I simply can't get any sort of guarantee that I am practicing right mindfulness.

So my questions:

  1) Is this the reason I'm not progressing? Do I have to choose a method and stick to it, when my mind tells me to change?

  2) While doing routine work, do I have to do work while being mindful or stick to my meditation object(nostrils, these days :((()? or being mindful and having focus on meditation object will have same effect?

Few suggestion I can give.

Don’t set the goal to get Jhana, No goal at all.
Don’t change the methods, Every methods was right it just a tool make you focus.
Do consistently. At least once a day and same time of the day.
Do anytime when you regcognize, Not just sit and shut your eyes.
Do when sleep until last moment you slept and do at very first moment you wakeup. This is an indicator that your meditation is progress. If you can continue the meditate from slept this indicate you are likely near Jhana.

Jhana is nothing special.
It's a state you can really control your concentration.

At initial step it's quite hard for people who are high skeptic or thoughtful with everything.

You don't need to take many hours everyday to sit and meditate.

You should try to take every seconds as meditate without distracting your work life.

Do until familiar then you reach Jhana.

Even it take 10 years still worth.


A path to another university outside of Buddhism This post is a revision of Buddhism Or Christ? which already closed.
I posted that Buddhism or Christ? question on a Christian forum too, and after quite a response from them, I felt I have some clues.
I used to be a loyal person and have been studying Buddhism for 6 years. Indeed it helps me a lot to be a better person and almost 100% of my doubt and direction can be found from the legacy of Buddha. Now I have been in Church as an observer for 1 year.
I have an influential and high-level family of Christ that is eager to invite me into Christianity. They even speak at country council level for all the Christian activities. But, I really miss so much of Buddha's teaching and I really want to do something for Buddhism before I turn to Christianity.
But it will create a lot of complications; but I found the below is necessary to clear the misconception and Buddha's name. I believe all Buddhist has responsibility on the below.

There are too many misconception especially to Buddhism and Taoism -- Top 10 MISCONCEPTIONS about BUDDHISM.
Many Buddhism or Taoism disbelief the belief because they don't even know who is Siddhartha Gautama but claimed is a Buddhist. Most of them go to temple, pray something in return, which I believe is inappropriate. What Buddha wants us to do is practice way of life and not actually praying Buddha as an idol.

How they view Buddhism and other religion -- 4 Ways Christians can respond to a Satanic statue.
"Buddha is a Satan" wording is really "hurts". They will see Buddha is opponent and some really harsh wording from many Christian seniors is really hurting us as Buddhism Student. My sister went to Church for few months, back to house and screaming like a mad woman to request us to throw away all the Buddhism and Taoism statues.

Respect and be tactful to those Buddhist visitor to Church - I wish to have a lot of social media sharing, discussion and Church sharing on how to handle the 2 above. This URL for example speaks well on how to handle this.

You must learn to distinguish original Buddhism from modern variants, in addition to determining which school of Buddhism your friend embraces. When in a discussion, do not be afraid to ask respectful probing questions.

My #2 issue above was shared online today during their Church service and it really touched my heart. I didn't request them to do it during Church services too, but I did share many of the above to them.
I am not sure Bodhisattva or Jesus (God) sent this high level Christ family as messenger to me.
Question: Let me know your thought for my action for item #3. What i really wish is the those huge religion community to publish an apology online letter on the web site for against the Blasphemy Law and immediately remove the content (i.e. Buddha is Satan, Buddhist will go to hell , etc). That's the basic manner of human being.
Cheers,

This isn't easy to answer because I'm not sure what the question is.
It seems to be:

How can I explain Buddhism to Christians?
How can I reconcile Buddhism with Christianity?
How can I answer Christian's attacks on Buddhism?

You found already, and posted in your question, some topics like "Top 10 MISCONCEPTIONS about BUDDHISM."
They don't make this question easier to answer -- they're too long to review and comment on in detail unless you have a specific question.
There have been a lot of other introductory books and so on referenced on this site, many of them listed here.

To begin with I guess I'd recommend the answers to this topic: How to explain what Buddhism is?
I thought that this, for example, might be good advice:

I'd rather start with what practices I do and to what goal.
You can't help but say something about what you personally think, else you'll be parroting the party line of a particular institutionalize form of Buddhism or boring people with an encyclopedic listing of Buddhist schools.

Indeed it helps me a lot to be a better person
Christianity and Buddhism might have a lot in common -- for example I suppose that Buddhists would agree with this Christian list of "sins", which includes anger and so on. And apart from the commandments related to "God", about half of the 10 commandments match the Buddhist precepts.

I have an influential and high-level family of Christ that is eager to invite me into Christianity.
I think you implied in your earlier post that you want to ally with these people for a personal relationship and business partnership.
This was meant to be some advice about choosing a partner -- Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?. One of those answers actually starts with, "Leave aside unproven traditional criteria (including creed)".

Most of them go to temple, pray something in return, which I believe is inappropriate. What Buddha wants us to do is practice way of life and not actually praying Buddha as an idol.
I don't like to criticise other people.
It's true there are many schools and forms of Buddhism. The one you're describing might be Pure Land Buddhism is it?
It seems to me to be one the things which Christianity and Buddhism share or have in common, i.e. that

some people think it's about going to temple (rites and rituals)
some people think it's about praying (or meditation)
some people think it's about reading scripture
some people think its about daily practice
some people think it's about whether you "self-identify" (as "I am Christian" or "I am Buddhist")

Incidentally I thought that one of the more interesting answers on this site was this one.

"Buddha is a Satan" wording is really "hurts".
This sutta might be relevant, SN 7.2 -- if that wording nourishes anger and/or hurt, you don't need to share in that nourishment.
Some people, including Christians, are kind of "sectarian" even amongst themselves. Here was a fairly famous joke

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

When I was taught Christianity as a child they definitely taught me that Christianity was correct and that non-believers couldn't go to heaven, also that only that specific sect/Church of Christianity was correct.
It happens in Politics too sometimes: "Either you're a loyal member of the Party or you're not!"
There's a famous Buddhist sutta on the subject -- Sectarians (Ud 6.4) which describes "the blind men and the elephant", and people "wounding one another with weapons of the mouth" -- I think that implies some Buddhists might have done it too i.e. quarrelled like that.
I think that Māna (pride or conceit) is identified as one of the causes for such quarrelling:

Māna (Sanskrit, Pali; Tibetan: nga rgyal) is a Buddhist term that may be translated as "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit". It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

It's hard to argue with -- some (not all) Christians might think, "I know better than you do", as well as, "I'm trying to persuade you for your own good, so that you too will experience the benefits I believe I experience for myself."

My sister went to Church for few months, back to house and screaming like a mad woman to request us to throw away all the Buddhism and Taoism statues.
That kind of controversy happens sometimes within Christianity too -- see Iconoclasm in the Byzantine and Reformation eras.
I think the premise is that people shouldn't be worshipping statues (of which the most famous prototype was the golden calf).
In the Reformation some people grew to dislike the statues found in Churches.
Some Christian churches are deliberately austere (not very decorated).
In churches which do have statues, I think they'll teach (if you ask them) that they don't worship the statues (e.g. statues of Jesus and Mary and the Saints), that the statues are "representations".
I suppose that some Buddhists may say the same, i.e. that a statue is meant as a reminder or a representation of the Buddha -- but there are rituals and veneration associated with statues, see for example:

How does one do an "eye opening" for a new statue?
What’s the Eye-opening ceremony

Even so I think that statues weren't a feature of early Buddhism -- see Pre-iconic phase (5th century – 1st century BCE). And, perhaps as with Christians, some Buddhists are and some Buddhists aren't keen on statues, see for example this answer:

Is it wrong to buy a Buddha statue in Thailand from a Buddhist point of view?
Yes it's wrong. Throw away your statues and burn your dharma books.
Why do you need statues for veneration? The Buddha discouraged making images in his likeness (Ananda Bodhi jataka), and has said that the Buddha cannot be likened to a statue (aprati samo). Venerate the dhamma within you, recollect your generosity, virtue, compassion, dhamma knowledge and wisdom. Practice and develop the satipattana. Let the statues made of corruptible wood and baked clay and trinkets be.

I wish to have a lot of social media sharing, discussion
This site is more intended for Question-and-Answer than for discussion.

You must learn to distinguish original Buddhism from modern variants
That's hard to do, arguably all modern Buddhism is a modern variant by definition.
Still some people say that the Pali suttas -- or perhaps the Chinese Agamas are the closest thing we have to "early Buddhist texts". If you want to explore those then this topic might be helpful:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

What i really wish is the those huge religion community to publish an apology online letter on the web site for against the Blasphemy Law and immediately remove the content (i.e. Buddha is Satan, Buddhist will go to hell , etc).
If that's what you really crave, then you might "suffer" if you don't get it! The Dhammapada warns against repretitive thinking such as, "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." etc.
My understanding of Buddhist doctrine is that you must control yourself, and cannot necessarily control what other people do and say.
One the one hand we're advised not to keep company with "fools", on the other to maintain a mind of good-will towards others.
That's another doctrine which is similar between Christianity and Buddhism, if not quite the same -- the Parable of the Saw (MN 21), compared with Turning the other cheek and non-violence in Christianity -- also the Punna Sutta (SN 35.88).


Dealing with extreme temperatures During this current heat wave I've been struggling with heat related discomfort in my sits. (A/C isn't an option at my home) Any advise on dealing specifically with this, I'm sure the people who mediate in the east have it worse.

We must learn to thank the physically uncomfortable things in life, because it is a great teacher.

The retreat center in my city is right beneath the primary flight path to a busy airport. New meditators on their first retreat often get very irritated by this - because not only is it hot and sweaty, especially if they aren't from India, but they didn't sign up to deal with this infernal din from above.

We may not realize it, but we often live in our thoughts and memories and not in the present moment. Our memory of comfort is what comes in conflict with the present discomfort, not the physical pain itself, since it is the mind that gives meaning to pain.

When irritation swells up in us we must immediately thank it, and investigate it - who is getting irritated? Where is the clinging coming from? What exactly is uncomfortable? What is getting hurt? Is it our senses or our expectation? When exactly did the irritation begin? What happens to our attention at the moment of irritation? When does it end? How soon does it begin, and how soon does it end? What is its nature? Is it constant or does it arise and pass in waves? Can one see the three characteristics of anicca, anatta and dukkha in the irritation? and so on.

When the first aircraft flew above me, I was mildly irritated by it, but seeing that this was a great teacher who had come to guide me, I began to practice loving kindness towards the passengers in every aircraft that flew above me after that. Soon it became a habit, and so while there were some who would audibly sigh and hiss at the aircraft, I would be enveloped in a warm glow of love several times every hour.

It isn't the physical reality but our reaction to it that matters.


What is the difference between Enlightenment and Nibbana? Is there a difference between Enlightenment and Nibbana?

Enlightenment is the insight knowledge that cuts through & extinguishes the mind's defilements (cravings) of greed, hatred or delusion.

Nibbana is final peace or coolness that is experienced after the 'fires' of greed, hatred & delusion have been extinguished.

Enlightenment is the cause which allows (the pre-existing but hidden) Nibbana to be experienced.

This process is described in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta

  Seeing (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self) thus , the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.'

The 'seeing thus' is enlightenment. 'Becoming dispassionate' (end of craving) is Nibbana. 'Fully released' is liberation (which is also Nibbana). The knowedge 'fully released' is enlightenment, in clearly knowing the end of craving is Nibbana.


What is the link between calligraphy and Zen? Often the Zen books I've read such as Zen Mind Beginners Mind are illustrated by calligraphy oftentimes by the author themselves. Also Zen figures such as the hermit and poet Ryokan are also known for their calligraphy.

Is there a particular link between Zen and calligraphy? Are the two practice's mutually supportive in some way or is the link purely a matter of both Zen and calligraphy being important in Japanese culture - the link been purely coincidental?

According to the short description of this book calligraphy predated the development of Buddhism in China and Japan. It also says the following about calligraphy:

  "... Calligraphy executed by Zen masters is said to reveal their understanding of the Dharma. It is common practice Zen monks and nuns to learn the art of calligraphy as a part of their monastic training..."

Here you can see some calligraphy letters used in Zen Buddhism and here is a Prezi presentation of Buddhism and Calligraphy. Here is a quote from the presentation:

  "... There are strokes in the characters as there are "eyes" in the sentences of Zen masters. Only those who have the "eyes" can know it. - Huang Tingjian.

Here is a very interesting website on Buddhist Calligraphy in ancient China. In here you will find:

Relationship between Buddhism and Calligraphy
Forms of Buddhist Calligraphy
Calligraphy in Manuscripts
Calligraphy in Inscriptions
Calligraphy and Buddhist Practice

Here is an article on Zen Art. This is a quote from the artiel:

  "... There is a tradition of art practice within Zen. Art arises spontaneously and manifests the buddha-nature within you. Art practice is mindfulness training. The art relies on a foundation of technical training that is then expressed in spontaneous practice. Zen art tends to be simple, sometimes stark, and always lovely ..."

And another quote:

  "... Japanese calligraphy is an art form spiritually expressed through Zen. The artist must be in touch with buddha-nature in order to create an expression of enlightenment. The brush stroke must come from a union with the world; no separation must exist — no I and pen, just the act itself. Japanese calligraphy dates back to the seventh century, where it was part of art practice and meditation in monasteries. Often, the subject of a Japanese calligraphy and painting would be a koan. One of the most common examples of zenga is the open circle, called enso. The simplicity of the enso was particularly popular during the Edo period of Japan in the eighteenth century. Enso symbolized enlightenment, emptiness, and life itself. In the series of ox-herding pictures previously mentioned, the eighth step in the sequence (both ox and self vanish) is represented by enso. During the execution of the calligraphy, the slightest hesitation on the part of the artist will cause the ink to blot on the thin rice paper, and the calligraphy will be ruined. Technique is learned and perfected over many years before such spontaneity is possible. Once the boundary between art supplies, art, and self are gone, the art can be executed ..."

Lanka


Everything I do is motivated by greed/aversion. How to react? I just came to a very upsetting realisation :

Almost all my motivation for the things I do in my daily life (mostly playing the piano and studying math in college) comes from bad things, such as ego, greed or aversion.

Here a some examples :

I study very hard, because I wish to be better than everybody else, and prove myself that I am the most clever. In addition, I can't bear the fact of not understanding anything related to the classes.
I play the piano in order to impress people listening to me and because I am craving to get better and better.
I work hard in everything I do because I want to be admired by my friends and family.

I also realized that it all leads to tension, pain and suffering. The problem is that I feel that just dropping these activities will certainly make things even worse.

The question is  how should I replace these bad motivations by more skillful ones ? In other words, how to stay motivated to do the things you love without causing you pain ? Is it even possible ?

It is actually a nice realization, to see oneself like you did. I remember when I got mine, I was about 20 - and I was shocked to realize all my re-actions were motivated by desire to make myself look better in others' eyes. This means you are getting mature.

This is normal, especially when we are young(er). It is well known that small children are often extreme egoists - they don't even realize other people also have wants, interests, and problems. As we grow up, our circle of awareness grows and we begin to appreciate other people's perspectives and care about the world at large.

You are right that the kind of drive you describe leads to tension and battles and suffering. And you are right that dropping it will not solve the problem. Suppressing it would only suppress the source of energy you have within yourself. It would also create problems in your personal life. What I suggest instead, is that, like Buddha did, you put this drive for perfection to the service of Enlightenment.

Meaning, you continue to strive to be perfect, but you expand your definition of perfection to include freedom from ego. All your actions can still be optimized to be as objectively flawless as possible, as long as you never act in order to feed your ego in your own or others' eyes. See what I mean?

Watch yourself for egoistic thoughts, motives, judgments - and eliminate them as soon as you notice any. Then continue to act as impeccably as possible for the greater good. This attitude - when you do your best to be as perfect as possible with the goal of eventually helping others, as opposed to doing it as food for your ego - is called "bodhi-citta", the mind of Enlightenment. You can get much more detailed instructions on this particular approach to Enlightenment in a book called "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" by Chögyam Trungpa. Good luck.


What does a normal person lose by following the path? I have a person I know who, as far as I can say, has been intermittently long interested in Buddhism, but never made a big leap in her practice to achieve and cultivate bigger achievements. She is sufficiently versed in basic buddhist teachings but, as this person told me more than once, is afraid of reaching a "point of no-return" - that is, to not be able to enjoy and do all the things she was used to once she crosses a certain stage of the path.

I tried to dispense some advices by offering details about my own experience and telling that, in reality, now I'm even more able to appreciate the same things I had before. This and a few other attempts never convinced that person (I never tried to persuade her, since I prefer that any person makes the choice that they most prefer) and my being aware that, to a certain extent, the progress in the path can be highly subjective, can only make things more difficult.

Not being able to offer a more satisfactory answer to Will I be able to enjoy life as much as I did before?, what convincing reply would you offer based on your personal experience and, if relevant, buddhist scriptures?

Please finally note that I do not demand that this, like many other persons, should follow the path to the fullest and most hardcore level. She may acquire a taste of what it is like practicing meditation, mindfulness and insight practices for a while and then settle at a level that she finds comfortable.

What you gradually lose by practicing the path is:

Taṇhā
Nīvarana see: Nīvaraṇa by Piya Tan
Akusala,mūla
Anusaya see: Anusaya by Piya Tan
Saṁyojana
Kilesa
Asava

None of which are pleasant to have or worthwhile to have or keep around. What you gain is unshakable peace and happiness (free from Dukkha or Nirvana). In addition you end Jarāmaraṇa and the cycle of Dependent Origination.

As per what you said in your text you are able to enjoy more which perhaps is due to reduction of the above undesirables. Once the are completely gone only happiness remain. This happiness is stable and not dependent on anything else and does not end. Therefore, you will be able to enjoy life like never before through not they type of enjoyment you have experienced before (ämisa sukha). This is a more higher type of enjoyment (niramisa sukha).


Where does it say 'You Are Already Enlightened'? I've heard Zen Buddhism characterised by the notion of 'Everyone is already enlightened'. Is that correct? - does Zen Buddhism actually say that and if so can someone give a reference to a text where it actually says that or something like it.

Many thanks as always

It's a basic Mahayana doctrine, important in other schools as well as Zen.

  Hongaku is an East Asian Buddhist doctrine often translated as
  "inherent", "innate", "intrinsic" or "original" enlightenment... It is
  first mentioned in the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana scripture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongaku

Wikipedia also says it can be traced back to sayings of the Buddha in the Anguttara Nikaya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature#Earliest_sources


Mindfulness when on the train, underground and bus Many of us spend at least a couple of hours per day on public transport like bus, train or underground (for me it is around 2.5 hours).

How could we use that time to develop right mindfulness?

I too am on public transport for a reasonable part of the day. When I look around at my fellow passengers it's always notable to me how many are not present. The majority of people are on phones, checking social media, listening to music, flicking through a newspaper, doing anything but being present. It is rare to see people just sat there. This isn't to judge these people - commuting is tough particularly on some routes and people do what they feel they must do.

But it's not just other people. I do it - listening to music, checking the phone etc... Recently I've challenged myself just to let go of these crutches to my commute. I don't listen to music etc.. etc.. I just sit there. I try to take notice. I wait and see what crazy thought pops into my head and try to spot where it came from. I try to be aware of my fellow commuters. I sometime play a game with myself where I wait and see how long it takes before I get bored. I never get bored. I get restless, frustrated but not bored.

Right now this is a good practice for me. My life is busy but I just add to it. There are moments in the day when I can take in a bit less information - commuting is one of them. Guarding the sense doors is an important (and difficult) practice for me. I truly believe that it's improved my mental state and is having a positive effect on my meditation practice. It's all conditions and if I spend my commute pumping extra information into my mind it's not surprising that at the end of the day I feel like I've poisoned my mind.

This answer is just my personal experience but I hope it's of some interest to you. Good luck with the practice on your commute.


Body state after enlightenment I've heard (not from Buddhist texts) that after enlightenment the investment in the body dwindles becomes delicate and less resistant to disease ,and that the body needs to be prepared first.So what Buddha had went through before Nirvana was important.Or what the yogis do in kryia yoga .
Examples of Ranamnakrishna and Maharishi Raman dying of cancer .
There is even claim that some might die right after nirvana.
Another claim is that there is no longer unconscious sleep,One is always awake /sleeps less .
Example of krishnamurti not sleeping well and having migraines.
If there is any such thing what do Buddhist texts say about the state of the body after nirvana ?

The Buddha lived till the age of 80, which is 45 years after his enlightenment, according to tradition.
Based on the Pali Canon, he seemed to have lived a mostly healthy life and only suffered from dysentery a short while before his death.
From the essay "Footprints in the dust: Buddha’s travels in India" by Ven. S. Dhammika:

In the famous Mahaparinibbana Sutta we know that he went from Rajagaha
to Kusinara via Nalanda, Patna and Vesali, a total distance of about
300 kilometres.

I think to travel 300 km on foot, he must have been quite healthy.
Similarly, his disciples like Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Moggallana were arahats and also seemed to have lived generally healthy lives.
As far as I know, enlightenment does not have a detrimental effect on the body. Of course, they are no longer attached to their bodies, so they may not lovingly take care of their body, looks and health in the same way non-enlightened folk would. They would follow the Middle Way in taking care of their health i.e. neither extreme asceticism, nor indulgence and vanity.
Ageing, disease and death affects all sentient beings, regardless of whether they are enlightened or not. All conditioned things are impermanent (sabbe sankhara anicca).


How can we view the statement that “life must be understood backwards but must be lived forwards" from a Buddhist perspective? Soren Kierkegaard once wrote,

  Det er ganske sandt, hvad Philosophien siger, at Livet maa forstaaes baglænds. Men derover glemmer man den anden Sætning, at det maa leves forlænds.

  It is perfectly true, as the philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards.
  Journals IV A 164 (1843)
  See Phenomenology: Critical Concepts in Philosophy, by Dermot Moran (2002)
  Variants:

  We live forward, but we understand backward.
  Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.

How can we view this statement from a Buddhist Perspective?

I feel that the answer that is most akin to Buddhism comes from the Buddha's instruction to his son to determine what caused the action by reflecting back, and then take responsibility for the action as one moves forward, stated as follows:

  The Buddha: How do you construe this, Rahula: What is a mirror for?

  Rahula: For reflection, sir.

  The Buddha: In the same way, Rahula, bodily acts, verbal acts, and
  mental acts are to be done with repeated reflection.

  Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it:
  'This bodily act I want to perform-would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily
  act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection,
  you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily act with painful
  consequences, painful results, then any bodily act of that sort is
  absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it
  would not cause affliction...it would be a skillful bodily act with
  happy consequences, happy results, then any bodily act of that sort is
  fit for you to do.   (Similarly with verbal acts and mental acts.)

  While you are performing a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This
  bodily act I am doing-is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it is leading to self-affliction, to affliction of others, or
  both...you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is
  not...you may continue with it.   (Similarly with verbal acts and
  mental acts.)

  Having performed a bodily act, you should reflect on it....If, on
  reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily act with painful
  consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it,
  lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy
  life. Having confessed it...you should exercise restraint in the
  future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to
  affliction...it was a skillful bodily act with happy consequences,
  happy results, then you should stay mentally refreshed and joyful,
  training day and night in skillful mental qualities.   (Similarly with
  verbal acts.)

  Having performed a mental act, you should reflect on it....If, on
  reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental act with painful
  consequences, painful results, then you should feel horrified,
  humiliated, and disgusted with it. Feeling horrified... you should
  exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that
  it did not lead to affliction...it was a skillful mental act with
  happy consequences, happy results, then you should stay mentally
  refreshed and joyful, training day and night in skillful mental
  qualities.

  Rahula, all the priests and contemplatives in the course of the past
  who purified their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts, did it
  through repeated reflection on their bodily acts, verbal acts, and
  mental acts in just this way.

  All the priests and contemplatives in the course of the future...All
  the priests and contemplatives at present who purify their bodily
  acts, verbal acts, and mental acts, do it through repeated reflection
  on their bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts in just this way.
  Therefore, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily
  acts through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal acts through
  repeated reflection. I will purify my mental acts through repeated
  reflection.' Thus you should train yourself.   That is what the
  Blessed One said. Pleased, Ven. Rahula delighted in the Blessed One's
  words.

M.61


gradual versus sudden enlightenment Is it true that most "enlightened" Buddhists attained this realization gradually? Or are there cases of sudden enlightenment? I ask because either this process is way more gradual than I can even detect, or else I'm not yet at the sudden point. Or perhaps I won't ever get to that point at all.

I'm pretty new to all this - been meditating daily for about a year now, at first once a day for 20 minutes, then 30 minutes, and lately twice a day for 20 minutes each...I feel so clueless. And my mind continue to race all over the place when I'm sitting. :-)

There is no set, predictable pattern.

Yes, some attain gradually. Don't worry about gradualism too much though, just figure out how to Practice better and better, keep improving your  Dharma knowledge. Your recognition that your mind is racing is the 1st step. (Most ordinary people are at step 0. They don't even know that their mind is hell.)

Yes, there are many cases of sudden enlightenment, and such people always had great amount of merit and past life cultivation and already had tremendous concentration power (2nd Training).

Read a Buddhist book. I suggest reading the articles here. Read Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha for the best hardcore introduction to Buddhism ever. It's free.

It's not as simple as force yourself to sit for 20 minutes twice a day and get enlightened...there is a lot to the whole Buddhist work and it is plain out stupid for someone to expect realization and get it. Realization is a type of non-attainment. Read the Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra to start to understand this concept.

Also, unless you can focus your mind (the 2nd training) so well that you are absolutely clear and blissful (this happiness is happier than a constant orgasm, jhana) the 3rd training (which involves "realization") is far far off.

Learn to concentrate first (2nd training).

You also have to learn how to meditate correctly or else you can meditate for 24/7 for 100 years and nothing will happen - no stilling of the mind, nothing, just racy mind getting worse and worse until you give up.

"Don't have hope for Enlightenment but Practice all your life." --Milarepa


Why did physical representations of the Buddha only start to appear a few centuries after his death? Prior to around the 1st century CE, Buddhist art tended not to depict the Buddha himself, instead preferring to depict relics/symbols of the Buddha, such as his footprints, or the Bodhi tree. That period (the so-called "aniconic" period) yielded works like these:

However, after around the 1st century CE, we have depictions of the Buddha in human form from all over the Buddhosphere (so to speak).

What changed around the 1st century CE that led to creators of Buddhist art starting to depict the Buddha in human form? Was this change accompanied by a related change in doctrine or belief, e.g. declaring that it was now permissible to depict the Buddha as a human?

(This question is sect-agnostic, as far as I know, since I am not aware of any sect-specific differences in the way art was produced c. the 1st century CE.)

It seems that recent scholarship on Buddhism, at least outside the field of art history, has tended to downplay this change.  Donald Lopez has written, in a chapter called “The Idol” in his From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha (pp.37-8):

Art historians have observed this absence [of early Buddha images] and inferred that the Buddha, or his immediate followers, had forbidden the making or worship of his image.  And they have speculated that the practice of representing the Buddha in human form – which, depending on one’s perspective, might be termed the making of images or the making of idols – had, in fact, been introduced from abroad – from the West, specifically by Greeks in the region of Gandhara (in what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan).
This view that the Buddha prohibited the worship of his form is consistent with the later nineteenth- and early twentieth-century view of the Buddha as a rationalist who never would have condoned idol worship; the practice could have entered his tradition only from abroad as a concession to the masses in the centuries after his passage into nirvana.  We might note as well that a century after this aniconism theory was proposed, no proscriptions against making images of the Buddha have been located in what scholars would regard as an early Buddhist text, nor have any prescriptions for his representation been found; such prescriptions become prevalent in some of the Mahāyana sutras that date from the first centuries of the Common Era.  The so-called aniconism debate has persisted, though[.]

And in the introduction to an edited volume on a related issue, Embodying the Dharma:  Buddhist Relic Veneration in Asia (pp. 10-11), Kevin Trainor writes:

In some respects, we can see a parallel between the theory that sangha members were explicitly prohibited from participation in the relic cult and the widely accepted hypothesis that there was for centuries a prohibition against representing the body of the Buddha in paintings and images, what is generally called the “aniconic” period in early Buddhism.  Here again part of the evidence is negative:  no images survive from the first several centuries of the Buddhist movement.  This, coupled with early representations that depict the Buddha’s physical presence through symbols such as a royal umbrella or his throne of enlightenment, led to the widely accepted assertion that early Buddhist were prohibited from representing his bodily form out of respect for his nirvanic status.  As with the dubious assertion that early Buddhist monks and nuns were initially prohibited from participating in relic veneration, however, the theory of an aniconic period is driven more by presumed doctrinal ideals than by compelling material evidence.  Indeed, when the centrality of the practice of relic veneration during this period is taken into account, the existence of a prohibition against representing his physical body seems even less likely.

The portion of Lopez’s text that I have highlighted suggests that the answer to the second question is no:  the making of images was neither forbidden nor explicitly called for at first.  Trainor (in the highlighted sections) implies that “negative evidence” and assumptions colored by an implicit bias against “superstition” and “idolatry” are a weak foundation for any theory.  Still, it seems to me that that since we don’t have any early images, no definitive refutation of the aniconic view is possible.
Both Lopez and Trainor cite another study which would be worth consulting:  Klemens Karlsson, Face to Face with the Absent Buddha:  The Formation of Buddhist Aniconic Art (Uppsala, Sweden:  Uppsala University Library, 1999).


Various types of death In this answer, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote about various types of death (quoted below).

Where can I find references to and more info on the various types of death that is mentioned - khaṇika-maraṇa, sammuti-maraṇa and samuccheda-maraṇa? It can be from the Pali Canon or other sources.
Are there also other types of death? According to this source, there is also paramattha-maraṇa (ultimate death).
Does sammuti-maraṇa refer to physical death? This source calls it "conventional death".

Any other additional info or explanation is welcomed.

  The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as
  "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against
  orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings,
  it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not
  rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old.

  ... In this
  life, there is what is called khaṇika-maraṇa - death of a moment.
  Each momentary experience is born and dies, never to arise again. At
  the moment of conceptual death (sammuti-maraṇa), this process of
  momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has
  experienced "death by cutting off" (samuccheda-maraṇa) - i.e. of the
  defilements (q.v. Vism VIII.167) - in which case there is no further
  arising.

  To put it succinctly, physical death isn't even real according to
  early Buddhism; it is a concept based on the artificial construct of a
  "being" who is "born".

  (And in this comment:) New birth is related to old birth, but nothing
  is ever reborn.

These three types of death are commonly referred to by the Theravada commentaries (e.g. AN-a 1.18 aparāccharāsaṅghātavaggavaṇṇanā). A description of them is found in the Vibhaṅga commentary:

  Tattha ‘khaṇikamaraṇaṃ’ nāma pavatte rūpārūpadhammānaṃ bhedo. ‘Tisso mato, phusso mato’ti idaṃ ‘sammutimaraṇaṃ’ nāma. Khīṇāsavassa appaṭisandhikā kālakiriyā ‘samucchedamaraṇaṃ’ nāma.

I wouldn't be surprised if other traditions talked about other types of death, but these are the types of death recognized by the orthodox Theravada commentaries.

In the quote above, sammutimaraṇa refers to when we say "Tissa died." or "Phussa died." (Tissa and Phussa are just common Pali names).


Why we can not fulfill our desires? What characteristics in universe have that doesn't let us to fulfill our desires ?

Why we get more and more desires through fulfilling desires ? (What characteristics of desires have that we have to know to understand better about desires)

Excellent question.

The reason why we can't full-fill our desires is because of the impermanent nature in the world. Everything around us is subjected to impermanence. This includes the happiness that we get from worldly things.

For example:
You buy a car(because you desire), now your happy. Then you get bored overtime, and you want a better car.  Because your satisfaction is impermanent. You had the satisfaction when you bought it but then it died away. So you buy a better car (to full-fill your deep desires). Then two cars, then five cars. Someday, you can have all the cars in the world and still not end up satisfied. Because your satisfactions are impermanent. Its born and it dies. Like everything else in this universe.

So the simple answer to  your question "Why we get more and more desires through fulfilling desires ? (What characteristics of desires have that we have to know to understand better about desires)":

Impermanence in this universe or Impermanence in satisfaction of desires to be specific.


Relationship between sampajanna definitions in SN 47.2 and SN 47.35 What is the relationship between the definitions of sampajañña (clear comprehension) in SN 47.2 and SN 47.35?

From SN 47.35 (translated by Bodhi):

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here,
  bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise,
  understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away.
  Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain
  present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as
  they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
  away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.

From SN 47.2 (translated by Bodhi):

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here,
  bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts with clear comprehension when
  going forward and returning; when looking ahead and looking aside;
  when drawing in and extending the limbs; when wearing his robes and
  carrying his outer robe and bowl; when eating, drinking, chewing his
  food, and tasting; when defecating and urinating; when walking,
  standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, speaking, and keeping
  silent. It is in such a way that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.

In line with what I said in my other answer, both are descriptions of self-awareness, of not getting carried away by the circumstances.

This does not refer to "zombie bare awareness" executed mechanically, but to normal, pragmatic, careful self-awareness of an intelligent person.


About the authencity of modern meditation methods I've been reading a few sources, books, essays and teachings that discuss the idea that the current orthodoxy of Theravada and its modern meditation methods show great differences with what the suttas tell us (especially the ones characterized as being part of the early doctrinal strata) about meditation, jhana and its importance in the buddhist soteriology (i.e. the path towards "salvation" from dukkha and the cycle of rebirth).
For instance, some investigations conclude that methods such as Vipassana are not "methods" in the suttas, but qualities to be developed (along with samatha) with the practice of Jhana. And so, all the foundations of modern vipassana meditation would come from later sources, and not from the Buddha himself. The same could be said about concepts such as kasina, access concentration, nimitta (as lights seen during meditation), etc.
How well accepted is this idea between bhikkhu/nis, scholars, and lay practitioners? And what consequences does this have for our practice? Should we look for methods of meditation that could go back to the ones described in the suttas, putting aside other sources, such as Abhidhamma or Visuddhimagga?
Just to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that modern methods are wrong or that they contradict the path laid by the Buddha. I'm just asking if those methods are recognized as not authentic (if we define "authenticity" as the quality of something conforming in form and content with what the Buddha supposedly taught, if we have any way of knowing that with more or less degree of certainty), although useful, inside buddhist circles in general.

You're absolutely right.
Here, I quote from a Dhamma talk by Ajahn Chah entitled "Unshakeable Peace".

Concerning this issue of samatha and vipassanā, the important thing is
to develop these states in our own hearts. Only when we genuinely
cultivate them ourselves will we know what they actually are.

He describes samatha and vipassana as states above, and not methods.

Meditation is like a single stick of wood. Insight (vipassanā) is one
end of the stick and serenity (samatha) the other. If we pick it up,
does only one end come up or do both? When anyone picks up a stick
both ends rise together. Which part then is vipassanā, and which is
samatha? Where does one end and the other begin? They are both the
mind.

He says above that it does not make sense to separate vipassana and samatha.

As the mind becomes peaceful, initially the peace will arise from the
serenity of samatha. We focus and unify the mind in states of
meditative peace (samādhi). However, if the peace and stillness of
samādhi fades away, suffering arises in its place. Why is that?
Because the peace afforded by samatha meditation alone is still based
on attachment. This attachment can then be a cause of suffering.
Serenity is not the end of the path. The Buddha saw from his own
experience that such peace of mind was not the ultimate. The causes
underlying the process of existence (bhava) had not yet been brought
to cessation (nirodha). The conditions for rebirth still existed. His
spiritual work had not yet attained perfection. Why? Because there was
still suffering. So based on that serenity of samatha he proceeded to
contemplate, investigate, and analyze the conditioned nature of
reality until he was free of all attachments, even the attachment to
serenity. Serenity is still part of the world of conditioned existence
and conventional reality. Clinging to this type of peace is clinging
to conventional reality, and as long as we cling, we will be mired in
existence and rebirth. Delighting in the peace of samatha still leads
to further existence and rebirth. Once the mind's restlessness and
agitation calms down, one clings to the resultant peace.

See above: The natural way is to start by calming the mind to experience meditative peace (samadhi) arising from  the state or quality of serenity (samatha). But then this does not free one from suffering. There is still clinging.
Then the Buddha's investigation proceeded to examining the working of the mind and how it relates to suffering. This then leads to the state or quality of vipassana.

So the Buddha examined the causes and conditions underlying existence
and rebirth. As long as he had not yet fully penetrated the matter and
understood the truth, he continued to probe deeper and deeper with a
peaceful mind, reflecting on how all things, peaceful or not, come
into existence. His investigation forged ahead until it was clear to
him that everything that comes into existence is like a lump of
red-hot iron. The five categories of a being's experience (khandhas)
are all a lump of red-hot iron. When a lump of iron is glowing
red-hot, is there anywhere it can be touched without getting burnt? Is
there anywhere at all that is cool? Try touching it on the top, the
sides, or underneath. Is there a single spot that can be found that's
cool? Impossible. This searing lump of iron is entirely red-hot. We
can't even attach to serenity. If we identify with that peace,
assuming that there is someone who is calm and serene, this reinforces
the sense that there is an independent self or soul. This sense of
self is part of conventional reality. Thinking, "I'm peaceful", "I'm
agitated", "I'm good", "I'm bad", "I'm happy", or "I'm unhappy", we
are caught in more existence and birth. It's more suffering. If our
happiness vanishes, then we're unhappy instead. When our sorrow
vanishes, then we're happy again. Caught in this endless cycle, we
revolve repeatedly through heaven and hell.
Before his enlightenment, the Buddha recognized this pattern in his
own heart. He knew that the conditions for existence and rebirth had
not yet ceased. His work was not yet finished. Focusing on life's
conditionality, he contemplated in accordance with nature: ''Due to
this cause there is birth, due to birth there is death, and all this
movement of coming and going.'' So the Buddha took up these themes for
contemplation in order to understand the truth about the five
khandhas. Everything mental and physical, everything conceived and
thought about, without exception, is conditioned. Once he knew this,
he taught us to set it down. Once he knew this, he taught to abandon
it all. He encouraged others to understand in accordance with this
truth. If we don't, we'll suffer. We won't be able to let go of these
things. However, once we do see the truth of the matter, we'll
recognize how these things delude us. As the Buddha taught, ''The mind
has no substance, it's not any thing.''
The mind isn't born belonging to anyone. It doesn't die as anyone's.
This mind is free, brilliantly radiant, and unentangled with any
problems or issues. The reason problems arise is because the mind is
deluded by conditioned things, deluded by this misperception of self.
So the Buddha taught to observe this mind. In the beginning what is
there? There is truly nothing there. It doesn't arise with conditioned
things, and it doesn't die with them. When the mind encounters
something good, it doesn't change to become good. When the mind
encounters something bad, it doesn't become bad as well. That's how it
is when there is clear insight into one's nature. There is
understanding that this is essentially a substanceless state of
affairs.
The Buddha's insight saw it all as impermanent, unsatisfactory and
not-self. He wants us to fully comprehend in the same way. The knowing
then knows in accordance with truth. When it knows happiness or
sorrow, it remains unmoved. The emotion of happiness is a form of
birth. The tendency to become sad is a form of death. When there's
death there is birth, and what is born has to die. That which arises
and passes away is caught in this unremitting cycle of becoming. Once
the meditator's mind comes to this state of understanding, no doubt
remains about whether there is further becoming and rebirth. There's
no need to ask anyone else.
The Buddha comprehensively investigated conditioned phenomena and so
was able to let it all go. The five khandhas were let go of, and the
knowing carried on merely as an impartial observer of the process. If
he experienced something positive, he didn't become positive along
with it. He simply observed and remained aware. If he experienced
something negative, he didn't become negative. And why was that?
Because his mind had been cut free from such causes and conditions.
He'd penetrated the Truth. The conditions leading to rebirth no longer
existed. This is the knowing that is certain and reliable. This is a
mind that is truly at peace. This is what is not born, doesn't age,
doesn't get sick, and doesn't die. This is neither cause nor effect,
nor dependent on cause and effect. It is independent of the process of
causal conditioning. The causes then cease with no conditioning
remaining. This mind is above and beyond birth and death, above and
beyond happiness and sorrow, above and beyond both good and evil. What
can you say? It's beyond the limitations of language to describe it.
All supporting conditions have ceased and any attempt to describe it
will merely lead to attachment. The words used then become the theory
of the mind.
Theoretical descriptions of the mind and its workings are accurate,
but the Buddha realized that this type of knowledge was relatively
useless. We understand something intellectually and then believe it,
but it's of no real benefit. It doesn't lead to peace of mind. The
knowing of the Buddha leads to letting go. It results in abandoning
and renunciation. Because it's precisely this mind that leads us to
get involved with both what's right and what's wrong. If we're smart
we get involved with those things that are right. If we're stupid we
get involved with those things that are wrong. Such a mind is the
world, and the Blessed One took the things of this world to examine
this very world. Having come to know the world as it actually was, he
was then known as the ''One who clearly comprehends the world''.

Furthermore, without attainment of serenity, the five hindrances would obstruct any attainment of insight. So below, he teaches to calm the mind first.

Allow the breathing to flow easily at just the right pace, neither
too short nor too long. Don't try to make it into anything special.
Let the body relax, comfortable and at ease. Then keep doing it. Your
mind will ask you, ''How late are we going to meditate tonight? What
time are we going to quit?'' It incessantly nags, so you have to
bellow out a reprimand, ''Listen buddy, just leave me alone.'' This
busybody questioner needs to be regularly subdued, because it's
nothing other than defilement coming to annoy you. Don't pay it any
mind whatsoever. You have to be tough with it. ''Whether I call it
quits early or have a late night, it's none of your damn business! If
I want to sit all night, it doesn't make any difference to anyone, so
why do you come and stick your nose into my meditation?'' You have to
cut the nosy fellow off like that. You can then carry on meditating
for as long as you wish, according to what feels right.
As you allow the mind to relax and be at ease, it becomes peaceful.
Experiencing this, you'll recognize and appreciate the power of
clinging. When you can sit on and on, for a very long time, going past
midnight, comfortable and relaxed, you'll know you're getting the hang
of meditation. You'll understand how attachment and clinging really do
defile the mind.
When some people sit down to meditate they light a stick of incense in
front of them and vow, ''I won't get up until this stick of incense
has burned down.'' Then they sit. After what seems like an hour they
open their eyes and realize only five minutes have gone by. They stare
at the incense, disappointed at how exceedingly long the stick still
is. They close their eyes again and continue. Soon their eyes are open
once more to check that stick of incense. These people don't get
anywhere in meditation. Don't do it like that. Just sitting and
dreaming about that stick of incense, ''I wonder if it's almost
finished burning,'' the meditation gets nowhere. Don't give importance
to such things. The mind doesn't have to do anything special.
If we are going to undertake the task of developing the mind in
meditation, don't let the defilement of craving know the ground rules
or the goal. ''How will you meditate, Venerable?'', it inquires. ''How
much will you do? How late are you thinking of going?'' Craving keeps
pestering until we submit to an agreement. Once we declare we're going
to sit until midnight, it immediately begins to hassle us. Before even
an hour has passed we're feeling so restless and impatient that we
can't continue. Then more hindrances attack as we berate ourselves,
''Hopeless! What, is sitting going to kill you? You said you were
going to make your mind unshakeable in samādhi, but it's still
unreliable and all over the place. You made a vow and you didn't keep
it.'' Thoughts of self-depreciation and dejection assail our minds,
and we sink into self-hatred. There's no one else to blame or get
angry at, and that makes it all the worse. Once we make a vow we have
to keep it. We either fulfill it or die in the process. If we do vow
to sit for a certain length of time, then we shouldn't break that vow
and stop. In the meantime however, just gradually practise and
develop. There's no need for making dramatic vows. Try to steadily and
persistently train the mind. Occasionally, the meditation will be
peaceful, and all the aches and discomfort in the body will vanish.
The pain in the ankles and knees will cease by itself.


Did Buddhism oppose Vedic religion? At the time of Tathagat Buddha, Hindu religion in its current form did not exist. However, there were Vedic teachings. These teachings were based on blind belief in the authority of the Vedas. There were many different schools of philosophy opposing Vedic teaching, e.g. Akriyavada, Niyativada (determinism), Ucchedavada etc.

As far as I know, the Buddha opposed Vedic religion. He opened a strong camp against it and freed people from the exploitative teachings of Veda. He expounded equality as opposed to the Vedic teachings which discriminated between different classes.

Is it true that Buddhism (since time of Buddha) opposed Vedic (and later Brahminical) religion?

In his Great Minds of the Eastern tradition lecture series Grant Hardy identifies 6 orthodox schools of Indian philosophy (Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshik, Mimāṃsā, Vedanta). He also identified 3 heterodox schools

Cārvāka (materialist)
Jainism
Buddhism

The heterodox schools are those who reject the authority of the Vedas. So based on this then Buddhism was opposed to the Vedic religion.Interestingly the Buddha came to be seen as an avatar of the god Vishnu in some forms Hinduism. I guess that it's better to have the Buddha inside the tent chanting out then outside the tent chanting in (or words to that effect).


What are Bhavanga and Javana? Will someone explain Bhavanga and Javana in simple way?
At times, they seem non-comprehensible.

According to the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's book A Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma, Chapter 3 Guide to §8 :

  The word bhavanga means “factor (anga) of  existence (bhava),” that
  is, “the indispensable condition of existence.”  Bhavanga is the
  function of consciousness by which the continuity of the individual is
  preserved through  the duration of any single existence, from
  conception to death.  After the paṭisandhicitta  has arisen and fallen
  away, it is then followed by the bhavangacitta, which is a resultant
  consciousness  of  the  same  type  as  the  paṭisandhicitta  but
  which  performs  a  different function,  namely,  the  function  of
  preserving  the  continuity  of  individual  existence. Bhavangacittas
  arise  and  pass  away  every  moment  during  life  whenever  there
  is  no active cognitive process taking place.  This type of
  consciousness is most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but it also
  occurs momentarily during waking life countless times  between
  occasions of active cognition.

In other words the Bhavanga-Citta is a mindstate that has all the necessary features of consciousness but is otherwise blank. It occurs in between all other mindstates and also during what we would now call being unconscious.

In the same section the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi explains Javana thus:

  “Javana” is a technical term of Abhidhamma usage that is best left
  untranslated. The  literal  meaning  of  the  word  is  “running
  swiftly.”    As  a  function  of consciousness, it applies to the
  stage of the cognitive process that immediately follows  the
  determining stage 76  and consists of series of cittas (normally
  seven, all identical in kind) which “run swiftly” over the object in
  the act of apprehending it.  The javana stage is the most important
  from an ethical standpoint, for it is at this point that wholesome or
  unwholesome cittas originate.

The Javana is one step in a series of things that occur after having a sense experience. A sense experience starts with the Bhavanga vibrating for one moment and in the next moment is cut off. Then a mindstate arises which turns towards the sense object; This turning is called āvajjana, or adverting. Then you have the appropriate sense consciousness arise that is aware of the sense object. If the sense object is one of the physical senses then you also have a mindstate of receiving, then a mindstate of investigating, and then a mindstate of determining that follow the sense consciousness. For a mental consciousness these three mindstates don't happen.

After this happens there arises a series of seven mindstates called the Javana. I think the best way to think of it is that in the earlier phases the mind is becoming aware of an object, and in the Javana phase the mind is actually reacting to the object. After the Javana you have some other phases, but they aren't that relavent to this discussion.


Emptiness and Mental Disposition Upon reading Andrei Volkov's answer on this post, I am stricken by a deep questioning. My two questions are: (1) can emptiness be unsuitable for some dispositions? and (2) can emptiness be partially achieved?

Forgive my probable vast elaboration on this question, I just feel I should explain.

1.

Within Tibetan Buddhism, there are different schools teaching emptiness: Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Svantantrika. The Dalai Lama, in his books [a],[b] often suggests this corresponds to different mental dispositions. Similarly, he suggests in some books that religions are different because of different mental dispositions [c]. So, I'm wondering if emptiness could be detrimental when taught to certain types of mental dispositions, i.e. different individuals?

2.

For the second part, I feel on the basis of strong faith in Buddhism, and overconfidence on my own cognitive abilities, and a degree of pride, I studied emptiness and -- through that strong motivation -- understood a large degree of it. But, because of pride's delusional quality, I learned things in a flawed way. By faith and pride, I thought I understood, but I concluded I understood on partial grounds, which is "inadequate [according to Buddhist logic and epistemology]" [a]. So, I wonder here if it's possible to learn certain aspects of emptiness, but either apply or conceive it in a very partial, dissatisfactory way?

Lastly, would humility help in this case? Here, I specifically mean recognizing one's limitations, not overestimating understanding, or insight.

Thank you.

There is a difference between conceptual understanding of Emptiness, and experiential realization of Emptiness. The first is at best a simile, a model, leading to the second. In worst case the first can even be an obstacle to the second.

Because of its nature, experiential realization of Emptiness may have demotivating effect. It certainly also has liberating effect, but there is demotivating effect as well. Which is pretty expected, considering that it cuts off the root of desire.

So, if the person has not developed strong Sila (ethics, altruism, compassion) and strong Samadhi (here, mental discipline, control over one's mental/emotional state) premature realization of Emptiness may make person either somewhat unhinged or else rather meek, depending on disposition.


Where do I focus ? On the outer nose or outer nose with upper lip? My question is that where do I focus ? The outer nose or outer nose with upper lip

The instruction is: sati-parimukkham, or parimukkham-sati.
This means: mind-around-mouth
It also means: mind-around-face
It also means: mind around the front
It also means: mind around the interface [between the personal and the external]
It also has been interpreted as meaning: mind the business at which you are about (that is minding).

This instruction is found in cases where a formula for meditation is being set forth, not exclusive to minding the in and out breaths.

There is no instruction that reads: 'focus where the breath is felt' or 'at the nose' or at any specific place. Try to focus on the point where the breath passes the nostrils you will quickly see that you cannot find that place. It moves around at light-speed!

That is why the instruction reads "around" (pari). The point is the focus, not the locus. This is also important as a preventive measure: our job here is not to maintain a state of concentration on any object. We are trying to develop concentration (or better, focus) as a skill with a tool to be used in understanding other things. You are not going to Nibbana with your mind focused on your nose!

Follow the instructions without trying to pick it apart and you will see the advantages of minding around the mouth as a starting point, minding the face as a matter of minding the sense-reactions, minding the front as minding the whole body, minding the interface as minding the inter-relations of the body and the external world, and minding your business as keeping you focused on the task. Round and round, up and down, back and forth. A spectrum.


Are these valid Buddha quotes? The BBC has these two quotes attributed to the Buddha that strike me as suspiciously pop-culture-esque assumptions of Buddhism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/capitalpunishment.shtml

Quote #1:

  An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered
  a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being.

  The Buddha

Quote #2:

  If a person foolishly does me wrong, I will return to him
  the protection of my boundless love. The more evil that comes from
  him, the more good will go from me.

  The Buddha

The language isn't right, and they don't stand up to the test of logic.

For example:

1: A girl pesters a monk to marry her, and is heartbroken when the monk refuses and commits suicide out of heart break. I don't think Buddhism would blame the monk because his intention is not to hurt the girl.

2: The words "protection of my boundless love" seem odd, when actually per the laws of karma, none can protect another from the effects of their actions. Plus, the Buddha doesn't mind calling a spade a spade - he can't hate anyone obviously, but he isn't going to love the sinners more than the virtuous as the quote implies.

In the first one I think they are summarizing the following from Ambalaṭṭhikā-Rāhulovada Sutta.

  “Whatever action you desire to do with the body [similarly with mind and word] Rāhula, of that
  particular bodily action you should reflect: ‘Now, this action that I
  desire to do with the body—would this, my bodily action, be conducive
  to my own harm, or to the harm of others, or to that of both (myself
  and others)?—Then, unskilful is this bodily action, entailing
  suffering and productive of pain.
  MN61

The other one seems to be coming from a Mahayana sutta, "Sermon on Abuse" in The sutta of 42 sections

  Buddha said: A man foolishly stating or considering that I do that
  which is not right, will obtain no other refutation from me but that
  which proceeds from the exercise of my four qualities of love (?), so
  the more evil he brings against me, the more good will proceed from
  me; the influence of this resting on me, the effect of that returning
  to him
  http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/jras/os19-14.htm


Getting answers as per the perception of others only, not at all mine? I am not good in english, but i am getting answers somehow. If i say about people who have had answered. They have suggested everything as per their own perception. Is that good to me?

Of course they are good to you if it changes you for the better. If nothing can be changed, like a solid rock, then it does nothing good.

But everything is impermanent, even a rock can change, so there will be changes which should be good.


Meditating with an overwhelming emotion It gets really hard for me to meditate when there is something really important happening in my life, something that triggers overwhelming emotions such as fear, anger or total despair. Avoiding them is not a solution, they don't simply go away.

I try the usual method to deal with them (seeing for what they are and repeting "fear...fear...fear..."), but it seems those big emotions and events can block or even stop my meditation. I'm 100% sure I'm not the first one to face this "challenge", so any advises on how to deal with it would be great.

I personally would recommend insight meditation, learn the 3 universal characteristics- impermanace, suffering and non-self. Hopefully once you realise such insight, you might question yourself, and ask: In a 100 years times, when i am dead, will the things that are causing me stress today, will they mean anything?

One day,very soon, we will all be dead, and the stress, struggles and fighting through this life/existence will end. The reason why i'm saying this is because it will mean nothing!! Live your life, let go of things you can't change and let go of the things you can change... let it all go... just live and be happy, because one day, very soon, you will be dead and the only difference will be on your death bed, when you ask yourself... was i a happy person or an unhappy person? The choice is yours my friend!

Metta


Concept of Karma in Bhagwad Gita and Buddhism In Hinduism, there are many philosophies developed regarding the concept of God and afterlife, and they all give their own interpretations. Regarding the Karmic approach, the main book that gives insight about that is the Bhagwad Gita.

The main concept that arises from it is that no man can exist without doing any karma (Knowingly or Unknowingly) and hence krishna says that "any Karma without attachment is the right way to not get bounded by your karmic effects".
Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any karma altogether.

As a man can`t live without doing karma, and this will result in karmic debt, isn't the salvation of a person (Nirvana) infeasible by this approach? Are Buddhism and Bhagwad Gita on different pages, regarding the concept of karma?

Bhagavad Gita is different to Buddhism because Bhagavad Gita teaches a person can kill in war without attachment. Buddhism does not teach this because any view that believes war is duty is attachment.

In Buddhism, there are four types of attachment: (i) sensuality; (ii) views; (iii) precepts & rituals; & (iv) self-views. The view that 'war is duty' is attachment.

In Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna had the view or idea of "my family" or "jati". 'Jati' (self-identity; social-identity; caste) is attachment in Buddhism. Buddha taught attachment (upadana) is the condition (paccaya) for becoming (bhava), which is the condition for birth (jati).

The Buddha ended 'jati' ('birth') therefore had no caste & no caste duty. The Buddha renounced his warrior caste, unlike Arjuna, who did his warrior duty of war & killing commanded by Krishna.

In Buddhism, the noble eightfold path is the ending of kamma. By following the noble eightfold path, an arahant (Buddha) cannot kill a human being.

The killing Krisha recommended & Arjuna performed is a crime in Buddhism. If a Buddhist monk recommends to a person to kill another person, this monk is defeated & immediately not a monk.

This is the difference between Buddhism & Bhagavad Gita. In Buddhism, a Buddha/arahant cannot kill or teach another to kill.

  Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right
  speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma.

  Nibbedhika Sutta


When did Shakyamuni became buddha? We know Shakyamuni was a prince and had all the lavish life a prince should have. He was isolated from every pain and suffering as we are told. As he traveled countryside he began to feel pain and suffering in others and witnessed death. He could have been ignorant or at most have donated some of his wealth to the commoners, but he didn't. He left the life he had, and set out to seek the ultimate truth of life. At Gaya, he meditated and got enlightened and became a buddha as most of us are told.

OK, above mentioned is what we all know. Problem is, what if he had not decided to leave the prince-hood? What if he didn't have that curiosity? Isn't the first step he took by leaving his old life behind, a sign of becoming buddha? I believe that step as the sprout of enlightenment.

Please, explain if I am wrong.

[unconfirmed, proceed with caution] since in his previous lives he already was a bodhisatta and so a noble disciple, becoming awakened was only a matter of time since according to the Dhamma after attainment of the sotapatti noble level (the 1st of the four) nibbana is to be attained within 7 lives at the most.

thus the Buddha was predestined to become one. even he himself couldn't change that. it's only that all his previous practice and wholesome kamma ripened in that particular life 2500 years ago

until the awakening he was not a buddha, but an unawakened bodhisatta

  before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta

Ariyapariyesana sutta (MN 26) by Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu