Which traditions have gurus? On the site I often read posts referencing gurus. My Buddhist group (Triratna) doesn't really have a concept of gurus - certainly no-one uses the term. Which traditions have gurus? I most associate it with Tibetan Buddhism but I could be wrong in that. Also is there an difference between a Buddhist teacher and a guru or are they really just the same thing?

Not only in Tibetan Buddhism, they also have gurus in Zen Buddhism but there they are addressed as masters (sifu, sensei, sabunim etc). What counts is not a name but the personal relationship of mentorship.

I suppose "mentor" would be a better term than "teacher". Other options I like include "preceptor" and "benefactor". As was explained to me by one of my spiritual guides, a Chinese practitioner of Vajrayana, the word "teacher" emphasizes transfer of information, while "guru" stresses the upbringing / personal transformation aspect.

In Tibetan schools, esp. in Vajrayana they go as far as to say that the faith in one's guru is single most important factor of Enlightenment, and make guru-yoga, practice of deliberate worship of one's guru, the foundation of all other practices.

The official term preferred by Tibetan texts is "kalyanamitra", spiritual friend. This is supposed to make it sound a little more democratic than the overly patriarchal "guru", although in practice the relationship is rarely as personal as a real friendship.

There is a nice Wikipedia article on Kalyāṇa-mittatā, which mentions an early occurrence of this special interpretation of spiritual friendship in Visuddhimagga.

Here is also a Pali Canon quote that defines spiritual counseling (DN 31):

  The mentor (atthakkhayi, "the shower of the goal") is known by four things to be a goodhearted friend (suhada mitta):

  he restrains you from wrongdoing,
  he guides you towards doing good,
  he lets you know what you did not know before,
  he points out the path to heaven.

So I suppose personal mentorship is not just a Mahayana thing if it can be traced back to Pali Canon.


I need an answer as to why i received a mother who makes me feel like an outcaste? Buddhism teaches to respect parents. I do follow. But when ever i bow down our relation with my mother, she constantly tries to bring me down. She makes me feel bad for the way i look. I cannot change my skin color or my height. She nags about my appearance. My childhood was ruined and now she is making me depresses by saying no guy would like to marry me. It is getting hard to listen to her day by day. I am a person who upholds goodcharacter above anything. I can never say a bad word to anybody's face. Yet i am facing this almost everyday by my mother. When she fell ill i could not leave he and i was the one who suffer her illness more than her mentally. I feel bad as why she cannot see me as a daughter and love me when all i want is to make her happy.
What mistake have i done in my past life to her that she is constantly taunting me to death.

What mistake have I done in my past life to her that she is constantly taunting me to death.

If you are literally asking about your past Karmas, to figure out the reason behind your current life situation, then, it is impossible for other, you yourself have to reach that level of meditative awareness to remember your past life. The ways of Karma are not linear also the ripening of fruits is also not linear, you receive the fruits when the environment is right.

Furthermore, if you blame your past life for your present life, then you can again blame your past to past life for the deeds of past life, so the regression is infinite. So the first thing to solve the problem is that stop blaming past life or Karma or anything for that matter. The first step is to accept the situation. The first step is acceptance.

How can you solve this problem?

From a Buddhist context, you really have two problems here, one is Attachment and other is Expectations.

As much as I have studied human psychology I can tell you that hatred of mother for her child is usually dissociated, meaning she does not really hate you as a child but maybe she hated your father or something like that, but sometimes humans are not capable to locate the real reasons of hating somebody, so her nagging about your looks is simply her own misunderstanding of the exact thing that was bothering her about you. So the next step is to look at you mother as a human rather than 'your mother', this will free you from the attachment you have, and will be able to help you to solve the problem objectively.

Second is you stop expecting love and affection from your mother. This expectation is same as desires, which Buddhism talks of in great detail. The suffering here is caused because you desire your mother to behave in a certain way and she is not doing it, as the Buddha said, "not getting what you want is suffering". So this is the second thing you have to learn, to drop your desire.

The next step is to learn not to react, I suggest you should do a 10 day Vipassana  retreat of S N Goenka. Here you will learn to watch the sensations without reacting to them, you will have to apply the same to your relating to your mother. So whenever she insults you, you just watch, the unpleasant sensation arising in your mind and its impermanence. Ths will help you get rid of a lot of emotional trouble.

  she is making me depresses by saying no guy would like to marry me.

So you are depressed by her words that no guy will like to marry you. Well, you have to understand something here, if you are depressed then your mother's prophecy will be self-fulfilling because no guy will want to marry a depressed girl. So instead of feeling depressed, you fill your heart and mind with loving-kindness and compassion. If you are loving then love will come in your life, but remember the inherent unsatisfactoriness of everything. To accomplish this, I will suggest that you should also learn some Metta meditation. Ajahn Brahm is the best teacher for this, see his Youtube videos on this topic. If you could give Metta to your mother under your current situation, then you have won, girl.

Look at the bigger picture

You take my word for this, and I assure you, that if it would not have been your mother bothering you it would have been someone else, something else. The first of the Noble truth is, There is Suffering in life. So instead of thinking that it was your bad karma that got you an undesirable mother, maybe it was your good karma that the suffering you are entitled has led you to ask important questions in life about Karma and past life. Life's plots are complicated, your mis-fortune sometimes is your greatest fortune.

Think about the story of the Buddha, He had a perfect father, His father kept Him in utmost luxury possible, gave Him everything, but still, you can imagine His suffering that He had to leave His palace in the middle of the night, teary-eyed, to find the end of the suffering.

So think about this, that getting a good mother or good father is also not the solution to life's suffering. Those who got have their problems. Follow the Dhamma taught by the Buddha, that's the only true way out.

Contemplate on this story told by Ajahn Brahm and last thing I will suggest you read the book 'Who ordered this truckload of Dung' by Ajahn Brahm. Thit will change your entire perspective.

Metta to you.


How does a Buddhist survive in a harsh world? The following video got me thinking:

Machiavelli’s Advice For Nice Guys

Machiavelli believes that being kind and compassionate is good, but one often needs to learn to be harsh and ruthless in order to survive so that good may triumph. The best example would be the Axis Powers during World War 2 - if the Allies had been nice, they'd have been no match for the Axis Powers for their sheer ruthlessness.

On a smaller scale in everyday life, it's the nicer, more helpful people who are constantly taken advantage of.

So this raises a dilemma. Continue being gentle and compassionate with loving kindness, and get eaten. Or react harshly when necessary and risk darkening ourselves. Or, is there a proper middle path?

Yet, Buddhism has survived 2500 years and even flourished at a time where war and cruelty were rampant. So there must be something there, and it bugs the heck out of me.

So this raises a dilemma. Continue being gentle and compassionate with loving kindness, and get eaten. Or react harshly when necessary and risk darkening ourselves. Or, is there a proper middle path?

I hope this is a false dilemma.

Some of the Buddhist principles that might help you to prosper (rather than "to be eaten") include:

Right livelihood (work for a living, don't cheat people, have fair business dealings)
Have good friends, but avoid bad friends
Be cautious, prudent, avoid being irrational or ignorant, when making decisions about business and family etc.
Save part of your earnings (which will help you to survive thieves and taxes and so on)
Equanimity (be kind but don't be swayed too much, don't be swayed more than is proper, e.g. to help other people with their misfortunes -- remember that each inherits their own karma)
Generosity (if you do benefit someone, don't feel that you suffer that as a loss)

The best example would be the Axis Powers during World War 2

I'm not sure that's a good example. Buddhism includes doctrine like,

  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

I'm not a historian but, for example, perhaps if the "allies" had been more generous at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 at the end of WW1, if the French hadn't wanted to further weaken defeated Germany as much as possible, then the conditions wouldn't have arisen for Germany to want to go to war again 20 years later. Maybe ditto if the USSR hadn't made a secret non-aggression pact with Germany in 1939 (which it did maybe because of its own fear of Germany but also because of its own greed to invade Eastern Europe). Maybe they're all, you know, a bit guilty: could have done better.

If you react harshly, where does that ever stop? And what behaviour do other people learn from you?

Yet, Buddhism has survived 2500 years and even flourished at a time where war and cruelty were rampant. So there must be something there, and it bugs the heck out of me.

Well, social cooperation (rather than social aggression) is maybe a winning strategy. For example people respect (and try to help) Buddhist monks, partly because they are intentionally harmless.


Doing versus not doing what others tell you to do Is not doing what others tell you to do a wholesome or unwholesome act?

When someone tells you to do something, and you decline, when it's a wholesome act and when it's an unwholesome act from your part?

When someone tells you to do something, and you accept, when it's a wholesome act and when it's an unwholesome act from your part?

Example 1:

Person A looks at the lawn in front of the house and tells to person B: "The yard is ugly with that high lawn. Go mow that lawn now!"

Person B looks at the lawn and says to person A: "The yard is just the yard. The lawn is just the lawn. Neither cannot be beautiful nor ugly. The lawn is not too high. I'll mow the lawn when it grows higher."

Person A, angrily: "No, you mow the lawn now because it's too high and the yard is ugly with that lawn!"

Person B, calmly: "The yard cannot be ugly nor beautiful. The yard is just the yard. The lawn is not too high. If you think it's too high, mow it yourself."

Note: Both persons have the same capabilities and resources to mow the lawn and no time constraints.

Person A is angry with person B. Person B is calm, unaffected.

Which person has acted wholesomely or unwholesomely , A, B or both? Why?

Example 2:

Person A looks at the lawn in front of the house and tells to person B: "The yard is ugly with that high lawn. Go mow that lawn now!"

Person B looks at the lawn and says to person A: "The yard is just the yard. The lawn is just the lawn. Neither cannot be beautiful nor ugly. Yes, the lawn is very very high. I'll mow the lawn when it grows higher."

Person A, angrily: "No, you mow the lawn now because it's too high and the yard is ugly with that lawn!"

Person B, calmly: "The yard cannot be ugly nor beautiful. The yard is just the yard. Yes, the lawn is very very high, but I'll wait until it grows higher. If you think it's too high, mow it yourself."

Note: Both persons have the same capabilities and resources to mow the lawn and no time constraints.

Person A is angry with person B. Person B is calm, unaffected.

Which person has acted wholesomely or unwholesomely, A, B or both? Why?

Example 3:

Same example as example 1, but person A takes a pistol and kills 10 persons out of his anger.

Has person B acted more or less wholesomely or unwholesomely than in example 1?

Example 4:

Same example as example 2, but person A takes a pistol and kills 10 persons out of his anger.

Has person B acted more or less wholesomely or unwholesomely than in example 2?

Example 4:

Same example as examples 1 and 2, but:

Person A tells madly at person B: "Go mow the lawn now!!"

Person B clearly sees person A is mad and will probably kill someone because of that madness, and because person A sees person B could go to hell because of his actions, person A says: "Ok ok. I'll mow the lawn. No problem." and mows the lawn.

Person A is happy. Person B is calm, unaffected.

The question is, what would happen if person B would not give in to the demands of person A? Would that be an unwholesome act for person B?

In all examples both acted suboptimally.

It looks like person B should learn to understand and appreciate other people's perspectives. Perhaps he should say: "I understand why you worry about the lawn. It does look very high by normal standards. The normal standards are X inches and the lawn is Y. But I am not declining to mow it out of laziness, believe me. I think at this moment it is advantageous to everybody, including you to not mow it. Here is why: A) B) C).

In other words, don't drive people mad with your "superior understanding". If your understanding is better than others' -- invest your energy in teaching.

Also, always remember that people (including yourself!) are rarely truly objective. Instead they often act in line with their interests, or with the group interests, or with the "party line" or with their philosophy. It helps to rephrase your understanding in that context as to help them relate.

One of the very prominent characteristics of Buddha's method was to always work within the person's perspective, not against it.

Speak in terms of what they know, what they value, what they have experienced before - then they will hear and understand.


In what situations can letting go of attachments be painful? From what I understand of the Buddhist path, letting go of attachments shouldn't be painful. Are there times when letting go will be painful and if there is, why are those times different than the usual?

From what I understand of the Buddhist path, letting go of attachments shouldn't be painful.

Working through deep-rooted states of stress and mental hindrances can be both unpleasant and painful. The pain is not really a problem. It's just another object to work with, to observe and to cultivate insights from.

The real problem is our reaction to the pain. The judgement, the inclination, the liking/disliking that goes on.

That behavior is what shapes the tendencies of the mind. It will like certain experiences and be aversed towards other experiences. In that way ones happiness and peace of mind, is dependent on a certain set of causes and conditions. The mind is not free as long as it clings.

This shows us that we have work to do and where it has to be done. The goal is to be able to experience the full spectrum of experience without falling into suffering.

  Are there times when letting go will be painful and if there is, why are those times different than the usual?

The suffering one experiences, when renouncing an object, is directly proportional to the attachment one has cultivated towards that particular object/experience.


How can I assess the quality of a local Buddhist group? I'm located in the West, and, in my local area, there are several Buddhist groups. I would like to join one of them to be more formal in my commitment to learn about Buddhism. My question is, how do I assess the quality of a local Buddhist group in terms of how close they are to the original teachings of the Buddha? How can I assess if a local Buddhist group, or school, has or hasn't deviated from the original spirit of Buddhism?

This is a tough and important question with no easy answers. If there were some guaranteed system for definitively determining whether some group or teacher is going to lead people to liberation that would make life a lot easier!

One thing to look for in a group is, do the longtime members seem kind? Don't get distracted by whether they seem smart or businesslike or polished or well organized; none of those things necessarily matter. In America we want everything to be slick and new and polished but that attitude won't get you far with the dharma. But do look for senior students who are kind and generous.

Another trap to watch out for is, don't judge a sangha based on their adherence to contemporary liberal political correctness. While I personally think it's good to do things like recycle and drive a Prius and eat vegetarian and so on, the historical Buddha Shakyamuni did not do any of those things so it's not a valid basis for judgement of a sangha or set of teachings. In fact, I would say that anyone who is nasty and judgmental about such things is not very far along in dharma practice, because they are putting abstract principles ahead of actual kindness. And a sangha primarily composed of such people may have a poor quality of instruction overall.

Remember kindness, that's the short version of my answer.


Is Nibbana joyful or not joyful? I have noticed that it seems Nibbana has been described as "the peaceful".

I have had the impression that Nibbana is neither joyful nor delightful.

Is my impression correct?

OP: I have noticed that it seems Nibbana has been described as "the peaceful".
Nibbana is peaceful of blissful because it is not dependent on sensations/feelings.
The whole Shere of sensation regardless if it is present, unpleasant or neutral is unsatisfactory (dukkha).

pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;
painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;
neutral feeling is pleasant when there is
knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
OP: I have had the impression that Nibbana is neither joyful nor delightful.
In terms of sensations, this is not pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. But since is it not dependent on the sensation it is not unsatisfactory.


Is there a 'dead zone' in meditation effort? Is there a 'dead zone' in meditation and the effort applied? So to explain

Going from no meditation at all to meditating even a bit (10 mins every few days) - benefits felt quickly
Going up to intense meditation in a retreat situation (meditating many hours a day for several days to several weeks) - benefits felt and quite long lasting
Meditating for an intermediate amount -(meditating 30 mins a day 5-7 days a week over months / years) - meditator plateaus and feels stuck. Little benefit felt

This is just my experience but I'm wondering is it a thing - has this been pointed out in any texts or by established teachers. Or is it just me?

Many Thanks

Yes, it has been pointed out in texts:

  During the K'ai Yuan era (713-741) an ascetic Mazu was dwelling in the Ch'uan Fa Temple. All day he sat meditating. Zen Master Huairang knew that he was a fitting vessel of teaching, and went to question him:

  “Great Worthy, what are you aiming at by sitting in meditation?”

  Mazu replied, "to become a Buddha."

  So Huairang leaned over and picked up two tiles off the floor and started rubbing them against each other.

  Mazu asked, "What are you doing?"

  Huairang replied, "Trying to make a mirror."

  Mazu asked, "How can you make a mirror by polishing a tile?"

  Huairang said, "How can you become a Buddha by sitting in meditation?"

  Mazu asked, "Then what shall I do?"

  Huairang asked, "When an ox-carriage stops moving, do you hit the carriage or the ox?" Mazu had no reply. Huairang continued, "Are you practicing to sit in meditation, or practicing to sit like a Buddha? As to sitting in meditation, meditation is neither sitting nor lying. As to sitting like a Buddha, the Buddha has no fixed form. In the non-abiding Dharma, one should neither grasp nor reject. If you try to sit like a Buddha, you are just killing the Buddha. If you attach to the form of sitting, you will never realize the principle."

  Upon hearing this Mazu felt as if he had tasted ghee. He bowed and asked, "How should one's mind be so that it will accord with the formless samādhi?"

  Huairang said, "Your study of the teaching of the mind-ground is like planting a seed. My teaching of the essentials of the Dharma is like heaven bestowing rain. Because you have natural affinity, you will perceive the Way."

  Mazu also asked, "The Way is without form, how can it be perceived?"

  Huairang said, "The Dharma-eye of the mind-ground can perceive the Way. It is the same with the formless samādhi."

  Mazu asked, "Is that still subject to becoming and decay?"

  Huairang said, "If you see the Way through such concepts as becoming and decay, meeting and parting, then you do not truly see the Way. Listen to my verse:

    The mind ground contains various seeds,

    Which with rain will come to sprout.

    The flower of samādhi is formless,

    How can it decay or become?"

  Mazu was awakened and his mind became detached. He stayed to serve Huairang for ten years, gradually deepening his understanding of the profound mystery.

Buddhist Enlightenment is not something that can be achieved through mechanical repetition or by waiting, like one would wait for a kettle to boil or for a train to arrive. Buddhist Enlightenment involves shedding layers of bullshit and meeting reality. This is a process that requires courage to go forward into the unknown without a map. Only then one's practice can become alive and one can meet the real dragon face to face.

This includes meditation, that has to get less and less scripted and more and more an authentic presence and discovery with no preset agenda.


Does practice build good kamma despite wrong action? I ask this question in the context of one who does wrong action and gets right results anyways, which happens a lot. Someone with a pretty good understanding of Kamma but to my knowledge it doesn't usually work like that.
So, wrong action produces right results regularly, a lot of times ends up on top and in a better situation even through challenging circumstances... practices diligently.

What is known about this phenomenon?

Let me put it this way.

If you steal, you temporarily get ahead in wealth, but if you get caught you are looking at some jail time and returning what you stole, legal fees and all kinds of other headaches in the process. This would means you are worse off than before on average for thieves.

Like wise this extends to many other situation where you can temporarily get ahead in life to fall back to worst situations later on.

Also some may get away but if you look at the average over a majority you take one step forward and then two steps back in many of these situations.


Is sloth the same thing as torpor? When considering the 5 hindrances I always come across the tiredness hindrance translated as sloth and torpor. Since it is always (in my experience) translated as two words does the sloth and torpor hindrance embody two related but distinct phenomena? Is sloth somehow different to torpor? Is the original Pali two terms or is it just one concept that is just always translated as the two words - sloth and torpor.

In Tibetan tradition torpor (Pali middha) is explained as heavy sleepiness, while sloth (Pali thina) is explained as laziness, lack of motivation.

So in case of sloth, you are not drowsy, just don't feel like striving. While in case of torpor, you kinda want to strive but can't, because your mind is so unwieldy.


Did the Buddha said that there is no self there is no soul? In this article, the writer of the article claims, purports or alleges that Bhikkhu Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi state that the Buddha NEVER said that there was no self. The Buddha NEVER said that there is no soul.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are  contrary to many response given in this platform, for example response given for one of the most frequently vised question here is described as fatalism and NOT Buddhism.

The question is, is the view presented widely accepted view in Buddhism or is it a new development?

The Pali suttas unambiguously state the entire universe is void of self (SN 35.85).

When the deluded idea of 'self' is born (SN 22.81) in the human mind, according to the Pali suttas, it is not a real 'self' but merely a 'view' (SN 5.10), merely a verbal convention (SN 1.25; MN 98), merely the arising of suffering (SN 5.10; SN 12.15), merely a disease (Ud 3.10) & a cancer (MN 140)  or, in short, neurosis.

  This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a 'self.'

  This world, overcome by contact, is tormented, It speaks of a disease as the self,

  Udana 3.10

Also, it is a mistake to refer to SN 44.10 & insist the Buddha did not take a position on the question of whether or not there is a self. In SN 44.10, the Buddha kept silent because the questioner Vacchagotta was confused & befuddled.


What chapter of the Abhidharmartha Pradipika talks about infinite universes? I've been looking into Buddhist concepts and the topic of infinite universes in existence popped up, and the Buddhist text called the "Abhidharmartha Pradipika" talks about infinite universes? And I was wondering what chapter/verse talks about it so I could look more into it.

It is in ...

AN 3.80.
The Path of Purification, Six Recollection, Recollection into
Buddha's Value.(Visuddhimagga ChaAnussatiNiddesa
BuddhanussatiKatha).
AbhidhammatthaVibhavini 5th Chapter.
etc.

Abhidhanappadipika is a Glossary explanation.


What is the reasoning for making a buddhist statue out of gold? The Golden Buddha, officially titled Phra Phuttha Maha Suwan Patimakon, is the world's largest solid gold statue.

What is the justification for such a statue? By justification I mean, what reasons would the Buddhists who created/use the statue give to explain why keeping gold (often seen as a sign of wealth and power) as a statue is right; as opposed to using the money from melting it down and selling it to buy meals for the homeless or others in need.

Practically, religious images are made using precious medals to prevent decay, so that the image can be available to venerate for many generations to come. From a more devotional aspect, choosing materials that we think of as beautiful shows a great reverence for the person that image represents. Religious images often "open and lift our minds" to higher ideals, including dharma practice, which is why, for example, people can be better practiticioners just by being in the temple's main hall, where the main images usually are.

I suppose a good analogy is showing respect for your boss and co-workers by coming to work in what best represents the workplace's business casual dress code, not just in a T-shirt with holes. Or, having enough respect for yourself to attend to your basic hygiene before leaving your home.

Precious metals and stones are frequently used in religious imagery. For example, in the Larger Pureland Sutra (Verse 54), we have:

  Furthermore, throughout that land are trees made of the seven gems. There are trees of gold; trees of silver; trees of coral; trees of amber; trees of agate; trees of ruby; and trees of lapis lazuli. Then there are trees of two precious substances, trees of three, four, up to all seven.

  Some gold trees have silver leaves, flowers and fruits. Some silver trees have gold leaves, flowers and fruits. Some coral trees have leaves flowers and fruit of amber. Some amber trees have leaves flowers and fruit of coral. Some agate trees have leaves, flowers and fruit of ruby. Some ruby trees have leaves, flowers and fruits of agate. Some lapis lazuli trees have leaves, flowers and fruit of all sorts of jewels.

  There are trees with red gold roots, white silver trunks, coral branches, amber twigs, agate leaves, ruby flowers and lapis lazuli fruits. There are trees with white silver roots, coral trunks, amber branches, agate twigs, ruby leaves, lapis lazuli flowers and red gold fruit. There are trees with coral roots, amber trunks, agate branches, ruby twigs, lapis lazuli leaves, red gold flowers and white silver fruit. There are trees with amber roots, agate trunks, ruby branches, lapis lazuli twigs, gold leaves, silver flowers and coral fruits. There are trees with agate roots, ruby trunks, lapis lazuli branches, gold twigs, silver leaves, coral flowers and amber fruit. There are trees with ruby roots, lapis lazuli trunks, gold branches, silver twigs, coral leaves, amber flowers and agate fruit. There are trees with lapis lazuli roots, gold trunks, silver branches, coral twigs, amber leaves, agate flowers and ruby fruits.

The general understanding is that even the most beautiful objects we have on earth still pale in comparison to the beauty of the dharma, and this is just our feeble attempt to reflect that, and, like Jyothi said, offer our best to the Supreme One, who gives us a much more valuable gift.

Edit - user70 clarified:

  What is the justification for such a statue? By justification I mean, what reasons would the Buddhists who created/use the statue give to explain why keeping gold (often seen as a sign of wealth and power) as a statue is right; as opposed to using the money from melting it down and selling it to buy meals for the homeless or others in need.

Well, a lot of institutions do both. At my Thai Forest (Theravdin) sangha, there are golden images, and we also give to charity, and obviously we do not charge for any services. The retreats, and even the Thai language classes, are completely donation-based. We do not shame anyone who cannot donate anything, and people with means donate more than enough to make-up for it. So we make sure that nothing keeps people from learning, not even lack of funds.

Not everyone will probably agree with this, but I propose that artistic beauty is an intrinsic good. This is why we continue to promote the arts in the secular world--I can't eat a beautiful painting, but it can nourish my mind, even if only in the moment I am looking at it. In my experience with working and feeding homeless people in a religious setting, many liked that we were providing them with food and warm shelter in the cold, as well as a beautiful setting to just appreciate our art. I don't know if many of us who have an almost unlimited access to beautiful images through internet searches can fathom living a life where all you saw was ugly, dark decay. It does not make for a healthy mind, which goes hand-in-hand with a healthy body.

So to answer your question, in the real world, it does not have to be an either/or decision (between beauty/charity), nor is it a zero-sum game where charity is sacrificed for art. When there are greedy people heaping up image after image for greed's sake, perverting the purpose of Buddhist imagery--which is to communicate the dharma--there should be accountability. The presence of art wouldn't hinder the advocacy of accountability.


Why not becoming disillusioned toward mind? An argument why a question "mind vs. matter" will not be given free points on:

  That’s why, when it comes to this mind, an uneducated ordinary person is unable to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed.

Given that certain "Buddhist" say that matter is more secure, lasting and higher, why do they at the same time not get disillusioned about the mind?

Or what does the Buddha here say, when praising the abounding of the "more lasting" first:

  But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind. Why is that? This body made up of the four primary elements is seen (perceived) to last for a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer.

May there be not-uninstucted and masters of Vipassana, who could enlighten the topic a little, for those who had abound "the longer lasting" already.

(Note that this pixles here will by far not last as long as your mental imprints beyound it, so be quick in penetrating)

From SN 12.61:

  "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to
  hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

The body appears to last for many years, and then becomes old, ill and drops off. If one associates his self with the body, at least, he will see that the body must drop off and will become disillusioned with the body.

But the mind (including intellect and consciousness) changes much more frequently than the body, but has a seamless appearance. It is therefore not unusual, that one considers his same consciousness wanders on from youth to old age in this body and then wanders on to another body in future. This is what the monk Sati mistakenly thought in MN 38.

So, if one cannot see that the mind or intellect or consciousness is not permanent, then he does not have a reason to become disillusioned with it.

No religion preaches the immortality of the physical body, because it obviously perishes. However, many religions preach the eternity of the soul and the continuity of consciousness through the eternal soul in other bodies, which are physical or celestial. They say you can meet and talk to your loved ones in heaven, after you have passed away. The reason for this is that they cannot see how consciousness is impermanent. That's because it's not obvious.

MN 38 has a discussion on the impermanence of consciousness (i.e. eye-consciousness, intellect-consciousness etc.).

Everyone tries to find something permanent to associate their self with, so that they can be permanent. You can find a discussion of this in the River Sutta.


What "religions" did previous Buddhas practice? I recently found a book called "A Buddhist Bible".

In it, Buddha refers to that there have been many Buddhas before him.
If Buddha was the one to put the foundations of Buddhism, what "religions" did the previous Buddhas practice?

Does this question even make any sense?

According to tradition, as in the Nagara Sutta, Buddhas all discover the path to enlightenment and teach that same path to their followers:

  "It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to
  see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former
  times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city,
  an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with
  parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. He would go to address the
  king or the king's minister, saying, 'Sire, you should know that while
  traveling along a wilderness track I saw an ancient path... I followed
  it... I saw an ancient city, an ancient capital... complete with
  parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. Sire, rebuild that city!'
  The king or king's minister would rebuild the city, so that at a later
  date the city would become powerful, rich, & well-populated, fully
  grown & prosperous.

  "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by
  the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that
  ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened
  Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view,
  right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
  effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient
  path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of
  former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct
  knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of
  aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death,
  direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging &
  death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge
  of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact...
  the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge
  of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation
  of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the
  cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.

  "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct
  knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the
  cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the
  cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it
  to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that
  this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated,
  wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings."

So, all Buddhas essentially practice and preach the same religion.


Is time empty of inherent existence? My understanding of dependent origination is that it asserts that all things are empty of inherent existence. On an intellectual level I can appreciate and accept this however I struggle when it comes to time. Is time included in this? Is it dependent on something else and if so what kind of things are conditions for time? In my mental picture of the world time is kind of a backdrop for everything else but clearly this mental picture conflicts with dependent origination.

Ultimately, Time exists only conceptually, i.e. as a mental formation. Thinking about past, present and future are mental events, happening in the present moment.
We live only for one thought-moment at a time (momentary death).
The mind might be chasing after some object or running away from another object but that also takes place in the present moment, thus we are always in the present moment.
Conventionally, we can speak of Time as existing and exercising some kind of control over beings in conditioned existence. That can be seen in the workings of Kamma. Kamma is fourfold and one of its classifications are called "Time of Ripening"1, i.e. when the kamma is coming into fruition.
There are actions that might produce their effects in this very life, they are called Immediately-Effective-Kamma.
There are actions that might produce their effect in a subsequent life, they are called Subsequently-Effective-Kamma.
Then there are actions that might produce their effects in any life as long as one is in the conditioned realm, they are called Indefinitely-Effective-Kamma.
As seen here Time exists conventionally, as do beings and rebirth, since they are merely concepts, conventions and designations. Ultimately though, these concepts are not findable or inherently existing. In other words they fall under the doctrine of Emptiness (Śūnyatā).
To further illustrate the difference between Conventional and Ultimate reality let's take a look at a quote from the Milindapañhā2 where King Melinda discuss Time with Ven. Nāgasena:

“Nàgasena, when you say, ‘Time immemorial’, what does time mean? Is there any such thing?”
“Time means past, present and future. There are some for whom time exists and some for whom it doesn’t. Where there are beings who will be reborn, for them time exists; where there are beings who will not be reborn, for them time does not exist.”
“Well put, Nàgasena, you are clever in reply.”

As we see here Nāgasena explains that Time exists for beings that will be reborn, i.e. beings that are still wandering in the realm of Samsara.
Time does not exist for beings that will not get reborn, i.e. those who have won Nibbana.

1 Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Ch. 5: "Compendium of the Process-Freed", p. 201, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
2 The Debate of King Melinda, Ch. 2: "Rebirth", p. 47, by Ven. Bhikkhu Pesala


What is suchness (esp in Tendai or Soto) In this thread I asked about active and passive suffering.

But I'm not quite sure what I mean.

It may help to know what suchenss is? I know it translates to "as it is"... so is that impermanence? Or something more subtle ?

Thanks!

Suchness means there is no construing. Kalaka Sutta may be useful to know the meaning of "such":
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html


Did Ledi Sayadaw teach that Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations with equanimity? A very short summary of the Vipassanā technique taught by S.N. Goenka would be: "observe your bodily sensations with equanimity". The role of physical bodily sensations is the key aspect of the technique and other traditions do not attach such a great importance to them. It is said that Goenka's technique of scanning the body to feel increasingly subtle sensations was passed on though several lay teachers and that it goes back to the Burmese monk Ledi Sayadaw.

Ledi Sayadaw left a large quantity of writings; some of them are available here and/or here. I looked through some of them, and in no place did I see any passage that would present observing bodily sensations as the technique to be followed. If he really taught this, it is hard to imagine he would not mention that this is the key aspect of the technique. Can anyone provide a relevant quote from Ledi Sayadaw's texts?

Update: The question is whether Ledi-style Vipassanā should be practised by observing bodily sensations/body scanning. Mindfulness of the body in Ānāpāna Dīpanī is presented as something distinct from Vipassanā, so it doesn't answer my question. Moreover, it looks like Ledi Sayadaw understood "mindfulness of the body" to mean "mindfulness of the breath", not body scanning. See Ānāpāna Dīpanī, part XIV:

  [...] establishing mindfulness of the body (kāyānupassana satipaṭṭhāna). The out-breath and in-breath, being part of the aggregate of materiality (rūpakkhandha) are called body (kāya).

In this passage Ledi Sayadaw adheres very closely to the Sutta + observes the body etc. etc. = to come to the realization of impermanence. If there is another passage Goenka is referring to, it must be in another text.
The Manual of Insight Vipassanā Dīpanī
By Ledi Sayadaw Mahathera
Translated by U Nana Mahathera:

The Practice of Insight Meditation
I will now indicate the main points necessary to those who practise the exercises of insight. Of
the three knowledges of insight, the knowledge of impermanence must first and foremost be
acquired. How? If we carefully watch the cinematograph show, we will see how quick are the
changes of the numerous series of photographs representing the wonderful scene, all in a
moment of time. We will also see that a hundred or more photographs are required to represent
the scene of a moving body. These are, in fact, the functions of viparinama and annathabhava, or
the representation of impermanence or death, or cessation of movements. If we carefully
examine the movements in a scene, such as the walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, bending,
stretching, and so forth, of the parts of the body during a moment of time, we will see that these
are full of changes, or full of impermanence. Even in a moment of walking, in a single step, there
are numerous changes of pictures which may be called impermanence or death. It is also the
same with the rest of the movements. Now, we must apply this to ourselves. The impermanence
and the death of mental and material phenomena are to be found to the full in our bodies, our
heads, and in every part of the body. If we are able to discern clearly those functions of
impermanence and death which are always operating in our bodies, we shall acquire the insight
of the destruction ( bhanga-nana ), into the breaking-up, falling-off, cessation, and changes of the
various parts of the body in each second, in each fraction of a second. That is, we shall discern
the changes of every part of the body, small and great, of head, of legs, of hands, and so forth. If
this be thus discerned, then it may be said that the exercise on the contemplation of
impermanence is well accomplished. And if the exercise on the contemplation of impermanence
is well accomplished, then that of the contemplation of non-soul is also accomplished. If this is
thus discerned, then it may be said that the exercise on the contemplation of impermanence is
well accomplished. By the word "accomplished," it is meant that the exercise has been properly
worked out so as to remain a permanent possession, during the whole term of life; but it is not
meant that the knowledge of the path and of fruition has been attained. The attainment of the
knowledge of the path and fruition, however, is quick or slow, according to opportunity or lack
of opportunity in the practice of higher virtues.


What is the mind-state during vipassana after anger disappears? If the anger disappears once it has been seen, what is that state of mind then? After that, saw mind has two sides, no klesa and klesa, like a coin.

The state of mind according to your question is doubt or confusion. It is Kilesa(ignorance). Otherwise it is simply the awareness that anger has disappeared.


Soul that transmigrates? In Timsa Sutta Buddha says:

"What do you think, monks? Which is greater, the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, or the water in the four great oceans?"

Furthermore he also says:

"The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans."

Doesn't this mean that there is a soul in Buddhism?

A literal reading of this translation brings the conclusion there is the same person transmigrating or reincarnating from life to life. Therefore, there will obviously be the impression of a permanent substance, such as a "soul", reincarnating from life to life. The Neo-Buddhists can argue until they are blue in the face that what transmigrates is a "re-linking consciousness" (which the Buddha did not teach) but, whatever it is called, it retains the characteristics of a soul (which is probably why Buddhism became extinct in India, given the common person could not distinguish between Neo-Buddhism & Hinduism).

Personally, I regard Chapter 15 of the SN to be either "fake dhamma" or, otherwise, mostly metaphorical language. For example:

Literally, the word "saṃsāro" does not mean "transmigration". It merely means "continuance". SN 22.99 is a sutta using similar language to SN 15.13 yet describes samsaro as the ignorant mind, similar to a dog tied to a post, continually circling around & attaching to the same aggregates as "self".
Literally, the word "satta" ("beings") does not refer to "sentient beings" but merely refers to a "self-view" produced by ignorance & craving (refer to SN 23.2 & SN 5.10, which define what a "satta" or "being" is). Therefore, what is continuing from an inconceivable beginning might be the production of self-views.
Metaphorically, SN 47.20 uses the metaphor of a "head chopped off" for a loss of mindfulness. Therefore, when SN 15.13 refers to continually being beheaded, this may refer to continually lacking mindfulness.
Metaphorically, suttas such as Lokapala Sutta refer to goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs and jackals as representing sexual promiscuity (or unwholesome non-humane behaviours).
Literally, similar to the Lokapala Sutta, SN 15.13 thus continues by referring to thieves, highway thieves, adulterers, which are unwholesome behaviours bringing punishment and even execution by the king. There are many suttas referring to the king cutting off the head of thieves, murderers & adulterers.


effectivness of removing triggers for temptations? what is the  effectiveness of removing triggers for temptations (food, entertainment etc )  ?

i for example took apart the stationary (to avoid watch youtube videos for example for fun)  computer i have but after some time i reassembled it

if there wont be one attachment there would be others than even if less obvious attachments  -  can they be less bad ?

monks try to avoid this triggers as well i believe  (like asking woman to dress modest when visiting monasteries)  so i guess it has its merits

i wonder how much of a change to a practice this can make  - would love to hear general thoughts on this subject

I find it effective.

I wrote this answer about quitting cigarettes by not having them (and similarly a technique to help distance myself from web sites, e.g. news sites, if they become problematic).

I use a similar technique for alcohol, e.g. the easiest way for me to not have alcohol is to not buy it: if I shop once a week then I'm tempted (to buy it) no more than once a week, for maybe a minute in the day-time (when I'm in the grocery store, which sells it); and not on other days (when I don't even have it so I'm not even tempted by it) and times.

Incidentally a few days ago I found this web site https://everydaycheck.com (or you could do the same with paper, probably) which might help to create good habits. It may be better to do things as a team (e.g. meditate with a group of friends), so that social pressure (which is powerful) will encourage you to partiipate regularly; but even just having a written record helps you supervise yourself; and it records your successes not just your failures, which I find encouraging.


The Buddha and the Jhanas This is a continuation of an original question I asked, linked here: Buddhist Jhanas, how best to describe them?

My question is: can any of you link me directly to the instances in primary sources (likely the Pali canon) where the Buddha either enters the Jhanas, or discusses the Jhanas?

I have found the Buddha entering the Jhanas on his deathbed, but am specifically looking for the instance where he spontaneously enters the Jhanas at a ploughing festival in his youth, or where he discusses the Jhanas with his students.

Thank you!

The Buddha already attained the 1st jhana when he was a child as per MN 36:

  I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion."

In MN 26, the Buddha already mastered both Rupa and ARupa jhanas when studying under the two masters Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta. The topic of Jhana in general was discussed extensively in many suttas, here're some examples.


Transfering merits to parents after their death As a duty of children, how to transfer merits to parents after their death?

Give an alms giving to monks dedicated to your parents and ask them to perform the ceremony. It will look something like this http://buddhistbugs.blogspot.com/2011/03/transference-of-merits-to-departed-ones.html?m=1


Electric current during meditation There have been some similar questions, but still not quite the same.
Whenever I want to (not only during meditation), I can generate an electric current.
I sort of have to open up at the third eye, do something in my gut area, and then can direct it, or hold it a short time.
I also seem to be able to pass it on to others.

What can or should I do with this? Or should I just ignore it? But it feels right, to use and play with it.

Thanks for any input

Don't play with yourself during meditation.  You're wasting your time and I hear that you can go blind if you do it too often.

Seriously, though, what you are experiencing is just your own internal energy.  Call it qi, call in prajna, call it whatever.  It's important, but if you get obsessive about it, it's going to undermine your meditation practice.  Buddhist meditation is about liberation.  It has nothing to do with working with subtle bodies, astral projection, or healing your Aunt Milly's lumbago from across three continents.

It's important that you don't try to raise this energy.  Any forced, willful manipulation of it is completely artificial and potentially nothing more than self delusion.  Removed from the hindrances, secluded, putting aside grief and covetousness for the world (including feeling that energy), it will rise all of it's own accord.  When it does, just let it do what it's going to do.  It will probably start to feel different.  It may disappear entirely.  You might also start to feel uncomfortable tension in your body; most likely you'll start to get antsy...whatever happens just sit in it.  Don't move.  Eventually, you will pass through a barrier.   On the other side of it, all of that will dissolve and you will be left in a place that feels spacious and open.  That's where you ought to be aiming for.

Don't expect this to happen all at once.  It will most likely take several years of practice.  You might get glimpses of it here and there, but let me assure you that when you finally arrive there, the experience will be unmistakable.  Then your practice actually begins!

For now, put everything else aside.


Previous gurus or teachers of the Buddha When Gautama left his palace to become an ascetic, it is said that he found some Gurus he learnt from, and left further dissatisfied. Is there any mention of that period of the Buddha's life in the texts? Or did Buddha speak about these experiences?

I got this link : http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/13lbud.htm

This is found in the Ariya Pariyesanā Sutta, (Deva) Saṅgarava Sutta, Mahā Saccaka Sutta, etc.


Does Yogacara and its Alayavijnana fail compared to a Permanent Self? So I've been Reading a bit of the Buddhist's boogeyman Shankara and I admit I am maybe biased in writing this(I am open to any refutation of my view,but I have not seen any adequate logical refutation of such),but I'd like to see a buddhist refutation or answer of this following viewpoint of mine based on a reading of Shankara's writings:

the temporary momentary alaya vijnana in yogachara buddhism is the substratum of momentary impressions,desires and ideas wich give rise to the false perception of external objects in their system.ideas and impressions(vasana samskaras)give rise to the appearance of external objects,wich give rise to further ideas and impressions wich give rise to further objects of external perception.however how can this not be a infinite regress(the appearance of external objects give rise to impressions,impressions give rise to the appearance external objects)?if external objects' (even just initial in some starting point in the past,wich buddhism denies due to its adherance to pratityasamutpada)existance is altogether denied to possibly exist rather than the mere appearance of them,how can impressions and desires come about for such objects ''appearance''?

and if there is no permanent substratum to the mind wherein impressions and desires can leave a mark or effect,how can anything be cognized externally(i.e how can vasana samskaras be configured or accumulated(with out wich it cant exist)without a permanent substratum?

such latent impressions cannot exist in a fresh new substratum (i.e person )each moment,because neither desire would arise from the appearance of external objects nor the appearance of external objects from impressions' desire(and the Yogacarin must admit a certain illogical infinite regress even in the case of a assumed permanent substratum)?

a new subtratum cannot have any impressions nor appearance of external objects to give impressions because the substratum,in this case the Alaya vijnana has no connection with its 'causal' substratum due to kshanabhanga.
if there were no permanent substratum there would literally be no experience or consciousness it seems based on the above.

only if a permanent substratum exists can such infinite regress of impression arising the appearance of external objects and vice versa even have any meaning(and even that is illogical as actual regressive infinites do not exist logically but I know that buddhism believes in infinite regression so I'm Granting you this.but such infinite regress would only 'make sence'within a permanent substratum).

I don't See how the Buddhist Doctrine of alayavijnana does not fail,and how only a permanent self can explain the infinite regress of ideas leading to (the appearance of) external objects and vice versa(wich itself is illogical in my opinion,but I am granting you guys' this for the sake of argument only).

if Kshanabhanga(wich is a Buddhist Tenet fundamental to buddhism) is Denied here,as some may Wish to do,and the substratums have a causal chain wich must be substantial;then how is this not a Permanent Self of the tirthikas for all intents and purposes?

buddhism denies this,and all of buddhism except Jonang would all fail if this were admitted,but if this were the case we have a permanent cognizing substantial 'self'/'person' through all the 3 times.

I don't see how the momentary alayavijnana is not a failure.

Shankara is Advaita Vedanta, a branch of Hindu philosophy inspired by Buddhism, so why are we talking about him? I guess you were reading his critics of Buddhism and this is what you ask?

Your confusion about "infinite regress" comes from your materialistic assumption that separate objects exist in and of themselves, without observers. But in reality, separation into objects is a feature of the observing mind.

The observing mind does not arise all at once but emerges gradually from impressions of interactions. These impressions and interactions are automatic and undifferentiated, they have to accumulate until the patterns in them become obvious enough so that individual objects can be delineated. The mind is nothing other than the sum total of these accumulated impressions giving rise to an ability to recognize.

It's not that nothing exists prior to the delineation, but whatever does exist is not delineated, so before delineation there are no separate objects to talk about. The boundaries between objects are arbitrary and are drawn by the observing mind. Different beings delineate different objects thereby creating their specific subjective realms. The desires beings have are for those subjectively delineated objects.

What you call substratum is nothing other than the cyclicaly dying and reemerging medium of living beings. They are the carriers or the bearers of the samsaric mind. This mind is partially taught to and partially reinvented by every newly born baby. No permanent self is necessary because beings take turns carrying the torch of the samsaric mind and passing it on down the line.

Alayavijnana is the sum total of information carrying forward by the diversity of media that the samsaric mind can draw upon as it recreates itself in the new generations of sentient beings.


Is it true that whatever is subject to cessation is subject to origination? Dhamma implies that whatever is subject to origination is subject to cessation.

  And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in that bhikkhu
  the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: “Whatever is subject to
  origination is all subject to cessation.”

But what about the opposite?

Is it also true that whatever is subject to cessation is also subject to origination?

Buddha said:

  yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman'ti

or "whatever is samudaya-able -- all that is nirodha-able".

Samudaya means "to come together", "to arise from coincidence of multiple conditions".
Nirodha means "to stop".

So the meaning of the phrase is "Whatever arose from coincidence of multiple conditions will stop when one of those necessary conditions is no longer operative."

You're asking, what about the opposite? Can something that has stopped like that - can it arise when the necessary conditions come together again?

The answer is, yes of course it can - but is that new "something" the same as the original "something"? In Buddhist understanding, this answer depends on clinging and identification. If we cling to it and identify with it as the same - then for us it is the same. If we don't cling and don't identify - then it's not.

The next question you ask: if suffering comes from coincidence of multiple conditions, and one of those conditions is craving, if that craving is removed, the suffering stops - but can the suffering arise again? Yes, of course it can - if all the necessary factors, including craving, come together again.

Why would craving happen again? Craving happens when we think that object of craving is desirable. Why do we think that object of craving is desirable? Because we think that getting that object will lead to good experience for us. Why do we think that getting that object will lead to good experience? Because we think that good experience comes from the object, not from ourselves. Why do we think that good experience comes from the object? Because we don't understand how our mind creates experience. This is called "ignorance".

So if there is still this "ignorance" => there will be craving => there will be suffering.

Nirvana is permanent cessation of suffering attained with complete cessation of ignorance (of how mind creates experience).


Looking for examples of "Bad" Men and Women who became Enlightened Buddha said that a man who sees the folly of his ways and changes them is like the moon bursting out of a dark sky to shine light. I feel very inspired by stories of men and women like Angulimalla who were doing "bad " things due to the force of their afflictions and then changed due to coming in contact with Dhamma. I know there are many stories in the Tibetan tradition, but I am looking for any stories from any tradition that you might know for inspiration along with the reference text.

Milarepa-the great yogi

...His mother, bitter, sent Milarepa to train in black magic, to wreak revenge on those who had blighted her life...

Then later in life he came to meet his teacher Marpa the translator

...he came to regret his actions, and looked for help in shedding the bad karma he had acquired during his vengeful adolescence...

One of his quotes:

  The world knows caterpillar becomes butterfly but they don’t care that
  it also becomes a moth. One is diurnal another nocturnal.Human once
  awakened can change the view to change self from Angulimala to a
  Buddha [1]


Which are the vipassana jhanas? Which are the vipassana jhanas? What are the differences with the jhanas? Where can I find more information about them?

Please see Ven. Gunaratana's "The Jhanas". He gave pretty detailed descriptions of the standard jhanas versus the vipassana one, what's called "momentary concentration"/khanikaSamadhi.


About the Buddha Preaching that we Humans are Aliens What I have heard is, the Buddha has preached that we Humans are the Evolution of Alien life which had arrived on earth many years before
Could this be correct and did he preach so and in which SUTRA is it recorded ?
Thank you

The Sutta you are looking for is Agganna sutta.
In the second part of the Sutta, the Buddha tells the story of how human beings came to dwell on Earth.

  The Buddha said that sooner or later, after a very long time, there
  would come a time when the world(universe) shrinks. At a time of contraction,
  beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they
  dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through
  the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time. But
  sooner or later, after a very long period, this world begins to expand
  again. At a time of expansion, the beings from the Abhassara Brahma
  world, having died from there, are mostly reborn in this world. Here
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long
  time...


Can thoughts materialize? Many people believe that their good or bad thoughts can materialize in the future. So some people try to be always in good mood and think positively. Others are not so happy and just try not to think about bad things too often to prevent them from happening. And finally there are large groups of people that pray to some god. Can thoughts of all these people materialize into a real events, creatures, things? At least sometimes?

Many people believe that their good or bad thoughts can materialize in
  the future

Yes, this is called Kamma. Good thoughts have the potential to cause good consequences. Bad thoughts have the potential to cause bad consequences.
But the Buddhist way of identifying a good/bad thoughts has nothing to do with positive/negative thinking.
If a thought is tainted with craving, aversion and ignorance, it is a bad thought. If not, it is a good thought.

ex: Going after a mirage, thinking that it's a real stream of water can be a positive thought, if you really believe in it. But it's not going to bring intended results. Thinking that slaughtering animals and offering them to a god/demon will result in a good harvest can be a positive thought. But it is a bad thought according to Buddhism. Thinking that there's an all loving, all governing god who's going to save you from suffering can be a positive thought. But it is a bad thought according to Buddhism. Thinking about impermanence, suffering can be taken as negative thinking. But they are good thoughts according to Buddhism.

All bad thoughts have the potential to give repercussions. But not all good thoughts give future results. Ex: the thoughts of enlightened being are called Kiriya citta. You could call them neutral, but they are good since they don't cause harm.

  So some people try to be always in good mood and think positively.
  Others are not so happy and just try not to think about bad things too
  often to prevent them from happening.

This is not possible! Bad and good things happen because of causes. If the causes are not present for something to happen, you simply can't make it happen, regardless of your mood.
To take the same example, just because you pray to a god, you won't get the things you pray for. There should be someone listening, who is in a position to give you what you want. And that being should decide to help in the way you want.


What buddhism says about physical reality? I had a discussion with one of my friend, who said, there's no such thing as physical reality, as per Lord Buddha. He quoted "The universe only exists inside this small body".
As per my understanding, this is about how we understand the universe is different. But his idea is that there's no physical reality, all we are experiencing is a delusion.
Any idea about this ?

As Thrangu Rinpoche once said, some people spend a lot of time arguing whether a chair really exists or if it only exists in our minds, but here we are much more concerned with our attitude to the chair. Are we attached to this chair? Do we hate this chair? Do we think we are the chair? Are we free from this chair? That's what really matters in practice, not whether it exists or not.

At the same time, as my teacher said, "reality is our interpretation". Here you go. The only reality we can know is reality we perceive in our mind, and this perceived reality is our own interpretation. Whether the physical reality exists or not, all we see is our interpretation.

So if in this interpretation there are any mistakes or gaps, but we attach to it as if it were truth, as if what we perceive in our interpretation were 100% objective reality - when we think like that we get into all kinds of trouble.

Like, we get attached to "the chair" or hate "the chair" - because in our interpretation it means something and we think that's the only truth. Then when someone gives us new facts about "the chair" - we don't accept them, because they don't fit with our reality, our interpretation. We only see what we know, what we believe, not what's really there. This is what's called "delusion".

So maybe you and your friend are both right. This is about "how we understand the universe" is different AND all that we experience is our own delusion.


Where is the description of the vow and the Bodhi tree? There's a famous story that, eventually, the Buddha vowed not to move until he gained enlightenment.

The story can be found for example here:

  Still seeking a way to understand the meaning of life, Siddhartha set out for Buddhagaya. Near a grove, he sat down under a huge Bodhi tree. Silently he vowed, "Even if my flesh and blood were to dry up, leaving only skin and bones, I will not leave this place until I find a way to end all sorrow." He sat there for forty nine days. He was determined to discover the source of all pain and suffering in the world. Mara, the evil one, tried to scare him into giving up his quest. For instance, he hoped to lure Siddhartha into having selfish thoughts by sending visions of his very beautiful daughters. But the Buddha's goodness protected him from such attacks.

And for example here:

  One day, when his physical strength had returned, he approached a lovely spot in Uruvela by the bank of the Nerañjara River. Here he prepared a seat of straw beneath an asvattha tree (later called the Bodhi Tree) and sat down cross-legged, making a firm resolution that he would never rise up from that seat until he had won his goal. As night descended he entered into deeper and deeper stages of meditation until his mind was perfectly calm and composed. Then, the records tell us, in the first watch of the night he directed his concentrated mind to the recollection of his previous lives. Gradually there unfolded before his inner vision his experiences in many past births, even during many cosmic aeons; in the middle watch of the night he developed the "divine eye" by which he could see beings passing away and taking rebirth in accordance with their karma, their deeds; and in the last watch of the night he penetrated the deepest truths of existence, the most basic laws of reality, and thereby removed from his mind the subtlest veils of ignorance. When dawn broke, the figure sitting beneath the tree was no longer a Bodhisatta, a seeker of enlightenment, but a Buddha, a Perfectly Enlightened One, one who had attained the Deathless in this very life itself.

What is/are the original or canonical source[s] of this story?

Some suttas like the Maha-Saccaka Sutta (MN 36) are an account of that period of this life, but without mentioning the vow.

This seems to appear in the Jhataka (in the Khuddaka-Nikâya) literature: THE ATTAINMENT OF BUDDHASHIP in J.i.7110 marked as p. 76.

Then the Future Buddha turned his back to the trunk of the Bo-tree and faced the east. And making the mighty resolution, "Let my skin, and sinews, and bones become dry, and welcome! and let all the flesh and blood in my body dry up! but never from this seat will I stir, until I have attained the supreme and absolute wisdom!" he sat himself down cross-legged in an unconquerable position, from which not even the descent of a hundred thunder-bolts at once could have dislodged him.
At this point the god Mâra, exclaiming, "Prince Siddhattha is desirous of passing beyond my control, but I will never allow it!" went and announced the news to his army, ...

The above page is linked/referenced on this index page as "i.685-772 (§ 8.), Intro".


Buddhism in context, differences through SE Asia? What are some specific cultural aspects of different countries in SE Asia that are integrated into Buddhism, but that might not actually be consider purely Buddhism?

In other words, comparatively, why is Buddhism in Thailand different than Buddhism in Cambodia.  And what would the main differences be?

Burma is the only one in the world that still have buddhist ancient learning system (mukkhapāṭha). The strongest buddhism country is Burma. The tipitaka-strictest nikāya is Shwegyin Nikaya of Burma.

About a hundred year ago, in colonization war, thailand began to lost our tipitaka memorizing system. We need to get western's learning culture to protect our land from colonial possession. The central region of Siam reform memorizing learning system to academic learning system. Mun's students (Phun acaro, etc) were the last tipitaka memorizers of thailand.

Mun was the north-eastern region of thailand, that got reform order from the central region. And Lao was the north-eastern colony of thailand at that time. So Lao tipitaka memorizing learning system had began to lost since that time, too. Kambodia, also.

Nowadays, Lao and Kambodia monks equal to thai mahanikaya tradition. They are not forest tradition.

Thailand and srilanka have lost tipitaka learning system in colonization war.

Thailand began to lost our tipitaka learning system about 1855 and after that years (Bowring Treaty).

The king trying to protect thailand by changing every rules of us. They also changed learning system of monk, too. They cancle memorized learning system, then took a writing learning system instead. We also started to lose abhidhamma learning system  at this time, too.

Writing learning system is for kamaguna 5. They save memorizing times to consume kamaguna 5.

Arahanta haven't writen. They keep tipitaka in their mind.

Before that time we still having tipitakathara, such as mun bhuritutto (he not memorized enough to be bhikkhu-parisūpaṭṭhāpaka). But after the changing, we never have tipitakathara anymore. The elder tipitakathara died. Never have any newer to be instead of them.

So, thailand loose our tipitaka learning system so long time ago in colonization war.

Buddhadasa was a monk after we lost tipitaka learning system. He is tipitaka cutter.


What did the Buddha do, and what does a teacher do, to teach? When the teachings of Buddha are crystal clear i.e 1+1=2, then no need to be labelled.

I humbly place my question as below.

When buddha gave diksha, what he did: is that was the imparting of knowledge?

And in the path of Buddha, once known, is to be walked upon by individual: then, how the teacher is useful? Whether he pushes us ahead by using his jhanic powers, or resolves our difficulties?

Because in Hinduism there is mention of shaktipat by guru. Is it the same in Buddhism also?

At least in the Theravada tradition, there is no mystical energy seed that needs to be transferred from the teacher to the disciple through a medium like touch or speech, in order to kick-start the disciple's spiritual growth.

Rather, the teacher teaches the Buddha's Dhamma (teachings) using his own knowledge, experience and insight, much like how a mathematics teacher teaches mathematics to others.

The teacher must have the following qualifications according to the Udayi Sutta:

  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
  within the person teaching. Which five?

  "(1) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  step-by-step.'

  "(2) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'

  "(3) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out
  of compassion.'

  "(4) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
  for the purpose of material reward.'

  "(5) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  without hurting myself or others.' (see Note)

  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when these five qualities are
  established within the person teaching."

  Note:
  According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself.
  "Hurting others" means putting other people down.


How our body/soul is composition of five elements? Recently I'm discussing five elements of nature with an atheist he cleared our body is composition of 11 elements Composition of the human body.

These elements are enough different from those 5 elements.

My reply to him :

  "How we can say different, when those 11 elements are form of 5 elements and vice versa."

His clarification is as follows:

  Form ? These are 5 elements in which Buddha believed -

  Earth- Earth is just a planet that’s diameter is 8000 miles while our body’s diameter is barely 600 mm. We live on earth. How our body could be composed of a whole planet ?
  Air- Air is a mixture of dust particles and gases such as- nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is dangerous to humans. Argon is also dangerous in close areas. The only real elements are nitrogen and oxygen. If we breathe dust particles, they will make negative impact on our cardiovascular health.
  Aether- Aehter is what you look up AKA space. How our body could be composed of sky ? Our body has opposite energy of sky.
  Fire- fire is just a result of atomic transitions of elements rather than an element itself.
  Water- Water is constituted from Hydrogen and Oxygen so it is not an element either.

  For qualifying the definition of an element, it must be the smallest substance which cannot be broken into more forms. The Buddha was contemporary of Aristotle so this speculation was very famous at that time. Both philosophers believed in same speculation. I am quoting the critics of Aristotelian physics- Modern scholars differ in their opinions of whether Aristotle's physics were sufficiently based on empirical observations to qualify as science, or else whether they were derived primarily from philosophical speculation and thus fail to satisfy the scientific method-Aristotelian physics

So how our body/soul is composition of five elements of nature?
Is there have any sutta that explained? I'm assuming may there would have philosophical explanation.

According to Theravada Buddhism a person (satva) is explained in terms of six major elements. Patavi,Apo,Tejo,vayo,Akasa (space) and vinnana (consciousness)
The way I understand these elements are smaller than atoms. They are even not physical. The Buddhist term for them is Dathu.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html


Historical writings on the importance and efficacy of burning joss paper? I was walking through a Taipei grocery/department store a few years ago and saw shelves with packs of "paper money" or joss paper to be used for burning. For the bank-note varieties were three choices; New Taiwan dollars, Chinese RMB, and US dollars. The way different people approach the subject here is quite varied, from very serious to quite light-hearted.

My question is not really about the origin of the practice as much as it is about its "paper trail". Are there historical buddhist writings that lay out the importance of burning paper money and its efficacy? Or is it more of an unwritten tradition?

It has, like most ritual with material sacrifies, not really a connection to the Buddha-Dhamma, aside of the possible devotion and sacrify, metta and compassion, to ones ancestors, deities or spirits, which are possible wholesome deeds and generally praised by the Buddha (sacrifies for deities and ancestors)

It's a very usual ritual, mostly performed by people with Chinese or Vietnamese ancestors all over SEAsia on Chinese fest days and has it's origin in certain Asian ancestor-cults and religions.

Earlier real money was used which of course is mostly not legal, so copies and fake prints are usually used to be burned in front of the houses.

As a one of a childs "duty" torward death relatives:

  from the Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala - The Layperson's Code of Discipline

  "In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East:

  (i) Having supported me I shall support them,

  (ii) I shall do their duties,

  (iii) I shall keep the family tradition,

  (iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,

  (v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives.[9]

  Note by the translator: 9. This is a sacred custom of the Aryans who never forgot the dead. This tradition is still faithfully observed by the Buddhists of Sri Lanka who make ceremonial offerings of alms to the monks on the eighth day, in the third month, and on each anniversary of the demise of the parents. Merit of these good actions is offered to the departed after such ceremony. Moreover after every punna-kamma (good action), a Buddhist never fails to think of his parents and offer merit. Such is the loyalty and the gratitude shown to parents as advised by the Buddha.

  from: Tirokudda Kanda: Hungry Shades Outside the Walls

  ...Offerings should be given for the dead

  when one reflects thus

  on things done in the past.

  For no weeping,

  no sorrowing

  no other lamentation

  benefits the dead

  whose relatives persist in that way.

  But when this offering is given, well-placed in the Sangha,

  it works for their long-term benefit

  and they profit immediately.

  In this way

  the proper duty to relatives has been shown,

  great honor has been done to the dead,

  and monks have been given strength:

  The merit you've acquire

  isn't small.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]


Buddhist view on letting the anger out. Any problems with that? Many people claim they feel better, like a strong relief, after letting the anger out, so they scream at the open air or punch a sand sack.

Of course I'm referring ONLY to cases where there is no other person involved, so I'm NOT talking about punching a person or yelling at someone!

I know the Buddhist view on anger is to see it for what it is and let go of it, but some people see it as suppressing the anger and keeping it in, so they claim that letting it out is a better way to get rid of it. It works for them.

So, is there anything wrong with that from a Buddhist's standpoint?

The idea is called catharsis and it basically treats anger like hot water or steam that can be released when the pressure is too much. It is true that letting anger out like that does tend to produce relief, but many psychologists are of the opinion that doing so just creates a positive reinforcement of the angry behavior and over the long term simply increase it. Here's a link to just one study on it, but you can find more just by typing anger and catharsis into google scholar:

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/jbickfor/bushman2002.pdf

From a Buddhist point of view, actions which are based on strong aversion are very unwholesome and are thus bad karma and so acting out on a feeling of rage is just digging yourself deeper in the hole.

It is much better to get rid of anger by reflecting on the dangers of anger, the value of patience, establishing one's self in mindfulness, and by trying to generate metta towards the object of anger. Is this easy to do? No, it's very hard, but that's because it is a training. Serious training of any kind always takes a lot of effort to produce results. Practicing in this way will bit by bit give us a totally different way of relating to the world around us.


Inoperative types of mind (kiriya-cittani) that are dissociated from wisdom (paññā) According to Abhidhamma exegetical texts, meditation of the 4 types of sense-sphere functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas associated with wisdom (paññā) leads to knowledge of purity (vodāna), issuing in the supramundane Path-cittas of Once-returner (Sakadāgāmi) and Non-returner (Anāgāmi).

What about the other 4 types of sense-sphere functional-indeterminate cittas that are dissociated from wisdom (paññā)? Since these four types of cittas are not conjoined with wisdom (paññā), do they still lead to the concentrative stage of purification (vodāna)? And to Nibbana?

If those four types of citta do not lead to purification (vodāna) and subsequent Nibbana, and neither do they also generate rebirth kamma-deposits, then when the living Arahatta person dies, where will be the destiny? Will that person be born again as a living Arahat? or does he become an achiever of only Arahatta’s Path but not of fruition?

Any help to shed light on this is very much appreciated.

According to Abhidhamma exegetical texts, meditation of the 4 types of sense-sphere functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas associated with wisdom (paññā) leads to knowledge of purity (vodāna), issuing in the supramundane Path-cittas of Once-returner (Sakadāgāmi) and Non-returner (Anāgāmi).

That's incorrect and impossible. 8 Mahakiriya-Citta can not arise with Puthujana, Sotapanna, Sakadāgāmi, and Anāgāmi  person.

All 8 functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas (maha-kiriya) can arise only with Arahanta person.

4  wisdom purity-cittas (vodāna)  can arise only with Sakadāgāmi and Anāgāmi  person.

  What about the other 4 types of sense-sphere functional-indeterminate cittas that are dissociated from wisdom (paññā)? Since these four types of cittas are not conjoined with wisdom (paññā), do they still lead to the concentrative stage of purification (vodāna)? And to Nibbana?

That's impossible.

Vodāna is not functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas (Maha-Kiriya).

Vodāna is  4 Wisdom Sense-Sphere Wholesome (Maha-Kusala).

  If those four types of citta do not lead to purification (vodāna) and subsequent Nibbana,

"Lead" in Vodana's condext means arising-citta before Magga-citta.

Image description:

R: bhavaṇgacalana

D: bhavaṇgupaccheda

Ký: manodvārāvajjana

Ẩ: parikamma

Ậ: Upacāra

U: Anuloma

G: Gotrabhū for Puthujana or V: Vodāna for Sakadāgāmī/Anāgāmī.

Ạ: Magga

Ả: Phala

See more: http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_4.htm

  If those four types of citta do not lead to purification (vodāna) and subsequent Nibbana, and neither do they also generate rebirth kamma-deposits,

Vodāna generates rebirth kamma-deposits because it is Maha-Kusala. It is not functionally inoperative-indeterminate cittas.

  then when the living Arahatta person dies, where will be the destiny?

No where. All of Arahatta's aggregates is vanished by no left craving of senses, being, no being.

  Will that person be born again as a living Arahat?

No, all of Arahatta's aggregates is vanished after death, but the other still rebirth after death. And there is no person everywhere from start. There is only craved depending aggregates which wrong view think "this is real controllable person" but actually it is just depending on many origins, no one.

  or does he become an achiever of only Arahatta’s Path but not of fruition?

There is no Arahatta's aggregates after his death. And there is no Arahatta from start. The achieved aggregates and after that are called Arahatta.

For the description:

PaAuk Tawya Sayadaw Nama Rupa Description


How can evil doers be 'reborn' as 'human'? In the Pali suttas, SN 56.102-113  state those that realise the Four Noble Truth will be 'reborn in the human state' (manussesu paccājāyanti). The same message is found in SN 56.47 & SN 56.48, which also state the human state (manussattaṃ) is very rare.

As for the law of kamma, the message that unwholesome actions lead to pain & wholesome actions lead to pleasure is found in countless suttas, namely:

  'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
  under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
  after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'

However, a sutta named the Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta claims evil-doers can be 'reborn' in the human state, as follows:

  There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying,
  showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried
  out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she
  reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower
  realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead
  of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the
  lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is
  short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life:
  to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to
  killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.

How can this be? How can one single sutta (Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta) override the doctrine or law found in all of the suttas that a brutal bloody-handed killer of living beings will experience a state beset by suffering? Surely, a killer than feels no pain from killing & murdering is a psychopath.

might be lost in translation somehow.   from this

  "No ce kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ
  upapajjati, sace manussattaṃ ..

if replace "in stead of" with "if not" , that it makes more sense.

  if not reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination,
  the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state,....

It could also mean that when karma is exhausted in suffering plane, and being appear in human world after? So once you burn your "debt" you move to the next phase or rebirth, lacking the "debt"

The vice versa is said to occur at the end of a rebirth in the heavens as a god. They burn through their "good debt" quickly and tend to fall into the lower realms when their dues are paid.

I am an amateur self taught Pali.  I could be wrong but at least it opens up for those who know more about Pali to chime in.  Could "No ce" together with rest of a sentence,  is better to translate to "if not" rather than "instead of"?


Does anyone know what Bhodisattva this figurine represents? I purchased this beautiful figurine, but actually I have no idea what exactly it represents. Maybe somebody can tell me more about the symbolism in it (including the mudra)?

This is a statue of Vajradhara, the primordial Buddha sitting in Virasana with his hands in a Vajrahumkara mudra.


If there's no "self" then why should I care about the future lives and nirvana? English is my second language.

If there's no "self', and "I am" is just a "flow" or "mix" of information (dharma, karma, etc.); and if, when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?

Or is it that there is a some kind of eternal selfless "self", the "watcher", that experiences this (and the next) existence and can think, feel?

How does this "informational flow" ("soul"), a conglomerate of functions, get into someone's body?

Is nirvana an "informational" suicide?

In short, please tell me, why should I care about the next "life" or "going to nirvana" if there's no self, no core and "I", "myself" will disappear after death? Maybe I would stop caring about it because "I" will stop being exist and I will stop feel, think, care straight after death?

PS:

And if the reincarnation is like an ocean water been poured into glasses and back, and there's no core self and individuality is just a mix of informational patters, then maybe it's pointless to try to stop existance, to go to nirvana, because someone will always remain here.

And if this Samsara is eternal then there can be eternal number of Buddhas, beings and they will be trying to get out of this Samsara eternally, then all their actions are pointless.

Thanks.

Whether you believe in a 'self' or not, suffering is very real. You experience it on a daily basis. It is this suffering that makes beings look for an end to it. There's only one permanent end to suffering and that is Nibbana. That is why you should care about striving for it. Craving is what prevents you from accomplishing this. Ignorance is what causes craving to arise. The belief of a self is just one form of ignorance that you have to get rid of in order cut off craving.

Ignorance means not seeing things as they really are. So you cannot get rid of it just by changing your opinion or reasoning it out. You need to start seeing things as they really are.


Where can i find buddhist chanting and music? Where can I find chanting or music, inspired by Buddhism?

I would like to have this for my MP3 player so I can remember to practice when not "on the cushion" (cost-free or not, chanting or any type of music inspired by Buddhism, helping us to come back to ourselves or inspiring us to practice, to understand, etc.)

Thank you and kind regards.

I found a couple of videos for you that you might like:

Thai monks chanting healing mantra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCS19EOsrA
Tibetan monks chanting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8fNQ0fqSI
Tibetan monks chanting with singing bowl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRJMESl4U8
Buddhists chants & peace music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl-m7VrqqaY
Tibetan Buddhist Chants of Namgyal Monastery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0IvWX2pmQM


What is Hardcore (Pragmatic) Dharma? I've come across this term recently and have seen quite a few opinions and definitions. My understanding is that it is actually a hardcore Theravada movement that is in some ways a conservative backlash against watered down Buddhism in the West. Is this a correct assessment?

The self proclaimed Arahant, Daniel Ingram & his book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" is probably where the "hardcore" thing came from because the book covers supposedly "hardcore" and hard to find teachings like the "stages of insight" that are rarely covered in books. Dan seems very angry & ridiculous in certain rants in the book, I guess that is supposed to be some kind of "hardcore" teaching. I don't understand these rantings in an otherwise useful and informative book. Here's the link to his book that many have found useful:

Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha – An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book


Similarities between Daoism and Buddhism What are some of the similarities between Taoism and Buddhism? Can one achieve the Tao through Buddhism and vice versa, can one achieve nirvana through Taoism?

Buddhism and Taoism are usually both judged to fall under the heading 'Perennial philosophy' because they share the same metaphysical message.

Middle Way Buddhism rejects all positive metaphysical positions. For this reason when we speak about the world we are forced to do so in riddles since we are not allowed to make or endorse a positive statement. The doctrine of Two Truths explains this and gives us a way of speaking about Reality whereby we speak of the 'self' as existing and not-existing, the equality of emptiness and fullness and so forth, and get told off by outsiders for speaking paradoxically.

In the same way Lao Tsu tells us that we cannot state the world is this or that in any case and lays down the rule 'True words seem paradoxical'. True words seem paradoxical for reasons explained by Nagarjuna in Fundamental Wisdom. Only if Reality is as Nagarjuna describes would Lao Tsu's statement be true.

So underneath the different methodology and emphasis is the same doctrine and world-view. For many people this is 'True Religion' or the Perennial philosophy.

There are, of course, Buddhists who deny Naharjuna's metaphysics but those who do must also deny the metaphysics of Lao Tsu, Plotinus, advaita, Sufism and other expressions of non-dualism. It seems to make more sense to say that truth may be discovered by anyone who seeks it and this is why so many traditions share the same underlying doctrine.

I have a nice book here somewhere by a Taoist discussing the equivalence of the message of Lao Tsu, Buddha and Jesus and will post a reference if I can find it.

So my view would be that we can achieve liberation by way of either tradition and methodology. I find Taoist ideas very useful and treat them as complementary. Taoism and Zen are like twin siblings.

PS - It would important to distinguish between Philosophical Taoism (Lao Tsu, Chung Tsu et al) and Religious Taoism, which arrived 500 years later and introduced gods, angels, heaven and hell etc. in what seems to have been an attempt to popularise the teachings. Bad idea but it gained a lot of ground and muddied the waters.