Looking for negative reference to women in the Avatamsaka Sutra I came across this rather gender progressive comment from Nichiren

  If we examine the Flower Garland Sutra, the first sutra to be preached
  after the Buddha attained enlightenment, we find that it is a Mahayana
  work preached by the Buddha in his aspect as the Thus Come One of the
  reward body. Thus, to the voice-hearers, cause-awakened ones, and
  others, it was like daytime to an owl or nighttime to a hawk; though
  they listened to it, it was as though they did so with deaf ears or
  blind eyes. This being the case, though people hoped that the sutra
  would enable them to pay back the four debts of gratitude, because it
  speaks disparagingly of women,3 it was hardly possible for them to
  repay the debt of gratitude owed to their mothers with the sutra.

which is footnoted with

  3) For example, the Daishonin cites the passage “Women are messengers of
  hell who can destroy the seeds of Buddhahood. They may look like
  bodhisattvas, but at heart they are like yaksha demons” with regard to
  the Flower Garland Sutra. This passage is cited in A Collection of
  Treasures as a quotation from the Flower Garland Sutra.

http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-2/Content/264

I can't for the life of me find this or anything like it in my Cleary edition of the Avatamsaka. (I believe it is there, I've read all sorts of misogynistic passages in sutras, I just can't find it)

I downloaded the Chinese translation of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and did a few searches for patterns with different combinations of words that are likely to appear there (e.g. 女 "woman", 地獄 "hell", 種 "seed", 夜叉 "Yaksha"). I found quite a few phrases, but none of them looked like the cited passage. My knowledge of classical Chinese is very rudimentary, so I may be mistaken. However, the search inside the Cleary translation on the Amazon website doesn't show any such passage either. So if it is there at all, I think it's more likely that the quote is a summary/paraphrase of a larger chunk of the sutra, and not a direct translation.

EDIT: I found a classical Chinese/classical Japanese phrase that is the source of your quote:

  女人地獄使。能断仏種子。外面似菩薩。内心如夜叉。

It can be found in this text at 7-094. Unfortunately, there is no information about the author nor the date when it was written. In any case, it is definitely not modern Japanese, so I don't think it was written recently. It seems to be a Nichiren commentary to the Lotus Sutra.

EDIT 2: The above quote is preceded by "華厳経云", which means "Avataṃsaka Sūtra says". That explains why the passage is commonly (and incorrectly, as we may conclude) attributed to this sutra.

EDIT 3: I found information about the origin of the quote, which, in light of the facts presented above, we can regard as conclusive:

  This statement is not found in the extant Chinese versions of the Flower Garland Sutra. However, A Collection of Treasures written by Taira no Yasuyori during the Jisho era (1177–1181) cites it as a quotation from the Flower Garland Sutra.


Gautama Buddha and Hindu divinities Am I right that Gauthama Budda did not teach to worship the Hindu Gods?
Did he teach not to worship them?
Maybe my questions sound stupid to a Buddhist but I am practising Islam and do not know very much about Buddhism.
Peace be with you, and thank you for you help.

Actually it appears that the Buddha spoke positively of the use of legitimate wealth for performing oblations or offerings to the gods (who are not immortal or eternal) in the sutta quoted below.
From AN 5.41:

Furthermore, with his legitimate wealth he makes five
spirit-offerings:
Puna caparaṃ, gahapati, ariyasāvako
uṭṭhānavīriyādhigatehi bhogehi bāhābalaparicitehi sedāvakkhittehi
dhammikehi dhammaladdhehi pañcabaliṃ kattā hoti.
to relatives, guests, ancestors, king, and deities.
Ñātibaliṃ, atithibaliṃ, pubbapetabaliṃ, rājabaliṃ, devatābaliṃ—
This is the fourth reason to get rich.
ayaṃ catuttho bhogānaṃ ādiyo.


What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti? What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti? Are they the same? What are the distinctions between them?

Phalasamapatti is a meditative state in which a person is absorbed in Nibbana itself. In this attainment there is a special kind of consciousness present called Lokuttara-citta.

In contrast to this, in Nirodhasamapatti there is no consciousness at all. In Chapter 8 section 42 of the Abhidhammatha Sangaha it describes it like this:

  Having proceeded, thus, up to the base of nothingness, one then
  attends to the  preliminary duties such as the resolution, etc., and
  enters the base of neither-perception- nor-nonperception.    After
  two  occasions  of  javana  in  absorption,  the  continuum  of
  consciousness  is  suspended.    Then,  one  is  said  to  have
  attained  cessation  (nirodha- samāpatti).

Another difference is in who can attain them. Phalasamapatti is attained by each of the four kinds of noble beings just after attaining the knowledge of the path, and it can be cultivated and extended by them as well. Nirodhasamapatti however, can only be entered by non-returners and arahats.


Gomchen Lam Rim Text Request I've recently been following along on this video series on the Gomchen Lam Rim and would very much like to find a copy of the root text so I can follow along better and read ahead, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. I would especially like to find a free pdf somewhere, but I'm also okay with proprietary books.

I have just been trying to locate the text also. This link mentions,

The Pearl Garland: An Anthology of Lamrims
translated from the Tibetan under Venerable Dagpo Rinpoche’s guidance by Rosemary Patton, Editions Guepele (France), 2012.


How are there good overweight monks? If you are mindful  you don't eat for taste -  so chances are you over eat are smaller.
There are a few monks I know and I truly believe are advanced practitioners (meaning I won't be surprised if they are arahants)  who are overweight.
And this really clashes with the concept of eating mindfully  - can someone help reconcile the fact they are overweight and being advanced practitioners ?
Edit : just to be clear there are overweight people who eat little and healthy and have bad metabolism and skinny people who are gluttons and eat a lot of fat foods and are still skinny  ....   I'm just giving the most extreme example which are of monks who are extremely mindful and don't need to give 0 consideration to enjoyment from the food and are aware of their bodies.

A well-known monk with a bodily disorder was the deceased Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, who was given all kinds of diets when he was alive. Buddhadasa was fat most of his life.

However, for example, some current Western monks (based in Western Australia) have put on lots of weight, which looks like eating too much rich food & doing too little exercise; devoting their lives to teaching, scholarship & administrative duties.

You reach an age when you start to put on lots of weight. You must reduce your food intake because your body obviously does not need so much food anymore.

Two years ago, I cut my life-long food in-take by 50% & stopped eating certain foods (cheese, ice-cream, bread; I never ate much sugar). I lost 12kg but notice if I eat certain prohibited foods (such as when visiting my mother), I add weight quickly.

These monks are often given lots of Asian sweets & cakes and drink lots of sugar drinks.

Years ago, I spent lots of time in a certain monastery in Asia. The last time I visited, after five years of absence, I noticed how the core monks had all lost lots of weight. Obviously, the abbot thought the monks were too fat and instructed to reduce food, for the sake of public image. Having known these monks for 17 years, I could not believe how thin they were.

  Dhp 395. The person who wears a robe made of rags, who is lean, with veins showing all over the body, and who meditates alone in the forest
  — him do I call a holy man.


To learn Tripitaka to academic level Please recommend a place or university to learn Tipitaka in academic level.

Including

Availability of visa
Qualifications required
Internationally acclaimed in someways
Using English as a second language to study Tripitaka
Requirement of ordained monk or can learn as a layperson
Further studies after graduated, mastered or honored

Following may be good academic institution to learn Buddhism:

The Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka
The International Association of Theravāda Buddhist Universities
International Association of Buddhist Universities
Buddhist Universities and Colleges
Buddhist universities and colleges
List of Buddhist universities and colleges
Buddhist universities and colleges in the United States


Is there any benefit in learning Pali or Sanskrit? Much of the Theravadan scriptures are written in Pali, so are a lot manuscripts written in Sanskrit, but is there any benefit in learning these languages while the Canon is already translated in other languages i.e. English?

Also:

Should one learn Pali or Sanskrit first?
Should one put effort in learning to speak Pali/Sanskrit (if that is possible)?

There absolutely is value in learning either Pali or Sanskrit (and I'd stick to the one for the lineage you are practicing - Theravada = Pali, Mahayana in general = Sanskrit).  You don't have to become fluent, but it is extremely helpful knowing a good deal of the vocabulary.  There are certain words that just don't translate well into English or just don't have any English equivalent.  I think this is especially true for the meditation terminology - especially mental factors and phenomenology.  To give you an example from Pali, the word pīti is a condition that arises during mediation.  It is often translated as "rapture", but I don't think this really gets at it (bright joy?  I don't know.  Something like that.)  The point is, if you read that word just as "rapture", you miss out on the full meaning of the concept.  Translated texts put you at one remove from those subtle nuances.  And really, it's the concepts we're worried about in our practice; poorly translated words lead you away from that core essence.

Don't learn to speak it though - that's a total waste of time!


What did the Buddha mean in AN 5.38 with the fifth benefit to a person of faith? What did the Buddha mean in AN 5.38. when he said:

“Mendicants, a faithful gentleman gets five benefits. What five?
The good persons in the world show compassion first to the faithful, not so much to the unfaithful. They first approach the
faithful, not so much the unfaithful. They first receive alms from
the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. They first teach Dhamma
to the faithful, not so much the unfaithful. When their body breaks
up, after death, the faithful are reborn in a good place, a heavenly
realm. A faithful gentleman gets these five benefits.

Emphasis mine.
I am trying to discern what this means with reference to the answers for the word upapajjati in this question which discussed the meaning of the word which is being translated here. Also, what did the Buddha mean when referring to the "break up of the body, after death" and has that been correctly translated?

You can find the Pali words on Sutta Central:

...  saddho kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā sugatiṁ saggaṁ lokaṁ upapajjati ...

To answer your question, I think the text has been correctly translated. The translated word “breaks”  corresponds to "bhedā". For this context see notes from the PTS:

"Abl. bhedā after the destruction or dissolution in phrase kāyassa bhedā param maraṇā, i.e. after the breaking up of the body & after death: see kāya I. e. & cp. D. III, 52, 146 sq. , 258; Dh. 140; Pug. 51"

The other words roughly correspond to paraṁ=after, maraṇā=death, sugatiṃ=good (destination), saggaṃ and lokaṃ can be taken indepently but together they roughly translation to "heavenly region", upapajjati=reborn.
Again see notes for uppajjati in relation to saggaṁ and lokaṁ:

Upapajjati, (doubtful whether a legitimate form as upa + pad or a diaeretic form of uppajjati = ud + pad. In this case all passages ought to go under the latter. Trenckner however (Notes 77) defends upa° & considers in many cases upp° a substitution for upa. The diaeresis may be due to metre, as nearly all forms are found in poetry. The v. l. upp° is apparently frequent; but it is almost impossible to distinguish between upap° and upp° in the Sinhalese writing, and either the scribe or the reader may mistake one for the other) to get to, be reborn in (Acc.); to originate, rise Vin. III, 20 (nirayaṃ); A. III, 415; V, 292 sq.; Sn. 584; It. 13 (nirayaṃ), 14 (sugatiṃ; v. l. upp°), 67 (saggaṃ lokaṃ; v. l. upp°); ...
PTS

A similar verse occurs in the Dhammapada:

atha vassa agarani aggi dahati pavako
kayassa bheda duppabbo nirayaj so 'papajjati
(DhP 140)
...
bheda: bheda-, N.m.: breaking, disunion. Abl.Sg. = bheda.
The phrase kayassa bheda- ("disunion of the body") means "death" in the Pali texts.
source


Does mindfulness end kamma ? is that a good thing ? Does mindfulness end kamma ? is that a good thing ?

!!! yes I am aware that the goal is not to attach to anything so avoiding suffering and that good kamma in the end is also "bad"  !!!

I am asking about whats the benifits of mindfulness eradicating kamma becaus :

Dont we all have a ton of kamma from a gigantic amount of kamma and if we eradicate kammas throw mindfulness it will just be replaced with other kammas which can also be bad kammas ?

i mean its not like we reach nibana by cleaning up all the kamma "We" got - but by developing wisdom  so whats the good thing about mindfulness ending spesific (not all)  kammas ?

I ask this after receiving this reply (and wanted this as a follow up different question) :

"Right mindfulness is an intentional (mental) act therefore it is kamma. However it falls under a 3rd type of kamma that is called the "kamma that ends kamma". "

from here (I wanted this as a follow up in different new question) :

Is mindfulness itself kamma ? does it create kamma?

What is wholesome is what you perceive positively at the time the result manifests. Since all worldly experiences are unsatisfactory, experiencing Nirvana is wholesome. Anything that reduces your stress and suffering is a good thing.

When you are practice Right Mindfulness, you do not create new Karma then your old Karmas start surfacing which reduce your old stock of karma and newly created karma. Development of the path factors is good Karma. Path factors are also part of the Mental Factors (cetasika).


What and why is "perception of the dimension of nothingness"? This is a paragraph of Cula-sunnata sutta;

(Nothingness)
"Further, Ananda, the monk — not attending to the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space, not attending to the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness — attends to the singleness based on the perception of the dimension of nothingness. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its perception of the dimension of nothingness.
"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space are not present. Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness are not present. There is only this modicum of disturbance: the singleness based on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space. This mode of perception is empty of the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. There is only this non-emptiness: the singleness based on the perception of the dimension of nothingness.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure.

This sutta is little confused to me. What is the purpose of this sutta?
What is the meaning of, "His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its perception of the dimension of nothingness"?
Can some one explain this sutta in simplified way?

In simplified way. This sutta explains "dwelling in emptiness" which is the same thing as "release" or "liberation" or "nirvana".

It explains it by example, step by step, going from gross liberation to subtle liberation, to absolute liberation. Liberation from what? From mental disturbances.

All liberations except the final are not real liberations. They still have disturbances. But they can be useful to understand the real liberation. In fact all these examples are not supposed to be real exercises. They are only meant to be metaphors to help the Buddha explain and the student to understand the real liberation.

So first Buddha says, imagine that you are in the middle of jungle. What disturbances does this liberate you from? It liberates you from all noise, conflict and issues that come from the contact with people.

But jungle still has its imperfections, like trees and rivers and mountains. So now let's imagine that your are standing in the middle of the flat earth, stretching in all directions. This liberates your mind from disturbances caused by the jungle.

It is important to understand that this is a metaphor. Buddha is not saying we should go to the jungle or to imagine that we are in the jungle or to imagine that we are standing in the middle of the flat earth. Buddha is talking about dukkha and about asavas. He is talking about inner conflict and inner disturbances. Buddha is saying, just like we go from the city to the jungle, to liberate ourselves from the noise, we should first implement the five precepts, to liberate ourselves from the gross disturbances.

As he goes on like this, Buddha step by step comes up with more and more subtle mindstates that have less and less disturbances. Meaning, as we progress in our practice, we get rid of smaller and smaller conflicts, neuroses, intoxications, and obsessions. All dukkha without exception is caused by an inner conflict between "is" and "should". As we go along, we keep noticing and removing even the most refined and subtle attachments, getting rid of even the smallest traces of dukkha, until we enter complete suchness.

Buddha illustrates this step-by-step refinement using the Four Formless Absorptions. Floating in the middle of empty infinite space is more refined than standing in the middle of flat earth without jungle. The image of infinite mind is even more refined than infinite space. The image of nothingness is more refined than that of infinite mind. And the image of neither-perception-nor-perception is even more refined. This does not mean we should actually practice these mindstates! They are here only to illustrate the progression.

The point is, we are looking for a perfect mindstate, and as we're achieving more and more refined mindstates with less disturbances, less conflict, and less dukkha - we realize they still have some dukkha left in them, so we keep going. And so we get to "theme-less concentration". This is known as Diamond Samadhi in Zen, meaning it is the type of clarity or wakefulness that does not depend on any theme or object. Because if we concentrate on any theme, our concentration is limited. Instead, with theme-less concentration we are open to everything that happens, we can look around without losing our clarity of mind, without attachment to any experience. Since we have no attachment, we have no disturbances in our mind. Since we have no disturbances, we have no dukkha.

And then, if we are to remain truthful with ourselves and logically consistent, we must realize that even these theme-less concentration is an artificial mindstate. We are still making effort to maintain it. Since we are still making effort, the state is not permanent. The moment we get distracted or disturbed we can still lose it. Even if we have perfect will power and concentration, the moment we get sick or wounded, we can lose this mindstate. Or we simply lose it when we fall asleep and wake up in a regular state.

  Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.

And so we reach the point of final release. We let go of any attempts to achieve the perfect mindstate. The moment we do that, we realize that our very intent to have the perfect mindstate was the last attachment that generated inner conflict that kept us in dukkha. When we let go of this final attachment we enter complete "suchness":

  Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.

This suchness manifests as complete acceptance of "the world" and spontaneity aka self-acceptance. It manifests as perfect unity or perfect love or perfect freedom. There is no sense of "I vs. world" anymore. No sense of self-control. But because of all the previous training, this lack of self-control does not lead to any negative behavior - because we no longer have any attachments that would manifest as Want, Hate or Confusion. So thanks to the previous training, we can be completely free and spontaneous, not relying on any effort, without running into any kinds of issues.

So you train and train and train, removing all external and internal obsessions, rejections, attachment, and sense of inner conflict, removing all dukkha - achieving more and more subtle and conflictless/dukkhaless mindstates - until you just let go of it all, let go of any effort and any notion of realization, let go of all worry -- and that is the final release.


What's the (mental) quality different between aversive leaving (vi-bhava) and renouncing (nekkhamma)? Whats the different between leaving, abounding, letting go, push away, say out of aversion, anger, and renouncing?

Both seems to be combined with tanha (thirst), yet one is called ku-sala (bad-cutting away) and one a-ku-sala (not bad-cutting away). And/Or is renouncing combined with a-moha, not-not-knowing or moha, not-knowing/delusion root of aversive notion of desire for leaving, letting go?

  If, by forsaking
  a limited ease,
  he would see
  an abundance of ease,
  the enlightened man
  would forsake
  the limited ease
  for the sake
  of the abundant.

  — Dhp 290

Sound gready, that what gives rise to "aversion", like strong desire for refined pleasure, yet even 'enlightened' situation.

How is renouncing conductive toward and on the path, leaving and let go part of the path of liberation?

A realated topic with given space for discussion and possible answer can be found here.

(note that this question is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough the wheel here and liberation)

Vibhava tanha arises as a result of attachement, aversion and ignorance combined with the wrong view of Nicca, Suka , Atta and Subha.
Nekkhamma is a result of non-attachement, non-aversion and wisdom combind with the right view of Anicca, Dukkha ,Anatta and Asubha.


Does the mental process of assigning subjective qualities to any phenomenon have a name in the suttas? This question is related to this one (and its comments) I made before:
In the Dependent Origination formula, shouldn't perception precede craving instead of feeling?

According to the Khajjaniya Sutta, sañña is perception "because it perceives yellow... blue... red... white". So, it seems that it allows the mind to give a concept or label to whatever it's contacting and feeling.
(https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html)

To label and to recognize "such as such", one has to process enough contextual information to know that any object is that object and not other object.
In the gestalt psychological theory of processing of stimuli, one identifies phenomena not because the perception of a single trait but rather the perception of a set of characteristics in a context.
In between those perceived features, one may find even subjective labels, such as "good", "bad", "better", "worst", "beautiful", "ugly", etc. The nature of such concepts is that their criterion for definition is not at face value, but defined by every individual person. Those labels are ambiguous until specified by the speaker. But despite their subjective nature, they're may be included in a person's definitions of an object and its features.
As an example, one might think that in the definition of an X race is the concept of inferiority in Y activity of life, such as intelectual learning.

Understood under this perspective, subjective qualities may fall under the definition of perception (at least as understood in modern psychology).

Is this also valid for Buddhism? Or do they have their own specific category?
What is the perspective on this point in the myriad of traditions and sects?
What do the suttas say?
What is your personal opinion?

Thank you in beforehand for your time and patience!

I think this is what you call Sankara. This is a very complex word with different meaning but you can learn about this in Abhidhamma.

==========

Saṅkhārā is a collective term for the other fifty cetasikas. These fall into four groups:
1) Universal mental factors (sabba citta sādhāranā).
2) Particular mental factors (pakiṇṇakā).
3) Unwholesome mental factors (akusalā).
4) Beautiful mental factors (sobhanā).

http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf


What is the truth that you deny? I have heard that there is a Tibetan word that roughly translates to "The truth that we deny" and sounded close to the English word "gotcha."

I however cannot locate this word or a source of it. Can anyone provide a source?

It is possible that it translates to either "The truth that I deny" or "The truth that you deny."
I am not sure if "we" was the right pronoun.
I think it might have been used in debates within the monasteries.

The word, as spelled in english, is "gak-cha," and it refers to the object whose existence we deny.

The idea is that things, including our selves, do not exist "out there, independently," or "from their own side."  Such a thing, according to Mahayana buddhism, could never exist.  When we catch our mind falling prey to relating to some thing (including our "self") as if it really existed independently from our perceiving mind, then we have located the "gak-cha."

There's a transcription of a talk by Lama Yeshe that goes into some depth:
Lama Yeshe Archive


Chuthi Patisandhi chitta The concept of chuthi patisandhi cittas- ie. generation of patisandhi citta conditioned by chuthi citta in a minute fraction of a second- is a very important concept mentioned in Abhidhammaththa Sangaha. This is so important that only by describing the mechanism of chuthi-patisandhi in this way the main teaching of Buddhism that there is no soul or ego (anaththa) can be justified.  Can I find any reference in Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Patisandhi citta is not conditioned by the Cuti citta. Cuti citta merely marks the end of that life. The Javanas that occur just before the Cuti citta determine the nature of the Patisandhi citta. Read more here: The mind at the time of death.


How I can purify my physical body? I don't like the shape of my body. My skin is poor. I lack physical stamina and strength. I feel hungry but I don't eat. I just don't like myself. How can I purify my body so that I feel good in it? My body is just lethargic, fatigued and weak. Did Buddha share any techniques to purify and strengthen the physical body? Also I masterbate a lot which is the cause of my weak and ugly body. I don't even have the strength to exercise the way I want. This is all topped with immense guilt that I want to wash away.

Also I masterbate a lot which is the cause of my weak and ugly body. I don't even have the strength to exercise the way I want.

I think you've already identified the crux of the matter. You've been directing most of your energy into a frivolous un-productive activity and have nothing left for other productive ones. So, the next time there's an urge, get outdoor and start doing some cardio exercises. There's nothing better for your body than doing cardios out in the open air, running, jogging, biking, walking, etc. Since your body is still weak, don't overdo it. Start out light, and build up the strength and stamina gradually. Combining exercises with adequate sleep and a healthy nutritious diet, and also nurturing your spiritual side with meditation and Dhamma cultivation, you should be on your way back to a strong healthy body and mind in a few months.


Doubt and contradiction in buddhas teaching I have few doubts in buddha teaching. Just wondering my mind since i start reading the various teachings.

Lets assume we all achieve the enlightenment then what will happen to world? No one will exist .. no life will exist... that will be the end of this universe.
If we really know the path then why even one percent leaves behind and could not achieve nirvana.
Buddha says we lose what we cling to. But he talks about love too.
Loving your son or wife will bring attachment for sure.
What one should do when a person rapes/molest your close one in front of you? Anger and emotions will take over.

No need to worry about this scenario. Even during the Buddha's time, at the peak of the Dhamma, how many people attained enlightenment and how many did not? By the way, with or without enlightenment, the universe will go thru periods of birth, decay, and destruction. It's inevitable that one day life as we know it will cease to exist. And one day, life will spring up again. Hence the endless cycle of Samsara.
Well, as the saying goes, there's a big difference between knowing the path and walking the path.
One can equanimously execute countermeasures to incapacitate a rapist or molester without letting anger arises. Matter of fact, martial arts practitioners are trained to keep a cool head. Anger, rage, fear, etc. only cloud one's mind and make it much harder to handle rough situations.


Is it possible to use meditation to gain Self control? I have planed my life and want to stick to it . But the problem is
My self control .
For example I tend to waste a lot of my time in youtube watching documentaries .

You know it starts like I 'am going to do this for only 30 minuets and then loose the rest of the day watching videos or etc.

I was wondering if meditating on my future goals could help .

And I mean doing something like imagining how it would feel if achieved my goals and then imagining the consequences of wasting my time or uncontrolled life .

Is this a good method to gain self control and achive my goals ?

Is there anything else I can do ?

Self control of gained through mastery over the mind, i.e., developing Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration in the Noble Eightfold Path.

The lack of mastery over the mind would lead to you losing the sense of time when doing this activity. One thing you can do is be aware you are are doing this and the sensation that watching videos bring. It is the feeling and sensation of excitement and the intellectual stimulation documentaries bring which keeps you doing what you are doing. If you get less attached to this you find it easy to switch to another task. So be mindful if what you are watching is perceived as or evaluate as positive (intellectually stimulating, interesting, keeping you in suspense to know more, etc.), negative or neutral and the sensations that follow which are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, maintaining utmost equanimity, and being aware of the arising and passing of what is felt (the particular sensation / feeling that is felt). [Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Pahāna Sutta]

In addition to the above, at a more mundane level, it would be helpful the be mindful of the time as well by having a clock placed near the screen which can help you keep track of time.


Cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction DN2 talks of many aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction.

What does this mean in Buddhist cosmology?

Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?

What does "aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction" mean in Buddhist cosmology?

Quoting from Dharma: Its Early History in Law, Religion, and Narrative
By Alf Hiltebeitel:

An "aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction" is a translation of saṃvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭakappa:

  vivaṭṭakappa
  masculine
  an ascending aeon

and/or:

  Vivaṭṭa, (m. & nt.) (vi+vaṭṭa1) 1. “rolling back, ” with ref. to the development of the world (or the aeons, kappa) used to denote a devolving cycle (“devolution”), whereas vaṭṭa alone or saṃvaṭṭa denote the involving cycle (both either with or without kappa). Thus as “periods” of the world they practically mean the same thing & may both be interpreted in the sense of a new beginning. As redupl. -inter. cpds. they express only the idea of constant change. We sometimes find vivaṭṭa in the sense of “renewal” & saṃvaṭṭa in the sense of “destruction, ” where we should expect the opposite meaning for each. See also vaṭṭa & saṃvaṭta. Dogmatically vivaṭṭa is used as “absence of vaṭṭa, ” i.e. nibbāna or salvation from saṃsāra (see vaṭṭa & cp. citta-vivaṭṭa, ceto°, ñāṇa°, vimokkha° at Ps. I, 108 & II. 70).—Fig. in kamma° “the rolling back of k. ” i.e. devolution or course of kamma at S. I, 85.—Abs. & combd with saṃvaṭṭa (i.e. devolution combd with evolution) e.g. at D. I, 14, 16 sq.; III, 109; A. II, 142 (where read vivaṭṭe for vivaṭṭo); Pug. 60; Vism. 419 (here as m. vivaṭṭo, compared with saṃvaṭṭo), 420 (°ṭṭhāyin). In cpd. °kappa (i.e. descending aeon) at D.

... in other words, according to the book quoted above, "a period in which the world is created and destroyed".

The word kappa is usually translated as an aeon. The PTS dictionary says,

  -- 2．（temporal） a “fixed” time，time with ref．to individual and cosmic life．As āyu at DA．I，103 （cp．kappaṁ）； as a cycle of time=saṁsāra at Sn．521，535，860 （na eti kappaṁ）； as a measure of time：an age of the world Vin．III，109； Miln．108； Sdhp．256，257； PvA．21； It．17=Bdhd 87=S．II，185．There are 3 principal cycles or aeons：mahā°，asaṅkheyya°，antara°； each mahā° consists of 4 asaṅkheyya-kappas，viz．saṁvaṭṭa° saṁvaṭṭaṭṭhāyi° vivaṭṭa° vivaṭṭaṭṭhāyi° A．II，142； often abbreviated to saṁvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭa° D．I，14； It．15； freq．in formula ekampijātiṁ，etc．Vin．III，4=D．III，51，111= It．99．On pubbanta° & aparanta°，past & future kappas see D．I，12 sq．paṭhama-kappe at the beginning of the world，once upon a time （cp．atīte） J．I，207．When kappa stands by itself，a Mahā-kappa is understood：DA．I，162．A whole，complete kappa is designated by kevala° Sn．pp．18=46~125； Sn．517； also dīgha° S．II，181； Sdhp．257．For similes as to the enormous length of a kappa see S．II，181 & DA．I，164=PvA．254．-- Acc．kappaṁ adv．：for a long time D．II，103=115= Ud．62，quot．at DA．I，103； Vin．II，198； It．17； Miln．108； mayi āyukappaṁ J．I，119，cp．Miln．141．Cp．saṅkappa．

When used, the word kappa may have a prefix which qualifies it (as in saṃvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭakappa above), which describes what kind of kappa it is. If it doesn't have a prefix it's assumed to be a Maha-kappa (a great kappa, a world kappa, an aeon). Maybe for that reason it's translated "aeon". I'm unsure whether kappa always definitely means long time periods (i.e. longer than a human life).

Even if it does imply a long, long time (which it seems to, both, in general, and in context in this sutta), I don't want to accuse the Buddha of exaggerating or false speech, but people do sometimes describe subjective time loosely or figuratively (e.g. "the bus took ages to arrive").

Anyway, it appears to mean some kind of time period, especially related to life, maybe the life-time of something.

Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?

I doubt it; and generally I presume that nothing in Buddhist phenomenology is similar to physics.


Is it harmful to the Buddha when we request he or she to continue teaching instead of entering parinirvana? One of the ten things that Bodhisattva Samathabhadra says that a person on the Bodhisattva path should do is to request the Buddhas to continuing teaching instead of entering parinirvana. Given that a Buddha is fully compassionate and omniscient, he or she would want to teach if doing so is beneficial to sentient beings and would also be aware whether teaching is indeed beneficial to sentient beings. For example, the historical Shakayumni Buddha wanted to enter parinirvana because some of his sangha was becoming complaent that they would always have  the Thus Come One as their teacher. As such, it would seem that a Buddha would be able to decide well the timing of his parinirvana.

Given the above, I wonder how would it is appropriate for one learning to walk on the Bodhisattva path to request the Buddhas to continuing teaching. Is such an action for the benefit of the practioner to generate a wish of englightment and to take refuge in the Buddha? Does a Buddha need to enter parinirvana at a certain time, otherwise it would become harmful to him or herself or to the community at large? Is a Buddha unable to stay longer to teach if practitioners do not make requests? (Sorry that I am unable to phrase a precise question, but I hope I conveyed my gist and my confusion clearly enough.)

As I pointed out in my answer to "are earthworms our mothers?"  these kind of questions often assume incorrect frame of reference. The reason we request Buddha (or our local teacher as Buddha's substitute) to continue teaching instead of entering parinirvana, is not because it can literally make Buddha (or teacher) change their mind and stay. The idea is to create a mental context in which A) the teacher feels motivated to continue teaching because he sees the teaching is in demand, B) the students stay aware of the fact that existence of the teaching in this world depends solely on Buddha and then generations of teachers passing it to one another, and now to the students, and C) the student clearly realizes that the teacher could very well leave this place but is instead making effort to stay and teach solely out of compassion for the students. When this context is established the teaching can happen effectively, because both the sides will engage actively and with no resistance.

Granted these are entry-level practices, but they are very important to establish as foundation. Otherwise what happens if you skip straight to advanced teaching, the student may get as arrogant as to metaphorically grab the teacher by the hair and swing around. Needless to say, it hurts the student first and foremost.


When is 'dependent origination' broken, in meditation? At which stage of enlightenment (or of meditation) will Dependent Origination break?

In my meditation practice, now there are no clinging to the thoughts and no self view. Can notice once it appears.

At this stage, is dependent origination still functioning?

You have to see impermanence, suffering and non-self with direct knowledge. Not by intellectual thinking.  That realization should be all encompassing. In other words, you should attain absolute certainty that all condition realities come under the three characteristics. At this moment the mind should have the concentration level comparable to the first Jhana, even though it is not the first Samatha Jhana. Read more here


What were the conditions laid down by Ananda when asked to be Buddhas personal attendant? Apparently there were 8 wholesome conditions laid down by Ananda when he was asked to be Buddhas attendant at the age of 55. What were they?

That's told in this biographical summary of Ananda:

The Buddha was never to give him any choice food
or garment (*) gotten by him,
nor appoint for him a separate "fragrant cell" (residence),
nor include him in the invitations accepted by the Buddha.
Further he was to be allowed to accept invitations on behalf of the Buddha;
to bring to the Buddha those who came to see him from afar;
to place before the Buddha all his perplexities,
and the Buddha was to repeat to him any doctrine taught in his absence.

It's the same list here.

And here:

  Ananda was in no way proud that the Master had preferred him to his
  greatest disciples, but instead asked a favor of having eight
  conditions fulfilled.

  First of all, the Master should never pass a gift of robes on to him;
  second, he should never give him any almsfood, which he himself had
  received; third, having received a dwelling place he should never give
  it to him; fourth, never to include him in any personal invitation
  (such as an occasion for teaching Dhamma when a meal would be
  offered).

  Besides these four negative conditions, he also had four positive
  wishes, namely: if he was invited to a meal, he asked for the right to
  transfer this invitation to the Buddha; if people came from outlying
  areas, he asked for the privilege to lead them to the Buddha; if he
  had any doubts or inquiries about the Dhamma, he asked for the right
  to present these to the Buddha at any time; and if the Buddha gave a
  discourse during his absence, he asked for the privilege to have the
  Buddha repeat it to him privately.

  He explained his reasons for these requests in this way: if he did not
  pose the first four conditions, then people could say that he had
  accepted the post of attendant only because of material gain. But if
  he did not express the other four conditions, then it could rightly be
  said that he fulfilled the duties of his post without being mindful of
  his own advancement on the Noble Path.

  The Buddha granted him these very reasonable requests, which were
  quite in accordance with the teaching.

I don't know which Sutta these are from.


Would Buddhists object if Gautama Buddha were seen as a Prophet by Islam I recently posted on the Islam site that we (Muslim) could consider Gautama Buddha as a prophet in our sense. I have originally put three different questions here; now I put two separately; under this title I leave the question of courtesy whether Buddhists would rather appreciate or oppose to it if I would call Gautama Buddha a prophet in the sense of Islam (not a prophet of Islam), knowing that the relation between both religions is not entirely peaceful (which I, personally, regret)
Thank you for your feedback

You see friend, it's a sad state of affairs. Even the Buddhists of this site reject your respect of our teacher on the grounds that your faith is wrong in their eyes. And if your faith is "wrong", your respect must be misplaced, is that what we are saying? What a shame!
You are not asking for much - not asking to accept your faith, not asking for their respect, just asking to accept yours and even that you are denied! What a sad sad sad world.
You know what? You actually are free to respect whoever is worthy of respect, it's up to you to measure your respect and give him a title of Prophet, or a Wise One, or an Awakened One, or whatever title you see fit.
Did Buddha teach unity or division? Buddha taught unity. Did Buddha teach "only this is right, anything else is wrong"? The Buddha taught the danger of attachment to one-sided views, and the escape from attachment to one-sided views. Whoever speaks on behalf of the Buddha in the voice of division - misrepresents the Buddha.
The message of enlightenment is the message of non-hatred, message of non-division, message of non-attachment. It is the message of peace, the message of love. The flavor is unmistakable and you can see it in any religion, whether it goes in the same depths of psychology as Buddhism or not, any true teaching is a teaching of consolidation, not quarrel of "us" vs "them".
So thank you for making this step and stretching your hand across the divide, brother. I'm confident this step is right and the history will confirm it.


Observing the breath vs Pranayama Is it better to just watch the breath as it unfolds or sometimes we need to control it to slow it down ,calming down and noticing it in the same time ?.

Calm down the mind - breath is indicator of mind state.

https://plumvillage.org/sutra/discourse-on-the-full-awareness-of-breathing/

  ‘Breathing in a long breath, I know I am breathing in a long breath. Breathing out a long breath, I know I am breathing out a long breath.
  ‘Breathing in a short breath, I know I am breathing in a short breath. Breathing out a short breath, I know I am breathing out a short breath.
  ‘Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. Breathing out, I am aware of my whole body.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I calm my whole body. Breathing out, I calm my whole body.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I feel joyful. Breathing out, I feel joyful.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I feel happy. Breathing out, I feel happy.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I am aware of my mental formations. Breathing out, I am aware of my mental formations.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I calm my mental formations. Breathing out, I calm my mental formations.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I am aware of my mind. Breathing out, I am aware of my mind.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I make my mind happy. Breathing out, I make my mind happy.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I concentrate my mind. Breathing out, I concentrate my mind.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘Breathing in, I liberate my mind. Breathing out, I liberate my mind.’ He or she practices like this.


Problem with the logic of karma Ok, so i am kind of an outsider on this topic, so i assume i got something basic wrong. But even if thats not the case, please try to explain this to me:

As i understand it at this point, Karma works somewhat like this: Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed.

Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma.

This setup leads me to one conclusion: Once basically everyone has reached nirvana, in the end there has to be one individual being that holds all the combined karma, and this one being has thus no chance of ever reaching neutrality and thus nirvana.

Now, i am pretty sure something in my setup is false, so can someone please explain it to me?

Person A has unwholesome kamma, so unwholesome kamma make him get immorality resultant. Person A's kamma never force person B  to do unwholesome kamma to person A.

person A can get immorality resultant from anyway such as back pain himself, no one pain him. So although if person B pain person A: there is just person A's kamma give immorality resultant to person A, not to person B. And there is just person B's kamma give immorality resultant to person B, not to person A.

Kamma give immorality/morality resultant to it's person. Kamma will not give immorality/morality resultant to the others.

There are the other causes by person A (except kamm-cause) that let's person B do kamma to person A. But person B get those other causes because of person B's kamma. There is still not person A' kamma give resultant to person B to let him meet person A and get those other causes work.

See kamma-paccaya and vipākapaccaya in paṭṭhāna. Learn abhidhamma to get the easiest way to understand tipitaka.


How is His Holiness the Dalai Lama able to watch TV? I watched a documentary of his life and he was using the remote to change the channels on his TV. Does this not break any of the rules? (227 bhikkhu precepts) Thanks.

In an interview the Dalai Lama says he watched shows like Discovery. He says he does not watch entertainment shows and does not listen to music. He apparently uses television like an educational book.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/25/pmt.01.html
CTRL F type in television in the search box and you will see the interview excerpts.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama does not put conditions on anyone of any religious orientation or intellectual direction. He accepts all as they are. He eats meat every other day due to a medical condition. He tries to be the leader of a country and a spiritual branch of Buddhism and stay relevant to the latest technologies.

If your branch of Buddhism restricts media access, and that is acceptable to you, then follow the path you are on. We are all headed to the same destination, if there is a destination.

Thank you for the question.apparently


Teaching or giving advice without mentioning the Buddha Sometimes I see perfect situations to teach something from the Buddha and help someone with it, impermanence, worldly concerns, etc... however some people will immediately shut down and not listen if they know it was spoken by the Buddha... still I want to help.

So I try to focus on the teachings that can benefit them without saying in a explicit way it came from Buddhism (of course I do not say the teaching was mine as well, I just don't mention the source or say it is something I learned...)

Is that wrong, unethical or a cause for bad Karma? I have never thought about it!

There is nothing wrong with it at all. It is an extremely wonderful thing to speak the Dhamma in any form. In the Abhaya sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html) the Buddha said he used three factors to decide what and when to say something. They are truth, benefit, and agreeableness. The Buddha would only say something if it was true and beneficial to the listener, and if it was disagreeable, he would say it only at the right time and in the most gentle way possible. Because the Buddha is the perfect example of morality and right speech, we can use these principles to guide our speech as well.

When you say this you are saying something true, beneficial, and agreeable. Not only is there nothing wrong with it, but speaking the Dhamma is actually a kind of giving. In fact according to the Buddha:

  "The gift of Dhamma excels all other gifts." Dhammapada 354

Far from being a cause for bad Kamma, your action is actually a basis of great ammounts of good Kamma.


Should a Monk speak out in favor of doing good? If a monk is given the opportunity to speak in favor of doing a good deed that a supporter of his wants to do, even if that good deed directly benefits him, is it proper to do so?

Is there any concern to be had how others may perceive doing so? i.e. others may see this motive as being self-serving; and therefore how to address this properly?

Thank you

Not sure of what Mr. Ryan speaks (reading just the word), but Atma can remember that he once had similar thoughts in regard of Buddha. Thinking he might had caused a lot of people suffering by being attached to him.

But the more one knows the real teachings, one sees that he actually did not let such a kind of kamma behind. Its simply by people taking it wrong, that they have problems.

There is of course this danger, which you mention, that one would automatically accumulate everything, starting form the moment people see "ohh that is not a normal one" but there is nothing better as to practice the 13 Dhutangas which protect one self and people well and actually the most serious monks keep them.

Taken for example SEAsia. If people get to know that there is anywhere a Dhutanga Monk, they would come form near and far and would like to make donations, since such is a high merit. If people (monks) do not really stick hard to the Dhutangas they are caught immediately. One sees that well when observing the Thai Forest Tradition today. Their honor had actually "killed" them practical and they have already become "normal" ordinary people. Yet still living form the reputations of their teachers of old times.

So there are certain dangers and they are even covered by a downfall rule, for hard cases:

  Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble distinction of knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation. BMC1

But as you can read there, even if people out of faith would address one Arahat, there is no fault for one. So if people "love" one, one having practiced proper, does not make anything wrong. That's great, even mostly not welcome for the serious practicing monk.

There have been occasions where when lot of people came to visit the Buddha and he denied. Even if monks begged him "Now is the time for the Blessed One's acquiescence, lord! Wherever the Blessed One will go now, the brahmans of the towns & countryside will be so inclined." he refused, at least saying "But when I am traveling along a road and see no one in front or behind me, at that time I have my ease, even when urinating & defecating." Yasa Sutta: Honor

So in regard of your formulation: No, there is no reason why a Bhikkhu should step back form his virtues, what ever they are or to even cheat, so that he would prevent certain attachments and problems with fans and so on.

If one reads the Suttas, one could easily believe that its all about self-aggrandizement, but actually it was a certain scarify of the Buddha, to that extend, that even no monk after him would need to use it in the same way he did. (Atma guesses the questioner understands what he tries to say)

One does actually not easy accumulate when always straight and honest (in a sense of beneficial and true for the path) and without any flavor of socializing or concern about reputations.

As for the OP question it self: "Should a Monk speak out in favor of doing good?" such is most critical, if speaking what people like and mostly a heavy offense which is called a corrupter of families, sadly one of the most, even whole communities faults.

  This is illustrated in the origin story of this rule, in which the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu (leaders of one faction of the group of six) had thoroughly corrupted the lay people at Kīṭāgiri.
  "Now at that time a certain bhikkhu, having finished his
  Rains-residence among the people of Kāsi and on his way to Sāvatthī to
  see the Blessed One, arrived at Kīṭāgiri. Dressing (§) early in the
  morning, taking his bowl and (outer) robe, he entered Kīṭāgiri for
  alms: gracious in the way he approached and departed, looked forward
  and behind, drew in and stretched out (his arm); his eyes downcast,
  his every movement consummate. People seeing him said, 'Who is this
  weakest of weaklings, this dullest of dullards, this most snobbish of
  snobs? Who, if this one approached (§), would even give him alms? Our
  masters, the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, are compliant, genial,
  pleasing in conversation. They are the first to smile, saying, "Come,
  you are welcome." They are not snobbish. They are approachable. They
  are the first to speak. They are the ones to whom alms should be
  given.'"

Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya (On Right Speech) shows well that sweet talks are nothing that are welcome if it is not simply for the path and to let go.

So it should cover all possible aspects of the question and at least maybe, a monk is no and should not be a social worker. That's a job he left behind by going forth. (females are always included speaking of monk)

Maybe one in addition. It is not allowed (out of this reasons) to receive a donation after having taught the Dhamma. So if one likes to benefit a monk, he would do good to do such in advanced. The story about the Buddha in such cases can be read here: Discourse to Bharadvaja, the Farmer A good talk about the matter of being first on giving is: Better to Give than to Consume, if one like to understand the matter also from a practitioner side as a layperson.

So there are certain ways to cut off the danger of doing a favor but less really less make such their habit today. Its all about gain, becoming, honor and for "higher purposes" (for simply this world) and seldom for Nibbana.

  Asked: "others may see this motive as being self-serving; and therefore how to address this properly?"

One somebody may think, one can not manipulate or change and there is also no use for such (if one is not attached to his reputations). As seeing the motive and virtue of a monk and if he is walking the path is very difficult to find out for laypeople. Actually only a one already on the stream would recognize a straight person (in Dhamma sense). So once a king tried to test the Buddha and taught him about the possibilities to judge a person: Paṭisalla Sutta: Seclusion and it end (after an explaining with a important exclamation:

  One   should not make an effort everywhere,
  should not be another's hireling,
  should not live dependent on another,
  should not go about
        as a trader in the Dhamma.

And then, taking the original question again:

  If a monk is given the opportunity to speak in favor of doing a good deed that a supporter of his wants to do, even if that good deed directly benefits him, is it proper to do so?

Let Atma bring a sample of how such could look like. One likes to give a donation and would ask "do you like coffee/or water?", than he would stay silent. So suggestions of that kind are not proper. If one actually gives, fine, but usual ways monks on many places even tell people "you have to ask me first" (as the other extreme) is simply wrong. It also happens that monks would say "If you give me a donation, you make much merits" or other things. All this kinds of "doing others a favor" are fine, even it would be such (which not even the Buddha told people, given that they would have made much merits if done so)

So even hinting is walking on the edge. Good teachings about that are this short essays: No Strings Attached, The Economy of Gifts

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


Investing in Dharma? In the Diamond Sutra Buddha said:

  Subhuti, if a person collected treasures as high as 3,000 of the highest mountains, and gave them all to others, their merit would be less than what would accrue to another person who simply observed and studied this Sutra and, out of kindness, explained it to others. The latter person would accumulate hundreds of times the merit, hundreds of thousands of millions of times the merit. There is no conceivable comparison.

I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term and it doesn't solve any fundamental problems in the human world.

So I'd like to follow Buddha's words but of course I'm not skillful enough to do it myself.

What do you think will be the best way to help the Dharma reach more people if you have spare $100 a month?

Or $1,000?

Or $100,000 at once?

If you can spare some money, by all mean please continue to donate to charity. Imagine you were a starving child in some war-torn country, getting a hot meal won't help you attaining enlightenment but it does help relieving a horrible kind of suffering: starvation!
Then one can always start with him/herself. Observing the Five Precepts whole-heartedly itself would generate tremendous amount of merits according to AN 8.39:

..."Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?
"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. And this is the fourth reward of merit...

Finally, one can share the Dhamma to others if the conditions are appropriate according to MN 58:

...In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them...


Working with cycles in meditation Over the course of my meditation practice I experience pronounced cycles or ebbs and flows. This has been a feature of my practice for several years now and doesn't seem to be lessening - if anything it is intensifying. The pattern is

Meditation goes well. Concentrated and experience vigour
Energy, motivation and concentration increase to a peak
Over the course of one or two days practice seems to fall apart. Poor concentration. Feelings of dullness and lethargy with meditation and lack of motivation. This can bleed over to time off the cushion
After weeks or even months meditation starts to become pleasurable again and the cycle starts again

Sometimes the low point isn't too bad but sometimes it is so dominating that I can't recognize it for what it is. I've cleared my shrine away before now. The Buddha goes away and it's only after some days I remember what is probably going on.

Does anyone have any advice about the best way to work with these kind of cycles. Is it a well documented phenomena or documented at all? I would find references to established texts or teachers on this subject particularly helpful.

I was wondering about the clearing away of the shrine. It could be that there exists an attachment to the shrine. By clearing it away when periods of stagnation occurs it is like affirming that a period of stagnation is "bad" or "not good" or "a problem".

These are merely concepts designated to a certain situation. In ultimate reality what you experience is only a combination of hearing, seeing, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking.

Making the situation into either positive or negative is one's own work. We create our own suffering by wishing for reality to be something different than it already is.

The clearing away of the shrine could indicate that there is a self involved in this. It is like saying "i am angry" or "i am sad". There is an affirmation or validation going on here.

In reality there is mental and physical phenomena arising and ceasing on their own accord. Do not identify or take ownership of these impersonal and uncontrollable phenomena.

By reacting to them you provide them further fuel to burn. See them for what they are. You can turn these phenomena into objects of observation and create a foundation for cultivation of insights.

Lastly, here is a great dhamma talk by Ven. Yuttadhammo. Robin was so sweet to post it in one of my questions. In here it is talked about how one can adjust ones own practice by using 4 different tools. This talk is very beneficial for any meditator.

Hope this helps. If you need me to elaborate on anything i've just said, please let me know.


Minimum common grounds for all sotapanna and all arahant I'd like to know what will all sotapanna have in common with each other. And the same for arahants (both for separate, please, not comparing a sotapanna with an arahant).

What are the common grounds in terms of what has been uprooted? What do they share in terms of understanding, ideas and views (independently if they are not attached to those views)?

I ask this, because I've noticed that there are lots of differences between all the ideas about what should a sotapanna/arahant know, be, feel and think, for example. And, according to the level of confidence/attachment/understanding of those asked about what a sotapanna is, they will be more on the defensive, disparaging any other idea conflicting with theirs, stating that a sotapanna/arahant is only what they think it is, with more or less grounding on suttas.

For an outsider, it may almost seem like a discussion based on "No true scotsman" fallacies.

EDIT: Thanks for the answer given so far! I wanted to add another point.

Now that OyaMist has written about interpretations on those common grounds, I realize that that might be exactly the main source of problems. Since we're using texts written in a language not used as vernicular in current societies; since most concepts can be interpreted in multiple ways; and since there are a lot of discussion (with more or less logical arguments or irrefutable evidence) about the "authenticy" of some texts or discourses, most conclusions seem to fall into what feels the most coherent to the particular follower, or into what seems to produce the best results.

For example, some say one cannot reach stream-entry without attaining 1st jhana. But I think this criterion becomes problematic, to say the least, when the problem of interpretation and definition occurs in the exact same way when talking about what jhana is or is not.

If that's the case, how to differenciate between the most relevant/fundamental and secundary/optional interpretation for those common grounds?

EDIT 2: Just for the sake of context, and to give some (possibly) hints to a potential answer, maybe we can rephrase the question about the minimum common grounds for all sotapanna as: What is the minimum knowledge that Right View HAS to contain in order to really be Right View?

I'd appreciate any help on this issue. Thanks in advance!

Kind regards!

For stream-enterer we have:

AN6.34:4.4: But those who have experiential confidence in the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha, and have the ethics loved by the noble ones, do know that they are stream-enterers.”

For arahant we have release from ten fetters:

AN10.13:1.1: “Mendicants, there are ten fetters. What ten? The five lower fetters and the five higher fetters.
AN10.13:1.4: What are the five lower fetters? Identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire, and ill will. These are the five lower fetters.
AN10.13:2.1: What are the five higher fetters? Desire for rebirth in the realm of luminous form, desire for rebirth in the formless realm, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance.

The interpretation may differ, but the above definitions are common ground.
A key point of potential dispute is the validation of "experiential confidence." Historical, this was even an issue in the Buddha's time:

AN3.21:2.3: The personal witness, the one attained to view, and the one freed by faith. These are the three people found in the world. Of these three people, who do you believe to be the finest?”

For those who experienced confidence in the Triple Gem via first jhana, they would be a personal witness.

AN3.21:5.7: Because this person’s faculty of immersion is outstanding.”

For those who experienced confidence in the Triple Gem via deep study of the Dhamma, they would be attained to view.

AN3.21:7.7: Because this person’s faculty of wisdom is outstanding.”

For those who experienced confidence in the Triple Gem via faith, they would be attained by faith.

AN3.21:3.7: Because this person’s faculty of faith is outstanding.”

Yet the Buddha answered quite simply and inclusively:

AN3.21:12.1: In this matter, it’s not easy to definitively declare that one of these three people is finest.”


What is the nature of impermanence, desire and anatman? If everything in unstable, unsatisfying and out of control then what is the point in living? Isn't the 'point of life' meant to be a journey to stability, satisfaction and self control? Thanks :).

Isn't the 'point of life' meant to be a journey to stability,
  satisfaction and self control?

There's no "meant to be" in life. It's not written in the stars that you must do this or that. But you can follow the noble 8 fold path and attain stability and satisfaction while you live.

  If everything in unstable, unsatisfying and out of control

Everything is uncontrollable, but not unstable and unsatisfying. Only conditioned things are unstable and unsatisfying.


What is required to achieve Nirvana in Buddhism? Nirvana is considered by many religions the pinnacle to strive for.  What do I need to do to achieve Nirvana?  Are there different perceptions of the requirements held by different sects?

To answer your question let me draw an analogy. What is required to become a professor?
According to Wikipedia, "A professor is a highly accomplished and recognized academic, and the title is in most cases awarded only after decades of scholarly work to senior academics". Being a professor is not a concrete state, it is a label they put on years of hard work, culminating in professional realization.

Similarly, Nirvana is not a concrete state, it is a common name for the condition of a highly accomplished spiritual practitioner. This condition is not something you can contrive knowing the requirements, it is a result of years of personal transformation.

Nirvana can be characterized as condition of having transcended suffering & death. The requirement for this is said to be a complete cessation of Attraction (obsessing over something as desirable), Rejection (obsessing over something as undesirable), and Ignorance (mistaken understanding of how everything works). One of the key components of Ignorance is a deeply lying conviction in existence of substantial self and a tangle of reflexes that grow around that. Much of Mahayana practice is targeted at destroying this belief, not just at conceptual level, but at the level of basic day-to-day instincts.

If we could simplify the requirement for becoming a professor to "complete cessation of ignorance in the field of study one specializes in", we could perhaps make a stretch and define Nirvana as "complete cessation of ego complex, along with negative experiences and behavioral tendencies it generates". As any simplification, this is not entirely accurate: just as becoming a professor requires tons of practical skill and experience outside of the primary field of study, attaining Nirvana requires cessation of all mental and emotional obscurations, a tendency to get stuck on anything, not just on self.

Now, for the purposes of this discussion I'm equating Nirvana with Enlightenment, which depending on a school may or may not be the right thing to do. Specifically in Mahayana, Nirvana is considered a conceptual projection (a shadow of ego so to speak) that has to be transcended as part of awakening to Self-Existing Buddha Nature (=Enlightenment).


Do we sense the mental stream (santāna) Do we sense the 'mindstream' (citta-santāna)?

Or is it inferred?

I think it is inferred, and that this means we cannot say "I will die", except as a fictionalized explanation.

But, is it inferred? And anyway, what do Buddhists say about explanations ?

Hmmm this is where psychiatry start picking drugs for us... Keep in mind that is is purely theoretical until the Haldon Collider find evidence of other dimensions...

Mind and brain are not the same, but connected like two wheels learning against each others edges. So one might call it two different species. The Buddha spoke of 31 planes of existence, which could be understood as 31 universes. Universes would then also move and overlap each other. If overlapping, a nexus is created in which reactions happen. Now imagine that somehow that because of the nexus, the brain has an attraction on another species and this other species attached itself to the brain like a parasite... It would mean that if we are Citta, then we are the aliens from another universe experiencing this universe through the senses of a body...

But we lack so much data on so much to actually make technical descriptions on how it works... Much right now is just thesis stage. Nothing more.

It is said that you will get this experience in the ninth Jhana...


Having trouble meditating long sessions (Physical pain) I like to meditate but because of me being new to it i guess, it is hard for me to meditate more than ten minutes.

I have no trouble concentrating only got some physical pains, that occur during long sessions of meditation.
Can someone please help?

Are you using a posture that is too strenuous for you? For example, trying to sit in a lotus position, when you have never done it before?

If so, use an easier posture:

a chair that allows you to sit in an upright or balanced way,
folding your legs one in front of the other in the "Burmese posture" with a cushion or folded towel to support your backbone
a bench

Be careful of pain. Some pain is comes from restlessness and disappears the moment you move, and it is OK- you can even use it and study it, as a way of getting to know dukkha and impermanence. But if the pain endures after your sit (especially if it is in your knees), use an easier posture. Don't try so hard that you injure yourself permanently.

If you are new, and you're doing 10 minutes, and you're doing it every day, then you are starting very well.


Looking for a Buddhist Monastery in UK, Ireland, Scotland or Australia - All traditions are welcome I have a friend from Sri Lanka who is a Theravada Buddhist monk. He is 36 (soon 37) years old and have been a monk for 19 years.
He resides in SL and has just finished an english language course and have asked me if I could help find a Buddhist monastery, where he could stay for 2-3 years. His goal is to practice and improve his language skills to eventually be able to give a full Dhamma talk in english.
It must a non-Sri Lankan monastery. Bhante would like to work with all Buddhist traditions. If you want to know more about him he has a FB profile. He has also written a short description of himself (this description is part of an email that Bhante himself has sent to monasteries - I have taken the self-description-part and put here):

"Dear Venerable sir/madam
My name is Venerable Buttala Samithawansha and I am 36 years old. I currently reside in a monastery in Colombo Sri Lanka. I am a fully ordained Buddhist monk.
I grew up as a poor farmer's son and was not able to get my formal education particularly English, however I managed to join the British Council where I completed pre intermediate levels 1, 2 and 3, intermediate levels 1, 2 and 3 and upper intermediate levels 1 and 2.
I stopped school at 17 years old and was ordained at 18 years old.
I would be very grateful if you know of any scholarships or funding to facilitate people who are in my situation.I am keen to improve my English skills under guidance on the native English speakers. I would like to share Buddhist teachings in English language in the future.
My most humble gratitude .
Yours faithfully,
Reverend Samithawansha"

Does anyone know of a Buddhist monastery, where that would be possible?
Thank you.

Forest Sangha United Kingdom branches - Amaravati, Cittaviveka, etc.


Is there any meaning, which I am supposed to untangle, to things I saw during meditation? I had a friend who introduced me to Buddhism. He was very insistent I go to Buddhist groups, though I ended up going to a different one to the one he suggested (the leader was Theravāda not Mahāyāna). I haven't spoken to him in a long time, but he is the person I associate most strongly with Buddhism. He was very insistent that I chant the same mantras as him, and go to the groups he suggested.

In any case, during the meditation (which took place immediately after the one where I resolved to check if the universe is eternal) I saw these things:

I remembered a dream I had two days ago in which my Buddhist friend had changed from how I knew him. He was usually friendly and cheery, if a little unusual in manner sometimes. However, in the dream he looked very different and was angry, seemingly not just with me, but with everyone, but with me also. He grabbed me by my collar and screamed at me and I was afraid.
I saw there was a world within my laptop, which became large and over-filled with information, then shrunk to become the size of my left foot, and hovered just below my knee.
I saw a bright light, which was powerful and pure white, but tinged at the edges with gold. The light appeared to come from a figure, whom I saw as bound but then released from his bondage, stepping down from the place where he was bound to walk on the earth and talk to the people there.

Is it possible there is any meaning to these, which I am supposed to untangle? They seem to all be connected to my previous question, about the limits of the universe and the cycle of birth and death.

In order to possibly determine the meaning of your thoughts, you would need to consult a psychoanalyst. What is important within the reference of a forum answering questions on Buddhism, is that these conceptual thoughts during meditation are to be pushed aside so that you return to your focal point, usually the breathe. The goal of meditation is not to allow your thoughts to jump from one to another while you sit on a cushion. The goal is the absence of thought, thereby generating a clear calm mind. This takes practice. As you are someone new to to Buddhism, I recommend that you not rely on your friend alone, but read and study, and attend as many teachings offered by genuine lamas in order to extend your knowledge. You have made a good start. The Buddha said to listen to what he had to say but explore the truth of it on one's own.


Mind moving too fast to note? What to do when the mind starts moving so fast that individual experiences cannot be noted? And as far as I have experienced, the mind can only be in one place at a time, but it begins moving so fast between different experiences that it is as if there is awareness of nearly the entire body at once and all experience blurs together and the body feels like its humming?

edit: there seems to be some confusion..this didn't seem like a distracted state; it seems as if I was able to be mindful of multiple things happening at once all over my body. The normal areas where sensations occur that I'm only able to be mindful of one at a time i.e. sensations on my head, my arms, pain in the back, legs, I was nearly fully aware of all at once.

There are always many things happening in the body, your mind is getting distracted trying to focus on everything.

You need to spend more time on your samatha (ex. anapana) practice, so that your mind can focus better on whatever object you direct it at in Vipassana.

> edit: there seems to be some confusion..this didn't seem like a
> distracted state; I was able to be mindful of multiple things
> happening at once all over my body. The normal areas where sensations
> occur that I'm only able to be mindful of one at a time i.e.
> sensations on my head, my arms, pain in the back, legs, I was nearly
> fully aware of all at once.

Apologies I misunderstood, then this sounds like Bhanga nana - knowledge of dissolution. The best way to confirm this is if sooner or later you start hitting the bhaya (fear) nana.

Note: Identifying the nana category with certainty is difficult for the yogi himself/herself, let alone for a third party, so don't take any nana diagnosis as correct until it is verified a few different ways.

http://www.buddhanet.net/knowledg.htm

  What happens next? The meditator’s awareness and concentration
  continues to develop. As a result, he now sees only the passing away
  of phenomena. It is as if his awareness is so fast, it is faster than
  the experiences he is examining, As soon as he places his attention on
  some aspect of his experience, it disappears. This is the knowledge of
  dissolution (bhanga-nana). In a weak aspect, this can take the form of
  the meditator apparently losing his concentration. It seems like he
  can no longer focus on anything; his attention keeps sliding off
  whatever he tries to look at. It can be lie trying to grasp something
  that slips out of your hand the moment you touch it. In a stronger
  aspect, it can be like falling into the black hole of Calcutta.
  Wherever you look, there is nothing - only blackness. The meditator is
  shocked, because he used to be able to focus on anything. Now, it
  seems, he can focus on nothing at all. All his good work has dissolved
  into nothing.

I just want to add the excellent advice that the same page gives about the nana categories - there are an infinite ways to map this journey, and the 16 nana map is good, but may not identify every sensation you encounter. The only way to practice is to continue the practice undaunted, whatever the feeling.

  The 16 nanas constitute another way to categorise our experience.
  There are any number of ways we can analyse our experience; there are
  a potentially infinite number of categories we can invent into which
  we can classify our experiences. What is important is that we remember
  the difference between category and experience, and avoid becoming
  lost in the category. Our tendency is to get lost in the categories,
  and in doing so, lose touch with experience. When we create a system
  of categories we freeze the process of living experience and create a
  solid something in which our experience must now conform. We now
  divide our experience into two basic divisions: those experiences
  which we can fit into our system of categories, and which is therefore
  valid, real and useful; and those experiences which we cannot fit into
  our system of categories. Of course, in the act of meditating, we put
  more attention to our valid, real and useful experiences than we do to
  the other type. In brief, we become stuck in attachment and aversion,
  and instead of investigating our experience, we revert to manipulating
  it. We take the practice of freedom and turn it into a prison. This is
  inevitably the case when we project reality into the categories of
  analysis - whatever system we use - and not into the actual, living,
  stream of experience. Hence we must treat this system with great
  caution. We must learn to use it, and not be used by it.

I'd also like to add something by Bodhipaksa, of Wildmind.org - it's more general advise, but I think you can make it work in your situation too.

  Our meditation practice never changes in a constant, linear way. There
  are always ups and downs. One day you’re sitting there and you
  unexpectedly find that you’re blissfully happy and almost totally
  without distraction. The next day your mind is all over the place.
  This is normal, and it’s good to relax, and not be obsessed about
  “getting somewhere.” Yes, it’s good to have the aspiration to move in
  the direction of greater calm and happiness, but the expectation that
  this is going to happen will bring us nothing but pain. Bearing in
  mind the aspiration to move in the direction of greater calm and
  happiness, we simply work with whatever arises, not worrying about
  whether it’s a “good” meditation or a “bad” meditation.


If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transferred from a brain to next life when the brain breaks-up and cease to function? According to the Pali Canon, how are intentions and habits passed on from one existence to another without any material support?
What do the texts tell us about rebirth and the transference of these material phenomena into inmaterial phenomena, and the back to material ones?

More specifically,  how is kamma transmitted from one life to the next. If we consider 'kamma' as intention and habits, how are these transfered from a brain which, as you observed, is destroyed and dissolved after the breakup of the body? Aren't intention and habits a function emerging form the conjuncted activity of brain cells?

Thanks in beforehand.

To understand this you need a complete paradigm shift in the way you are thinking. Stop looking at the world in terms of entities. Drop everything that you think is real involving entities and start looking at the world in terms of experiences arising and dying. In this world you have six types of experiences: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling(tactile) and thinking. You have firsthand knowledge that arising of these experiences is real because they can be sensed. Once you make this paradigm shift, you will understand that the brain is not an experience. The brain cannot be sensed. It is nothing more than a concept fabricated in a thought. No direct knowledge can be gained by building theories based on fabrications. So the question of what happens to the mind when the brain is dead does not arise as it doesn't exist in the first place.

Karma is not a thing that is transmitted anywhere. Karma is simply the volitional action involved in each experience. That volitional action dies with the experience. But it can give a result immediately or in the future. You need to do Satipatthana meditation to see this happening. Ex: if a pleasurable experience arises and you get attached to it, suffering follows when it dies. This is the immediate Vipaka(result) of the Karma you just committed. In the future also if you cannot get this experience, suffering will arise. This attachment also creates a habit of doing things to get similar experiences. This gives rise to new experiences involving fresh Karma.

It is impossible to understand the complete dynamics of Karma unless you become a Buddha yourself, but when you start looking at the world through meditation, you will see that this continuous arising of experiences goes on and on until you cut off what is fueling them to arise. I.e. craving. Even though we do not have complete comprehension, this understanding of Karma is enough to work towards ending of suffering.

In this framework, the medical definition of death becomes just another concept involving entities. You will see that as long as there is craving, the arising of new experiences will never stop. Once the thought pattern makes this paradigm shift, questions like how the mind is transferred to a new body after death etc. do not arise as there is no constant thing called the 'mind' and there is no constant thing called the 'body'. The reality is made up continuous arising of experiences. These experiences have a physical aspect and a mental aspect. They arise due to causes. Read the Paticcasamuppada to get an intellectual understanding and do Satipatthana meditation for direct knowledge.


Can a being be reborn into more that one body in Tibetan Buddhism? I was reading that both the Dalai Lama and Karmapa are both rebirths (emanations) of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara. Also there are other lamas who are also emanations of Avalokiteśvara.

So is Avalokiteśvara reborn into more than one body and if so is every being that is Avalokiteśvara the same in some way? Or is that just different Tibetan traditions? Generally is rebirth restricted to one body or can it be split across more than one? I appreciate that this will be different across branches of Buddhism so can I restrict my question to Tibetan Buddhism.

Because Buddhism denies independent existence of substantial "self", it does not posit literal reincarnation, as in someone literally being a come back of e.g. Ananda (Buddha's favorite student).

Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and responsibilities of a previous person. This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work.

Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one.

In this sense, multiple people could embody the same predecessor. In fact, it is more often  than not a case with Great teachers, that they have multiple "emanations" (usually, of mind, of speech, and of enlightened activity) -- because a regular limited person can't give justice to all of that greatness, so declaring one Tulku would not be appropriate.


Feeling concern for others but like my efforts in anything are wasted I feel concern for others, but like my efforts in anything are wasted. Is there any practice I could engage in, to remedy the latter?

I've been taught meditation in a handful of contexts. What about sort of focusing on or keeping that feeling of nothing mattering, during zazen?

Caveat: I won't believe in other lives, only karma.

I feel concern for others, but like my efforts in anything are wasted. Is there any practice I could engage in, to remedy the latter?

Act of the betterment of other, but do not be attached to the outcome, as you have to practice equanimity, also as part of the Brahmavihara. Otherwise the practice will become a burden and a stress, than away to unburden yourself. I.e., be concerned but not stressed, when the outcome is not what is intended.

  Caveat: I won't believe in other lives, only karma.

Attachment to beliefs is also attachment which can give arise to stress. Generally it is best to avoid believes in the line "this exits or does not exists, that exists does not exits". But having said this you need a set of Right Beliefs but even to these do not get attached.


Will Buddhism last only 5,000 years after Buddha's Mahaparinirvana? Is there any reference/citation saying that Buddhism or Buddha's teachings will last only 5,000 years after Buddha's Mahaparinirvana? How can this be possible if more people like to learn more about Buddha's teachings and Buddhism? Is there any weak point in Buddhism or Buddha's teachings that it is going to cease to accept and learn any more by people because that particular point is no longer adaptable by current/future generation? It could be related to moral principles, rules, disciplines, as well as concepts and ideas.

In the Vinaya (monk's rules), it is said (somewhere) the Buddha's teachings would last for 500 years (rather than 5,000 years). Many Buddhists claim this did not come true therefore the Vinaya teaching is false, for example:

  The passages surveyed so far help to set into context the prophecy that because an order of bhikkhunīs had come into existence during the
  lifetime of the Buddha, the duration of the teachings will be
  shortened to 500 years (Cv X.1). Now this prophecy is surprising,
  since once would not expect the Buddha to do something which he knew
  in advance would have such an effect. In fact, the prophecy in the way
  it is recorded in the Vinaya has not come true, as after 2,500 years
  the teaching is still in existence. Even the bhikkhunī order was still
  in existence in India in the 8th century and thus more than a 1,000
  years after the time of the Buddha.

  Bhikkhu Anālayo

Apparently, this was later altered by the scholar Buddhaghosa to 5,000 years (see here).

However, the majority of Buddhists, including Bhikkhu Anālayo, seem to often interpret many Buddhist teachings in a manner contrary to the original spirit of the teachings (such as, originally, the teachings of the Buddha were to be only accepted upon personal verification rather than through mere faith in unknown things). This seems to make an argument the 500 year prophecy actually came true in respect to the mainstream Buddhist religion. This video seems to make such an argument: The True Dhamma Has Disappeared: Thanissaro Bhikkhu

That being said, the Pali scriptures are mostly still pure so they do continue to exist in their purity.

  In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
  mastering. In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are
  words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent,
  connected with emptiness — will come about.

  Ani Sutta


Reference request: no rest for those with ill will I am looking for a text that I recall having seen in which the Buddha says something like: There is no rest for those who are obsessed with thoughts such as 'he has wronged/harmed me' and similar.

It may have been the Dhammapada...any help is appreciated.

Yes that's verse 3 of the opening chapter of the Dhammapada,

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

"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.

There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.


Monk wanting to upgrade technology If there have been donations for technology upgrades...

Is it possible for someone to ask an abbott exactly what he wants donated funds to be used for? To ask the what specific items he could use?

Quoting from The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople

Appendix D: Examples of Vinaya Practice
This appendix illustrates how the bhikkhu's rules are actually practiced in different monasteries and communities. Each example is taken from the community's own guide or from devotees' experience.
(1) AUSTRALIA: BODHINYANA MONASTERY
...
One can also make an invitation, 'pavarana,' to cover any circumstances that you might not be aware of — a health problem, need for a toothbrush, etc., by saying, "Bhante, if you are in need of any medicine or requisites, please let me know." To avoid misunderstanding it is better to be quite specific, such as — "Bhante, if you need any more food...," "If you need a new pair of sandals..." Unless specified an invitation can only be accepted for up to four months after which time it lapses unless renewed. Specifying the time limit, or giving some indication of the scope of the offering is good, in order to prevent misunderstanding — so that, for instance, when you are intending to offer some fruit juice, the bhikkhu doesn't get the impression you want to buy a washing machine for the monastery!...
In practical terms, monasteries are financially controlled by lay stewards, who then make open invitation for the Sangha to ask for what they need, under the direction of the Abbot. So junior monks even have to ask an appointed agent (generally a senior bhikkhu or abbot) if they may take up the steward's offer — to pay for dental treatment, obtain footwear or medicines, for example. This means that as far as is reasonably possible, the donations that are given to the stewards to support the Sangha are not wasted on unnecessary whims.
If a lay person wishes to give to a particular bhikkhu, but is uncertain of what he needs, he should make invitation. Any financial donations should not be made to 'X Bhikkhu' but to the stewards of the monastery, perhaps mentioning if it's for a particular item or for the needs of a certain bhikkhu. For items such as traveling expenses, money can be given to an accompanying anagarika (dressed in white) or accompanying lay person, who can buy tickets, drinks for the journey, or anything else that the bhikkhu may need at that time. It is quite a good training for a lay person to actually consider what items are necessary, and offer those rather than money...

So I get the impression that,

There are rules (the vinaya)
Their interpretation varies somewhat from one monastery to another
In general a monk may ask if invited to ("please tell me if I can get you something")

The Vegetation section says that a monk can't dig nor command someone else to  dig, but ...

It is, however, allowable for monks to hint to laypeople or novices about what needs doing as long as the words or gestures fall short of a command. When bhikkhus need paths to be cleared, necessary work done on the ground, firebreaks made, etc., any lay attendant wanting to help should listen out for hints and indications: 'A post hole dug over there would be useful'; 'make this ground allowable,' etc. What is needed can then be clarified.

I don't know; that's only what I've read.
I try to avoid telling monks how I think they ought to behave -- more specifically I'll share with them what the rules of this site are, but I don't think it's my place to interpret their vinaya for them.
This is one of several questions on this site which ask what monks are allowed to do, I can't say I understand the motive for asking, so I feel it's difficult to understand what's really being asked.

You wrote that he replied,

"I could use some of my technology upgraded to teach online" upon being asked if he needed anything

I'm not sure what else you expected, "upon being asked". You could perhaps be happy to be told what someone needs, then you don't have to guess.