Buddhist pursuit of peace questions I've been researching about Buddhism and their pursuit for peace and i have some questions.

Do you believe that Buddhism has shaped society today. If so how?
How has Buddhism influenced your life?
Where in Buddhism does it say that you have to live your life in peace?
Do you believe that a pursuit of peace is necessary in today's society?
As a Buddhist, how does a pursuit of peace begin? (How do you pursue it, what does a "pursuit" of peace entail and when does your pursuit end?)
Do you believe that all people should follow a life of peace?
As a Buddhist, do you think that Buddhism has the idea of changing the world?
If Buddhism values finding peace within yourself, how is each person finding peace among themselves going to help change the world? Thank you.

I think the questions are very broad (too broad), so this answer will be correspondingly (too) shallow.
It's 'community wiki' in case you want to edit (add to) it.
Do you believe that Buddhism has shaped society today. If so how?
Yes.
It does so by providing an alternative. If your question is like, "Do you believe 'that door over there' (Buddhism) has shaped 'prison' (society) today?", then Buddhism might be about freedom.
There's an article titled The Taste of Freedom which includes,

"Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline (dhammavinaya) there is but one taste — the taste of freedom": with these words the Buddha vouches for the emancipating quality of His doctrine.

How has Buddhism influenced your life?
I don't think that's on-topic on this site, because that isn't common/shared experience.
Where in Buddhism does it say that you have to live your life in peace?
There's a general concept called non-violence or Ahimsa.
More specifically there are rules of ethics which are called e.g. five precepts: which include "peaceful" rules like "don't kill" and "don't steal" and "don't lie".
Do you believe that a pursuit of peace is necessary in today's society?
I think that people (in society) find stress unpleasant, and that too much stress (or greed) can lead to war and destruction of society. Even if there weren't inter-personal or international problems, there are still personal problems: for example your friends and family (and you) getting sick and old and dying.
So, yes, some alternative to or relief from stress, some peace, is necessary to society.
Various members of society (i.e. people) learn about Buddhism when they feel motivated to.
As a Buddhist, how does a pursuit of peace begin? (How do you pursue it, what does a "pursuit" of peace entail and when does your pursuit end?)
I think it begins with stress. When you experience stress then you pursue peace.
A way to pursue it by following the Buddhist "noble eightfold way" a.k.a. "three-fold training".
The pursuit ends when it's successful.
This is summarized in the Four Noble Truths:

Stress exists
Stress has a cause
There is a  way to end stress
The way to end stress is the "noble eightfold way"

There is more than one school of Buddhism though. In this answer, with the "four noble truths", I'm trying to summarize the earliest school, but see also e.g. the last paragraph of this answer which suggests that the pursuit ends when one is, also, liberated from the stress of (or perhaps peaceful even within the constraints of) Buddhism. This answer suggests there some real difference in the end-stage of different Buddhist schools (but that's probably Too Much Information i.e. more detail than you were looking for).
Do you believe that all people should follow a life of peace?
Yes and no. I don't expect lions to stop hunting. I think people people might be happier and hurt each other less if they were more Buddhist.
As a Buddhist, do you think that Buddhism has the idea of changing the world?
Yes and no. Buddhism is mostly or originally about changing yourself.
Buddhists also have an effect on each other:

Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

Buddhists may also have an effect on society at large (see for example Did the Buddha try to effect social change?) and includes advice for laypeople who continue to live within society.
Furthermore, Mahayana Buddhism includes the concept of not only liberating yourself but also "changing the word" (e.g. liberating "all other sentient beings").
If Buddhism values finding peace within yourself, how is each person finding peace among themselves going to help change the world?
For the better, presumably.
One way is that the purpose of "virtue" is "lack of remorse". In order to find peace, people may find they need to become more effective (e.g. so they can fulfill their social duties).
The Dalai Lama says that happiness comes from making other people happy.


Why people in our realm are so fundamentally different? Apparently, almost all of us living on Earth are the results of specific Bardo Thodol events, that led us here. We all failed to get to the higher realms. Except of course those who voluntarily chosen this place to serve and educate. And those for whom this realm is actually a promotion. We were all reborn.

Considering the countless number of realms, wouldn't it make more sense for people to be much similar in nature being born in one place? Does it mean that all the differences (smart/dumb, greedy/generous, kind/evil, materialistic/non-materialistic, spiritual/ignorant, educated/illiterate...etc) are less important, than something fundamental that unifies us? what is it then? Lust? desires? Outside world is the result of one's development and ultimate true nature of the beings here, so we all deserve what we have? Why such gigantic variety and number of variables? to increase the choice selection for the next life?

The truth is, we don't all live in the same world. The world you perceive is a projection of your mind, so what you see largely depends on your energy which in its turn depends on your karma. Phenomenal reality is not an aquarium full of fish, it's more complicated than that. To the extent that our energy is similar, which means we have made many similar choices in the past, our realities will be overlapping and vice versa.

Someone who came here to teach, may not at all live in the same reality that you live in, but they can project an image into your reality.

My teacher said, a murderer lives in a very different reality than his victim, but they overlap around a few attachments they have in common.

It's complicated, but for practical purposes it's enough to know that it all depends on karma (long term) and on your energy/state of mind (in the immediate timeframe). Karma is what we can control by being careful. Energy can be tuned in meditation and also by controlling your attention. Also, Karma affects your future energy, and energy affects your choices, therefore your karma.


What does "nose breath" mean? What does the following mean?

  You should not try to find the point where the moving air strokes the nostrils, but keep your focus at the nose breath.

This comes from the followingpage that was linked to from another person:
http://mahamevnawa.lk/ananda-sutta-leading-to-awakening/

I'm really not sure what they mean by "the nose breath". I generally have trouble with focusing anywhere near the nose. I can feel some coolness when breathing in, but I can feel nothing on the way out.  I have tried for years and it has never become easier.  That is why I focus on the abdomen as in the Mahasi style, but I still would like to know what this article means.  Can you please explain to me what "nose breath" means?

"You should not try to find the point where the moving air strokes
  the nostrils, but keep your focus at the nose breath".

This means to not try to feel, track or be aware of the breath sensations. Instead, it means to only keep the mind exclusively focused towards the nose. It means to never concern yourself with watching the breath, even if the breath comes into the mind as an object of awareness. Just keep the mind still & anchored in one place.


Pushing onself too much? Is there a thing of pushing oneself too much to practice and doing too much which will cause someone to quit take a break for some time ?  what about too little ?

how you determine the middle way here ?

There is a big obvious difference between doing something because you want it and enjoying the effort, VERSUS beating yourself with a stick like a horse. In one case you are working hard but you're enjoying it, you doing what you believe in, you're getting deep sense of satisfaction from it. In the other case, you are forcing yourself, breaking yourself, torturing yourself - you don't really believe in it, you hate yourself for doing it, but you're still doing it.

My teacher said that the feeling of special enjoyment or satisfaction is a key criteria for success in spiritual practice. If you're doing too little, you will not be happy with yourself. If you are pushing yourself too hard, you will not be happy with yourself. If you are doing it right, it may be hard and painful - but you will feel happy and proud and inspired.


Problems of a Lay Mediator Questions:

  Is it normal to shy away from your family when it is hard to interact
  with them because they are so caught up in defilement and shaming my
  practices?

  And is it proper to not respond to other people's questions or
  comments such as "wasn't that so good" or "do you like/dislike that?"
  or even "you believe in God, right, and you're a good Christian,
  right?" I seem to get these questions and have a hard time putting
  together an answer.

The Buddhist practice revolves around 3 practices:

development of morality and ethics with a view to developing control over the mind
development of control over the mind with a view of developing wisdom through direct and empirical experience
developing wisdom through direct and empirical experience

There is no shame in doing any of the above. Regardless of if you are from a particular culture or religious background you can practice them.


Meditation on Awareness : objects and phenomena vs Awareness On http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/spring2016/91/ , there is an Awareness-based meditation where we are invited to observe the various objects that we are aware off : thoughts, sounds, sensations, etc...

Question 1 :
a/ do these objects appear IN Awareness ? (like clouds appearing IN the sky) ?
OR b/ do these objects appear FROM Awareness (and in this case my analogy with the sky is not correct; because clouds are not made of sky)

question 2 :
I more and more come across the statement that objects (thoughts, sounds, sensations) are in fact MADE OF Awareness; and hence are not distinct from Awareness. But my mind can't understand that...
Has anybody analogies or explanations so that I can understand this (apparently) paradox ?

Thank you all for your replies :)
Namaste

Awareness is a big word, and lots of people idealize it, but in Buddhism awareness is considered something actually pretty simple.

When you look at an object (or a mental object), what really happens is, the features (signs) are recognized and checked against the storage of past experiences, and based on the matching associations an object is then identified. This process is cyclic, meaning, the features are constantly re-evaluated against the memories, and the results of the lookup are fed-back into the same process, finding secondary and tertiary associations and so on. This cyclic process is what creates the experience of "awareness".

When you turn attention to your own mind, nothing really changes, except instead of the external input (or a mental object input) you now have a re-representation of your own mind (your mind-model) as input. This proceeds in the same cyclic manner and creates the experience of "self-awareness".

On each iteration of the cycle, all we have is the content of mind, which is a result of looking up the input coming from sensory organ, plus the last content of mind from the previous iteration, against the storage of past experiences. So on every step of the cycle, the content of mind is literally mind-made, it is comprised of whatever past experiences that happened to associate with the input. And if you think about it, this content is not "seen" by any "awareness" or "witness" (like the Brahmins used to think). Instead, this content of mind is matched against memory, but as soon as the matching associations are found, they slowly supersede whatever content we had on the previous iteration, and become the new state.

So even though we are fooled into thinking that objects of mind are "seen" by "awareness", in reality this seeming "awareness" is just the next set of matching associations coming up from the memory. There is no "I" or "awareness" there, just a train of associations following one another, morphing from one to another.

If you look very closely, there are no full complete "objects" in the mind at any point in time. It's more like, whichever part or aspect of the object you focus on, that's what your mind pulls out of memory by association. If you try to assemble an entire object, the mind actually pulls out several "key" associations and cycles through them, creating an illusion of whole.

Each sensory modality runs its own associative loop, so each sensory modality gets its own "awareness" - which means they can work in parallel with each other. So if the object exists across multiple sensory modalities (like, it has visual AND smell components) - then the visual and smell associations can be active at the same time, without the mind having to cycle through them one at a time, which makes it easier for the mind to fake an integrated experience of a complete object.

It's like that videogame that renders the world as you come closer. The road and the trees are created right under your feet, creating the illusion of a complete world. Same with awareness, the features of objects we look at are instantiated by associations, as we turn our attention to them, creating the illusion of a complete object.

So, to answer your question, the objects are indeed "made of" awareness, and not only that -- there are no complete "objects" ever, only fragments (features) - and they are nothing but pure awareness, pure associations. At the end of the day, both the objects and the awareness are "empty" - there are just signs upon signs and associations upon associations - substituted right-in-time on-demand to create an illusion of "objects", "thinking", "awareness" and "self".


Mindfulness and mental habits When we practice mindfulness we notice our mental habit and mental pattern. What makes us angry, jealous, greedy, etc.. My question is, when you notice them, do you change it to positive mental quality or just watch it?

Someone angry for 'no reason', but actually there is a reason if one keeps the mindfulness. With mindfulness, we realize that the trigger of the anger is for example a certain situation happened yesterday. By realizing this we are no longer angry. Is this also a practice of mindfulness or analyzing? Which one is the correct practice? Thanks all.

In mindfulness, we try to stay in the present moment, being aware of what we are doing and experiencing right here and right now. For the most part, the things that upset us are things that happened in the past, even if the past was just 5 minutes ago. Dwelling on the past would be outside of mindfulness.

A great dhamma talk I've read on this subject is from Ajahn Sumedo called In the moment of mindfulness, there is no suffering.

  In the moment of mindfulness, there is no suffering. I can’t find any suffering in mindfulness; it’s impossible; there’s absolutely none. But when there’s heedlessness, there is a lot of suffering in my mind. If I give in to grasping things, to wanting things, to following emotions or doubts and worries and being caught up in things like that—then there is suffering. It all begins from my grasping. But when there is mindfulness and right understanding, then I can’t find any suffering at all in this moment, now. This is about this moment here and now.

I encourage you to read the rest of the dhamma talk to be inspired to try to live in this present moment.

Regarding realizing you are upset about something that occurred in the past, the simple technique of noting and observing your feeling, such as noting "angry...angry" or "disappointed...disappointed" without replaying in your mind the incident which made you angry or disappointed can help you see that feelings such as these are fleeting and impermanent. They come and go and we can help ourselves see their impermanent nature by not "feeding" them with overthinking them or dwelling in the past but remaining in the present moment and impartially observing that feelings arise and cease.


Does the Lankavatara Sutra exist anywhere online in Tibetan script, Sanskrit (Devanagari), or Chinese? Not sure what the earliest copy is we have of the Lankavatara Sutra, but wondering if it can be found online for free in copy/pastable text format (i.e. not PDF or image).
I am looking through The Kangyur on Thlib but not finding it anywhere. Does it exist in the Kangyur even, is it this?

Per Wikipedia there's a Multilingual edition, Bibliotheca Polyglotta, University of Oslo.
You can use its UI to select how much is displayed -- i.e. one sentence or one chapter at a time, or the whole text at once -- and which laanguages.
The Tibetan and Sanskrit versions are in Roman text, plus there seems to be three Chinese versions/editions, written using Chinese characters.
http://www.dsbcproject.org/ has machine-readable Sanskrit editions of various suttas, you could also try browsing there and/or writing to sanskrit@uwest.edu to ask them.
I think that Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra might be also known as the Saddharmalankavatarasutram.
You're right though that what I see online is mostly non-text image scans.

Is my tibetan link correct do you know? http://www.thlib.org/encyclopedias/literary/canons/kt/catalog.php#cat=d/0108
It might be -- see the "Non-Tibetan Title" -- but I can't read the Tibetan to confirm that.
Also here is a copy from the link you posted:

That more-or-less matches what the Tohoku catalog says on page 25:

I say "more-or-less" because the page numbers match i.e. pages 56 through 191, however the section number is off by one (i.e. 108 instead of 107).


What are the differences between meritorious acts and wholesome acts? A detailed answer with references is highly appreciated!

When we discuss virtuous living and behaviour according to the Buddha's teaching, two special Pali words are used - kusala and punna. Kusala has come to mean 'karmically wholesome', while punna is taken to mean 'merit'.

Often Buddhists in Sri Lanka use the two words to describe one and the same kind of activity - "meritorious". However it would be good to look at these two words in the context of the Buddha's discourses.

There is a difference in the two words, and have to be taken in the context in which they are used. The Buddha has said, "Accumulate much wholesome actions." He has used the term 'wholesome' in the practice of the Noble eight-fold path, and development of tranquillity and insight.

Merit is the term often used to describe actions that bring about spiritual welfare and contentment. He has discoursed, "Bhikkhus, 'pleasant disposition' is another word for 'merit." That would mean one should engage in meritorious deeds to receive a life of comfort and contentment. He has also said that it is an auspicious event in life to be possessing previously accumulated merits.

There is a view among a few lay people as well as monks today that since merits prolong the process of existence and the round of rebirths, one needs to accumulate only wholesome actions and not merit. One gets into debate about merit and wholesome actions due to non understanding of the reasons for the continuance of the round of rebirths. Round of rebirths occur due to Dependent Origination.

If the continuance of the round of rebirths occurs due to Dependent Origination, the latter must cease for the round of rebirths to cease occurring. The way to make that happen is to follow the Noble Eight-fold Path. To fulfil that process, one needs to association of noble friends, hearing the Doctrine and keep company with righteous people. He would also need a rebirth conducive to fulfil the process of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Now, that is where merit plays its part.

A rebirth in worlds of the Brahmas and Devas becomes a very helpful asset to one who searches for the goal of Nibbana. Such rebirths are the results of merits. So we must understand the true worth of merit. Those who spend the time arguing "We do not need merit but only wholesome deeds" unfortunately may end up getting neither.

Undoubtedly, it would be a wholesome action to have a thorough understanding of Merit and wholesome actions before one would discuss them. Trying to discredit merit can only result in accumulating unwholesome actions. The Buddha has this to say about merit: "If one has enthusiasm to do a meritorious deed, do so over and over again. Develop a desire to do merit. Merit is comfort."
The Buddha's consistently emphatic message is to annihilate desire. However, He exhorts desire for merit because merit is needed to make our lives comfortable and conducive to search the goal of Nibbana. Our birth in this world and all our good achievements are results of accumulated merits.

There are those who may say that in today's world many things need money and therefore even doing merit can be expensive. However that may be, money and merit have no real proportion. Merit is something that does not measure and count with money. Merit is based on a non-aggressive and virtuous mentality.
Merit has its origin in right thinking. It is the right thinking that teaches us the benefit of selfless giving, benefit of merit, that good and bad actions have similar outcomes, there is benefit in taking care of one's parents. To say that one cannot do meritorious actions for want of money would not amount to right thinking.

Observing the five precepts, observing the eight precepts on Poya day, Contemplation of the Buddha, Contemplation of the Dhamma and Contemplation of the Sangha, and meditation on loving kindness do not cost money. In short, we can earn merit even from the dish water we throw away. Thus the talk that merit is costly may be misleading to those who don't have money as well as to those whose wealth is more than they can count.


How can one navigate the experience of Tanha I have a no close internet friend who just got stabbed.

Now, seemingly there's nothing more to it than he got in an argument, things were said, and the guy stabbed him. So, my friend doesn't want to involve the police, doesn't want to get any kind of angry revenge toward the perp, he just wants to let it be and carry on doing what he was but with less anger.

Now, for me this seems like an amazing attitude, whether or not he's being hypocritical - which he may not be, it's amazing to have that self control and not even thirst for anything - any kind of sick justice or even self concern.

So, I wondered if there was any way to control my thirsty anger at this turn of events? I don't mean I'm gonna beat the perp up (I don't even know who it was) but yeah, it's wrong to feel anger on someone's behalf, right?

Thanks.

The answer has already been chosen, but I really wanted to provide a personal experience that may help.

Back in my 20s, I was in a Buddhist temple and witnessed a woman getting stabbed and raped. I was able to help her get away, but the angst from that 5 minute event haunted me for years. I would wake up in sweats and even get into fights with abusive men simply because I was still so angry.

What I finally did was go into deep meditation and picture the event as a bubble that would float away. I then pictured myself without that bubble. I (mentally) let it go.

It goes back to what the Buddha first called the Forefold Truths, or the "4" in early language. First, you watch anger, emotions, (suffering) arise but instead of attaching to them, you understand that they are just something that's separate from you. You then use meditation to let them go and when you fully let go, you then have a chance at nirvana or total freedom. Keeping that practice of seeing, understanding and letting go is then the eightfold path.

In essence, being Buddhist is being at peace.


How to exit meditation? I am new to meditation (anapana) as a daily practise: I've been to one retreat, some 4 years ago, noticed how meditation helped me, and then never mediated again. I always knew I should get back to meditating, and so I did: I've been meditating for about a week now, at least once a day (sometimes twice), each section lasting between 20 and 30 minutes. In the beginning I couldn't meditate for more than 10 minutes, but that changed after some sections.

I have now a weird problem: I'm not sure about when should I exit my meditation. When I experience thoughts my reaction is to be aware of them and internalise the word "thoughts", "thoughts", until they pass. The thing is that sometimes the thought that comes up is "man, damn, you've been meditating for 45 minutes... Time to stop". I try to put this though in the basket of "thoughts", but at the same time I know I must stop meditating sometime. I then start to wonder if I should stop meditating or if this thought is a product of my anxiety. By that time my practise is already spoiled.

I considered timing my meditation, then. Unfortunately, when I do that, sometimes the alarm rings too soon and I'd like to meditate more, and sometimes I'm already worrying about when is it going to ring.

This might be a senseless question, but is there a way to decide it's time to stop meditating?

I disagree with Sumida and ChrisW, an hour is too long for beginners and experts alike. In Zen monasteries we do zazen for between 30 - 45 minutes followed by about 10 minutes of kinhin (fast or slow walking meditation), then another period of zazen. For a beginner 20 minutes (or even less) is fine. In time you should aim to raise it to around 30 mins. If you want to do more you should break it up with kinhin (or possibly some yoga).

I agree with Chris that you should use a timer (a countdown timer on a digital watch is ideal). When the timer goes off, then get up (some people sway gently from side to side before getting up). You shouldn't be pondering during meditation whether to get up or not, a) you shouldn't be pondering things during meditation and b) if you practise like this you will turn meditation into an aesthetic experience (I'm enjoying this so I'll sit longer/I'm not enjoying this so I'll get up) which is not right meditation.


Is dependent co-arising an "IF AND ONLY IF A THEN B" relation? "IF AND ONLY IF A THEN B" means if you get B you get A, if you get A you get B, if you don't get B you don't get A, and if you don't get A you don't get B.
Does dependent co-arising have the same relation I've mentioned above?

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form..."

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form..."

If the answer is "yes" to the above question, as we know an Arahant has ceased the craving without remainder. Then do consciousness, name-&-form, six sense media, contact, and feeling not  present in an Arahant? If these present as effects of past birth's causes, how one can escape from this cycle?
If the answer is "no" to my first question, then is there another dependent co-arising which applies to Arahants? (I suppose there's no such)
I know that dependent co-arising is very complex and hard to understand. But, I've got totally confused here. Please someone help me.

OP: Does dependent co-arising have the same relation I've mentioned above?

Yes.

OP: If the answer is "yes" to the above question, as we know an Arahant has ceased the craving without remainder. Then do
consciousness, name-&-form, six sense media, contact, and feeling not
present in an Arahant?

Please see the quote from SN 22.48 below on the five (non-clinging) aggregates and the five clinging aggregates.
In an Arahant, ignorance ceases, hence the five clinging aggregates also cease, thus collapsing dependent origination nidanas. This means that the nidanas of consciousness, name-and-form, six sense media, contact and feeling  that are tainted with clinging, cease in an Arahant.
However, the five (non-clinging) aggregates remain and continue functioning. This is also implied by Nibbana element with fuel remaining in Iti 44. This is also supported by Ven. Thanissaro's commentary quoted below.
When the Arahant passes away, the five (non-clinging) aggregates cease. This is also implied by Nibbana element without fuel remaining in Iti 44.

OP: If these present as effects of past birth's causes, how one can escape from this cycle?

I don't quite understand this question. From my understanding, the way to escape suffering is by uprooting ignorance through cultivating wisdom through the Noble Eightfold Path.
From SN 22.48 (trans. Ven. Bodhi):

“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form
there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the
form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the
feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is
called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional
formations there are … these are called the volitional formations
aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past,
future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate.
These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates.
“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging?
Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far
or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the
form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is
… that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling
aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is …
that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception
aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations
there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called
the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind
of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that
is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness
aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five
aggregates subject to clinging.”

From Iti 44 (trans. Ven. Thanissaro):

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
property with no fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
no fuel remaining."

Commentary on Iti 44 by Ven. Thanissaro:

With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining
(anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is
still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do
not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
here or anywhere else.

From comments:

OP: Five non-clinging aggregates are also conditioned. What is the cause for five non-clinging aggregates? Does that cause lie within the
dependent co-arising?

The origin of the five (non-clinging) aggregates can be found in SN 35.145:

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The
tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.
"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body,
with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

If the next question is "whose old kamma is it?", the answer comes from SN 12.17.


What do ethical conduct (sila) and compassion have to do with the cessation of dukkha? As I understand the Third Noble Truth, the cessation of dukkha is brought about by ending craving. I can see how, for example, practicing renunciation, or seeing no self, assist us in achieving this, but how do ethics and compassion practices like lovingkindness lead us to achieving the end of craving?

Dukkha comes not just from craving, but from unsatisfied craving, in other words from inner conflict between "is" and "should".

Sila, Prajna, and Samadhi are three methods to remove and prevent that conflict: coarse, middling, and subtle conflict.

Sila helps remove and prevent coarse behavioral conflict, like obvious conflicted states of Obsession, Negativity, Egoism, - and their real life results, which manifest as various kinds of conflict.

Prajna helps remove and prevent middling intellectual conflict, through analysis of dharmas, understanding how things work, understanding Three Marks of Existence, and Emptiness, understanding the limits of mind's models and perspectives.

Samadhi helps remove and prevent subtle emotional conflict, like states of negativity, unsatisfaction, craving for a different life etc.

So to answer your question, it helps by reducing, removing and preventing conflict between "is" and "should" which manifests as Dukkha.


Zen's concern with "reality" vs. being in the present In "Zen Mind" Suzuki says: "The true purpose is to see things as they are, to observe things as they are, and to let everything go as it goes". To see things as they are... doesn't that involve an understanding of past and future? Past and future are part of what it is... no? So my question is... if Zen is so concerned with seeing things as they are, why is it only concerned with the present? Isn't the past and future part of what it is? If your mind is in the moment, doesn't it miss the future and past?

Though I might soon sound like a stuck record, the Wild Fox Koan from The Gateless Gate is worth studying when you first become aware of these things.

Zen holds building conceptions and understanding of the world its nature and causes, -- of causation, dependent origination, etc -- distinct from a direct insight obtained by practice. A conceptual understanding is considered necessary but insufficient (and distinct from) to insight through practice, just as owning an almanac is useful in seeing the moon and planets but is not actually seeing them, and is certainly not the planets themselves. This is also a great help when understanding issues of will and agency (which are never far behind).

Conceptions of the past and future are not a part of what is: they are a part of our understanding of what is. The future will come in time or else it will not, and the past, well, you've already missed it. It's very easy to mistake the present for our understanding of it: to have a head-up-display so full of symbols and geometrical constructions that it completely obscures the view.


Is forgiveness a fruit of evil wicked kamma? I read the following on the internet:

  Yet there were still a few who could not forget that Angulimala the
  bandit, with his superior prowess, had shown them in their weakness
  and thus had humiliated them. Out of that resentment, as an act of
  revenge, they were mean enough to injure the venerable Angulimala by
  throwing stones and sticks which struck him when he had gone for alms.
  They must have done so from a safe distance.

  Then with blood running from his injured head, with his bowl broken,
  and with his patchwork robe torn, the venerable Angulimala went to the
  Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming, and he told him: "Bear
  it, brahmana, bear it, brahmana! You have experienced here and now the
  ripening of kamma whose ripening you might have experienced in hell
  over many a year, many a century, many a millennium."

  Being a saint, his mind and heart were firm and invulnerable. But the
  body, the product of former craving, the symbol and fruit of previous
  kamma, was still there in present existence and was still exposed to
  the effects of former evil deeds. Even to the Buddha himself it
  happened that, as a result of former deeds, Devadatta was able to
  cause him a slight injury. Also his two chief disciples had to
  experience bodily violence. The venerable Sariputta had been hit on
  the head by a mischievous demon, and the venerable Maha-Moggallana was
  even cruelly murdered. If this occurred in the case of these three
  Great Ones, how could Angulimala have fully avoided bodily harm — he
  who in his present life had committed so much evil! Yet, it was only
  his body that received these blows, but not his mind. That remained in
  invulnerable equipoise.

In the sutta about Angulimala, King Pasenadi forgave Angulimala of his evil deeds. The sutta says:

  "Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard
  shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home
  life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings,
  refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling
  lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine
  character: what would you do to him?"

  "We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him
  a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal
  requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard,
  protection, & defense. But how could there be such virtue & restraint
  in an unvirtuous, evil character?"

  Now at that time Ven. Angulimala was sitting not far from the Blessed
  One. So the Blessed One, pointing with his right arm, said to King
  Pasenadi Kosala, "That, great king, is Angulimala." Then King Pasenadi
  Kosala was frightened, terrified, his hair standing on end. So the
  Blessed One, sensing the king's fear & hair-raising awe, said to him,
  "Don't be afraid, great king. Don't be afraid. He poses no danger to
  you."

  So King Pasenadi Kosala went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having
  bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the
  Blessed One, "It's amazing, lord. It's astounding, how the Blessed One
  has tamed the untamed, pacified the unpeaceful, and brought to
  Unbinding those who were not unbound. For what we could not tame even
  with blunt or bladed weapons, the Blessed One has tamed without blunt
  or bladed weapons. Now, lord, we must go. Many are our duties, many
  our responsibilities."

Was the forgiveness of King Pasenadi Kosala towards Angulimala a fruit or product of the old evil kamma of Angulimala?

Since the suttas say "kamma is intention", did Angulimala "will" the forgiveness from King Pasenadi Kosala; similar to how a sexy lady may intentionally seduce a man?

Was the forgiveness of King Pasenadi Kosala towards Angulimala a fruit or product of the old evil kamma of Angulimala?

The king's initial fright appears to be a consequence of Angulimala's evil deeds.

The king's forgiveness appears to be a consequence of Angulimala's being tamed.

The king's believing what the Buddha said was -- I'd guess -- perhaps a consequence of the Buddha's earned reputation for speaking truthfully, as well as, his seeing for himself with his own eyes.

Since the suttas say "kamma is intention", did Angulimala "will" the forgiveness from King Pasenadi Kosala; similar to how a sexy lady may intentionally seduce a man?

Are you kidding?

Angulimala's "intention" is perhaps as described by the Buddha:

  Angulimala [is and intends to be]  with his hair & beard shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine character

... and ...

  [one who] poses no danger to you

I also tried to find what Angulimala's root intention or original intention was -- why was he like that now?

According to Angulimala -- A Murderer's Road to Sainthood (which you're quoting in the question), here is what that said about and quoted by Angulimala at the moment of his "conversion":

    (The Blessed One:)

    "Angulimala, I have stopped for ever,
    Foreswearing violence to every living being;
    But you have no restraint towards things that breathe;
    So that is why I have stopped and you have not."

  When Angulimala heard these words, a second and greater change of heart came over him. He felt as if the current of his suppressed nobler and purer urges had broken through the dam of hardened cruelty that had been built up through habituation in all those last years of his life. Angulimala felt now deeply moved by the appearance and the words of the Buddha.

  Angulimala's response and what followed is again tersely told in the Sutta:

    (Angulimala:)

    "Oh, at long last a sage revered by me,
    This monk, has now appeared in the great forest;
    Indeed, I will for sure renounce all evil,
    Hearing your stanzas showing the Dhamma."

His intention appears to be motivated by reverence for the sage and renouncing evil.

What you ask may be partially true though -- an advertised benefit of the (ethical) precepts is that they provide safety (and so freedom-from-fear, I presume) to all beings -- to that extent (i.e. it's because of those consequences) an intention to keep the precepts may include that intention to affect the minds of others or to share the benefit (goodwill and so on).

It's probably not supposed to be deceitful or impermanent though, e.g. in the way that "seduction" which you referenced is often portrayed to be.

And I think the effects of kamma aren't simple and singular, they interact:

I suppose there are many ways to describe his motive and intention -- e.g. "he does it because he knows what good and evil are"; or "because he sees the Buddha's good example"; or "for his own peace of mind"; etc.
Similarly the effects of kamma are numerous -- affecting himself, the king, and others.
And each person's actions are affected by multiple causes -- the king's forgiveness being affected by not only Angulimala but also by the Buddha, and the king's own ability.


Methods for reaching Jhana I have read some books and web resources that deal with reaching access concentration and from there the first Jhana. They all used mindfulness of breathing and mentioned but never described 'other methods'.
Methods I have found mentioned were body scanning and metta/loving-kindness meditation.

Now for the question: What other methods are there? And even more important: How to practice them?

The Theravada tradition recognizes forty meditation types for obtaining at least access concentration, found scattered throughout the Tipitaka and organized in the commentaries, as follows:

1-10: The Kasinas

These all lead to the four jhānas; they are practiced by creating a disk and focusing on it, while repeating, e.g., "earth, earth..."

1. Earth
2. Water
3. Fire
4. Air
5. Blue
6. Yellow
7. Red
8. White
9. Light
10. Space

11-20: Foulness

These lead to the first jhāna; they are practiced by contemplating a corpse in various states of decay

11. Bloated
12. Livid
13. Festering
14. Cut Up
15. The Gnawed
16. Scattered
17. Hacked and Scattered
18. Bleeding
19. Worm-infested
20. a Skeleton

21-30: Recollections

Body and Breathing bring jhāna (body only brings the first jhāna, breath brings all four); the other eight bring only access concentration; they are cultivated by reflecting on the object, e.g. "Buddha, Buddha"

21. Buddha
22. Dhamma
23. Sangha
24. Morality
25. Generosity
26. Angels
27. Death
28. Body
29. Breathing
30. Peace

31-34: The Divine Abidings

The first three bring about the first three jhānas; the fourth brings about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by taking beings as an object, e.g. "May all beings be happy"

31. Love
32. Compassion
33. Joy
34. Equanimity

35-38: The Immaterial States

These bring about the fourth jhāna; they are cultivated by using the fourth jhāna as a base, then expanding and refining the object

35. Limitless Space
36. Limitless Consciousness
37. Nothingness
38. Neither Perception Nor Non-perception

39. Perception of Repulsiveness in Nutriment

This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by reflecting on food as one collects and eats it.

40. Defining of The Elements

This brings about only access concentration; it is practiced by breaking the body up into the four elements.

All forty meditation subjects are described and taught in detail in the Visuddhimagga; highly recommended for those interested.


Who is ignorant and when does one realize that one is ignorant? Who is considered to be ignorant according to Buddhism? What does the term ignorance cover ? When does one realize, one is ignorant ?

Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

everyone who is subject to samsara or the round of rebirths is ignorant, because

  From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
  From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
  From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
  From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
  Fromc ontact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
  From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
  From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging.
  From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming.
  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
  From birth as a requisite condition, then aging &  death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.

Paticcasamuppadavibhanga sutta ( SN 12.2)

i think ignorance covers nescience of the phenomenon of suffering and the way of escape from it

  When does one realize, one is ignorant ?

perhaps once one realizes that they suffer while having no clue how to avoid that

  Can one know nothing of ignorance and still become enlightened?

i find this an interesting  question, my guess is 'NO', but i'm not sure i can explain why i think so and can't remember suttas which explain this point.
that's as far as awakening is concerned

as for nibbana i'm a bit more certain, just as suffering is effected by a  chain of causes, quoted above, so is nibbana, for example

  What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What
  is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus:
  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
  When one sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom, the mind becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
  By being liberated, it is steady;
  by being steady, it is content;
  by being content, he is not agitated.
  Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna.

Anicca sutta (SN 22.45)

an aspirant needs to go through a series of stages of mind development to arrive at that destination and those cannot be bypassed

the first step in curing an illness is its acknowledgement


Type of Energy from Meditation I'm wondering whether 'physical pliancy' and 'mental pliancy' -- found in many meditation texts on samatha -- refers to physical energy. Is this linked or equivalent to virya? Would samatha meditation, despite not being a physical exercise, give one more energy and fight fatigue?

I'm wondering whether 'physical pliancy' and 'mental pliancy' -- found in many meditation texts on samatha -- refers to physical energy. Is this linked or equivalent to virya?

It probably refers to the balancing of the Five Spiritual Faculties, especially
Concentration (samadhi) and Energy (viriya).
If the Energy faculty is unbalanced, leading to the 3rd Hindrance of Sloth and torpor (thina-middha), one needs to arouse energy. This can be done in a number of ways such as;

One can splash cold water in the face before a meditation session
One can do walking meditation in a brisk pace before sitting meditation
One can go to a high place, e.g. a mountain or building and practice
One can make a firm determination to practice effortly and sincerely
One can practice Death-contemplation (Maraṇasati ) to arouse a feeling of urgency
One can reflect on the 5 daily recollections, i.e. That one will grow old, become sick and ill, die, loose everything that one holds dear and that one is the sole heir of one's actions.

In the book "The Way Of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, it's described how to overcome to the hindrance of Sloth and Torpor. Here he writes about the perception of light. I have made highlights in the quote:

3. Sloth and Torpor
Through wrong reflection on a state of boredom and the like, sloth and torpor come to be. Boredom is just dissatisfaction. Lassitude is bodily laziness. Languidity of body is the bending of the body torpidly in getting up and in similar actions. Lethargy after a meal is a dizziness or slight faint which is due to eating a principal meal. It is also called the discomfort which follows such a meal. The mind's sluggishness is the dullness of the mind. An abundance of wrong reflection on boredom and similar states of mind produces sloth and torpor. Therefore the Blessed One said that much wrong reflection on boredom, lassitude, languidity of body, lethargy after a meal, and the mind's sluggishness, is a condition for the production of fresh sloth and torpor and the increase and expansion of sloth and torpor already come into being.
Through right reflection in inceptive energy and similar states of mind is brought about the overthrow of sloth and torpor. Inceptive energy is the effort first set afoot. Exertion is more powerful than the inceptive energy because it leaves indolence behind. And because of its assailing further and further of the destructive condition, progressive endeavor is more powerful than exertion. By the exercise of right reflection intensely on this threefold strenuousness sloth and torpor are cast out. Therefore the Blessed One said that the condition for keeping out new sloth and torpor, and for casting out sloth and torpor that is old, is abundant right reflection on the element of inceptive energy, of exertion and of progressive endeavor.
There are six things which lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor: The seeing of the reason of sloth and torpor in the fact of eating too much or gluttony; the changing of the postures completely; reflection on the perception of light; staying in the open; sympathetic and helpful companionship of the good; and stimulating talk that assists in dispelling sloth an torpor.
There is the following explanation of these six things: The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously is assailed by sloth and torpor while doing his recluse duty of meditation in his day or night quarters as by a mighty elephant pressing down on him, but that one who practices moderation in food is not troubled thus with these hindrances. In one who thus sees the characteristic of sloth and torpor in gluttony there is the casting out of sloth and torpor.
Sloth and torpor disappear in him who changes over from the posture which induces sloth and torpor to another; in him who reflects on the brightness or the light of the moon, a lamp or a torch by night, and on the light or brightness of the sun by day; in him who lives in the open; in him who associates with sympathetic and helpful companions, like the Elder Maha Kassapa, who have dispelled sloth and torpor; and by stimulating talk connected with a strict recluse-regimen.
Therefore it is said: Six things lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor. The yogi understands thus: sloth and torpor cast out by these six things are stopped from arising forever in the future by the attainment of the path of arahantship.
The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously after the manner of the well-known types of Brahmanical gormandizers mentioned in ancient Indian books. There are five kinds of these greedy eaters: (1) He who eats until he has to be raised up by the hand from his seat. (2) He who lies rolling just where he has eaten and eats as long as he likes. (3) He who eats until he slips off his waist cloth. (4) He who fills himself with food in such a way that it seems as if a crow could peck at the food in him. (5) He who having filled his belly full and vomitted eats more food again, or he who eats until he vomits.
On the light or brightness of the sun by day: The meaning should be understood thus: Sloth and torpor vanish in him, too, who at night is reflecting on the image of the perception of the brightness of the sun he got by day.
Here it may be helpful to state the eight ways of dealing with torpor taught by the Master to the Elder Maha Moggallana: (1) One should neglect to mind the thought which says that drowsiness is descending on one, or (2) one should reflect on the Dhamma, or (3) repeat or recite the Dhamma, or (4) pull both earlobes and rub or massage the limbs with the hands, or (5) getting up from the sitting position, apply water on and rub the eyes, and look into the distance, at the constellations in the starry sky, or (6) reflect on the thought of light, or (7) fix the thought on the ambulatory, aware of the ends of it with the controlling faculties of sense turned inwards and the mind kept in, or (8) sleep conscious of the time of waking and on awaking get up quickly thinking that one will not give oneself to the comforts of lying down, reclining and languor, when all other seven ways fail.

May this be of use to you.


Fear of Samsara in Others I have been recently experiencing tremendous fear, but as I look through my eyes at the world and the objects it contains, the fear does not accord with what I see. The world itself is beautiful but people's minds seem tarnished by a neurosis. They seem to define themselves by this very neurosis.
I notice all the little behavioural patterns they play and how they are trapped by them. I find this very fearful, and it affects my ability to integrate with people. Furthermore, I often find myself 'playing along' but knowing that I'm playing along. This seems disingenuous and somewhat incongruent. I have avoided television for 4 years because of this falsity, but it is becoming very prominent just now. Only the other day I caught a few seconds of a TV program where they were discussing Covid-19 death rates like it was some kind of sporting event. I find humans very peculiar.
At the level of mind I am able to see the danger present in the world and act accordingly but this comes from a natural inclination instead of from a fear-based story. This doesn't stop me feeling fear for that mode of being we call samsara.
It is possible - or highly likely - that this fear could be my own samsaric turmoil looking to find a footing in the world as someone who is fearful of others and that its real plight lies in keeping the wheel turning.
My question is, from a Mahayana perspective, how can I come to love the samsara that I see in others?
I'm happy to welcome answers from other traditions.
Be well.

You are beginning to notice the natural behaviors that we all carry out. This is a great thing as most people don't even take a moment to understand their behavior or how/why it functions that way.
As you are noticing like this, all kinds of weird side effects may start arising, as you are really shaking the foundation of the way you perceive the world. Fear for others may arise, sadness for others may arise, meaninglessness of the world may arise, great purpose for the world may arise, all kinds of things may arise because of this new noticing on behavior of others & workings of the world.
What you are experiencing is a normal phase of investigating the spectrum of behaviors. Keep investigating and don't give too much importance to the fear or other feelings that arise from it (otherwise you may feed & strengthen those feelings).
As you keep investigating, you will begin to understand why people play out these behaviors and you will begin to understand why this fear arises in you as a response. As your understanding of these things deepens, it will help you through this phase and eventually it will pass. What you'll be left with is better understanding of peoples behaviors, which parts of them are conducive to their long term happiness, which ones aren't, which ones you should support in them or not and which ones you should "play along with".
If you understand why we all "play out" these behaviors, then it no longer appears as "playing out" because you understand why you are doing it and it's purpose. For example:
"If I don't greet this person I just met kindly and go through the normal interactions they might expect, they may get upset and that would unnecessarily increase their pain/suffering, so better that I help them avoid that pain."
With this kind of understanding in your interactions, the feelings of disingenuousness should fade away.
Keep up this process and you naturally will come to love the world and everything in it. Understanding is love.
Additionally, I recommend meditating on the four Divine Abodes and trying to encompass those attitudes when interacting with others, this may be of great help.


Experience of non self When experience a cittarupa understand arise if no thoughts come regarding  them self  will  disappears. What is that experience?

Citta-Rupa simply refers to resp. the mind and the body. According to the Abidhamma, this is the everyday human experience where Citta conditions Rupa. What you are referring to as "self will dissapear" is called nirodha samapatti, as detailed in the Abidhamma. It refers to a state of Nirvana while still living in Samsara.

To attain Nirvana, the Abidhamma refers to a specific Citta called Cuti-Citta, this is the mental precognition of physical death:

  Even though there is a single nibbana as its nature, nibbana is talked
  to have two different forms, saupadisesa nibbana and anupadisesa
  nibbana. Saupadisesa nibbana is nibbana when sattas are still in the
  samsara are when they are alive. This nibbana is only present in
  arahats or anagams while they are in nirodha samapatti. Nirodha means
  disappearance and samapatti means to be in a state of. Anupadisesa
  nibbana is the state immediately after cuti citta of arahats.

  Immediately after cuti citta of arahats, there is no more kammaja
  rupa, cittaja rupa and aharaja rupa. That state from the sattas just
  gone to nibbana is said to be the state of nibbana called anupadisesa
  nibbana as there is no trace of so called satta that is no citta, no
  cetasika, no kammaja rupa, no citta rupa, and no aharaja rupa. Utuja
  rupa just left is like other bahiddhika rupa and not attached to any
  satta. So such nibbana is a complete and absolute peace. This is the
  state all Buddhists are trying to attain after their paccima bhava or
  final life .

Note that in Theravada Buddhism Nirvana without residing in Samsara can only be attained upon physical death. In Mahayana Buddhism, this "requirement" is eliminated, though many Mahayana traditions still refer to the moment of enlightenment as "The Great Death".


Meditation "thinking" "imagining" mental note : Ven . Mahasi Sayadaw tradition Practice Ven . Mahasi Sayadaw tradition meditation

I have had two incidents recently  .

Said something that should not have said
Stopped happening an argument that my mind really wanted to do

Now when I do mindfulness meditation following happens

Haunting "bad feeling" , so I make a mental note of "thinking,
thinking"
Mentally "imagining" that I'm performing that argument " ,so I make a mental  note of "Imagining , Imagining"

But above two process keep happening even I do relevant mental note for many times (around 20 times )

Eventually they stop but later again pop up ( so I continue the same mental noting)

Should I keep continue mental noting or try to surpass those ? Is it OK to keep going such imagining / thinking for long time while keeping mental notes ?

I would advise three things:
First, given that you experience the thoughts as bad, it is possible that you are ignoring the emotions surrounding the thoughts. If you are upset by the thoughts that arise, it is also important to acknowledge that as "disliking" or "upset", etc.

According to the satipaṭṭhāna suttaṃ, Buddha had stated that any consciousness, thought or impression associated with lust must be recognized and mentally noted as such. One must recognize and be aware of Citta (consciousness, thought or impression) which is associated with or dissociated from (a) lust or craving: (b) anger or hatred; and (c) ignorance or delusion.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Vipassana

Second, the practice of insight meditation isn't to make thoughts or memories go away; what you are experiencing is the characteristic of non-self - that you can't control your mind, no matter how you try. Insight meditation helps you to see this, so you are less affected by the experiences.

Next, the yogī will become convinced that all these psycho-physical phenomena are occurring of their own accord, following nobody's will and subject to nobody's control. They constitute no individual or ego-entity. This realization is anattānupassanā-ñāṇa.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Practical Vipassana Meditation Excercises

Third, meditation is a gradual training; just like any training, it takes time to become proficient.  As the Mahasi Sayadaw says:

As the yogī goes on noting thus, he will be able to note more and more of these happenings. In the beginning, as his mind wanders here and there, the yogī may miss noting many things. But he should not be disheartened. Every beginner in meditation encounters the same difficulty, but as he becomes more practised, he becomes aware of every act of mind wandering till eventually the mind does not wander any more.
-- Ibid


How to determine whether a 10 days S.N. Goenka Vipassana course is safe for my friend or relative? I have recently participated in a 10 days S.N. Goenka Vipassna course, which had incredible positive results. I feel like I shed 20 tons off my heart, and most importantly I am able to practice daily and to be aware of Sankaras before they 'stick'. My life has improved significantly in each and every aspect, and I was even able to bring positive awareness to the lives of my beloved ones.

Naturally I want everyone to participate in a course immediately, especially people I am close to, and especially those who are in great suffering. But while trying to understand whether the course is safe for everyone or not, I've developed some doubt. Some experiences sound really unhealthy, like these:

The 10 Day (Goenka) Vipassana Retreat – A Warning
TERRIBLE and TRAUMATIC experience at Goenka retreat
Vipassana : Diary of a Bipolar episode following meditation
Mental breakdown triggered by Goenka retreat meditation

(TL;DR - People are describing long periods of suffering, depression and even a bipolar episode).

To be fair, it's not that easy to find many negative reports about the course, but seems like some people were significantly hurt, and the Vipassana course organizers / teachers weren't able to screen them beforehand or to guide them to the safe, healing zone of the technique.

Another issue is the big amount of people leaving the course in the middle. This doesn't necessarily indicate they had an overall bad experience, but surely for many people leaving in the middle comes with some negative effects. I assume going on a course at a bad time, and leaving in the middle, might cause the participant to lose the chance of acquiring the technique for life (which is, IMHO, quite terrible).

I have the option of remaining totally neutral towards whether a friend goes on a course or not, but I believe this is not necessarily the right, responsible approach. If I have the power to influence someone to acquire this amazing tool in a healthy manner, I think I also have the responsibility to do so. Similarly, if the course might be dangerous for someone, I must at least warn her / him.

What approach should be taken while deciding whether to go on a course or not, or whether to encourage someone to go on a course?

I would suggest that you trust yourself to make that decision for each individual you are contemplating the recommendation.

You have personally taken the course so you have firsthand knowledge of its contents and rigors. The people you are going to be talking with are 'close' by your description so you already know a lot about who they are and should understand (or be able to learn through discussion) approximately where each one is on their personal journey on the path toward Enlightenment - and what help they might need.

With those pieces of knowledge, and the additional understanding of the issues others have had with the course (references you provided in your question), you are in a good position to analyze the issues for each and make that decision.

For those you decide to approach, I would make sure to spend the time informing them not only about the benefits you obtained but also some about the potential negatives that others have had. In this way, they will have all of the information they will need to look within themselves and decide if this is right for them.

In my opinion, withholding knowledge of training which you feel could help another would be as bad as blithely recommending it without providing the understanding of the possible difficulties they might encounter.

Through using your judgement and taking the middle path, I believe you will have done your best to assist all of them on their journey.


Ultimate existence and the self in Mahayana I was reading the SEP article on the two truths

According to the abhidharmakosa:

  An entity, the cognition of which does not arise when it is destroyed
  and, mentally divided, is conventionally existent like a pot and
  water. Ultimate existence is otherwise

The article adds that:

  For a thing to be ultimately real is for that thing to be
  “foundationally existent” (dravya-sat / rdzas yod)

Does any Buddhist school claim that what arises when it is divided or destroyed, whether or not that exists etc., is the self?

According to Tibetan system of tenets, the Vaibhāṣikas so-called 'Hinayana school of tenets' defines an ultimte truth as:

  A phenomenon such that an awareness apprehending it is not cancelled
  if it is broken up or mentally separated into its individual parts.

Illustrations of ultimate truths are:

  directionally partless particles, temporally partless [moments of]
  consciousness, uncompounded phenomena, any of the five aggregates.

Mahayana tenets assert that Vaïbashikas do not posit selflessness of phenomena, but merely [a grosser] selflessness of persons. Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen writes:

  A selflessness of phenomena is not accepted because it is accepted
  that if it is an established base it is necessarily a self of
  phenomena.


Do Buddhists believe Buddha to be God? Do Buddhists practice idolatry? I have seen Buddhists worship Gautam Buddha, a great personality, a great philosopher, a great social reformer and spiritual master, with incense and candles. They would offer flower to his idol made of up of  rock, marble, metal, wood, etc and also offer bowls of water and eatables in front of him, like the Hindus.

Old fashion hindu, brahma, was begun before buddhism, so people in buddha time usually worshiped to  their god, before they change to be the buddha-follower.

Buddha just change them from god-believer/random-result/suffering-still-remain
 to cause&effect-professor/best-advantage/suffering-perfectly-vanishing.

So, if they normally worship god with incense, candles, flower, etc, buddha just change them to worship the cause&effect-professor, buddha&dhamma&saṅgha, instead.

Because idol and statue are what the follower try to imitate to do and to be the same. If they were still paying the worship to god, they will be god-believer, but if they change their habit to pay their worship to buddha/dhamma/saṅgha, they will be cause&effect-professor instead.

Example, can you change the homeless habit immediately? If you can't, how can you use their daily habit to change themselves?

This is the reason why the buddha is the best teacher, anuttaro purisadhammasārathi&bhagavā, because he can change the illogical homeless/illogical king/illogical people to be the perfect cause&effect-professors.

Another, Worshiping, offering, giving gift, donating, making statue, naming the road as the people name, and investing are just an exchange. We are acting like that because we expecting some effects.

So, the buddha just let them do the right exchange by leting them change their common action, god-worshiping, to the new right habit, cause&effect-worshiping, such as in Sutta. Ma. U. mahācattārīsakasutta, that the buddha taught the listener to worship to right reason, right relation of causes&effects, instead of god:

  sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā[saṅkhāra, kamma-bhava] right view depending on kilesa-vaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda [kāma-āsava (kāma-upādāna), diṭṭhi-āsava (diṭṭhi-upādāna, sīlabata-upādāna), bhava-āsava (attavāda-upādāna), avijjā-āsava], right view that is kammavaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda, right view that give vipākavaṭṭa-paṭiccasamuppāda.atthi dinnaṃ [sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko],There is given-gift-action['s fruit and result of good and bad given-gift-actions].atthi yiṭṭhaṃ [sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko] , There is worshiped-action['s fruit and result of good and bad worshiped-actions].atthi hutaṃ [sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko], There is given-oblation-action['s fruit and result of good and bad given-oblation-actions].atthi sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko, There is fruit and result of good and bad actions.atthi ayaṃ loko [sukatadukkaṭaṃ kammaṃ], There is this-aggregate (=cause) [loka sutta].atthi paro loko [phalaṃ vipāko], There is another-aggregate (=effect).atthi mātā [imā lokā sukatadukkaṭā kammāikā], There are benefactor mother (=cause).atthi pitā [imā lokā sukatadukkaṭā kammāikā], There are benefactor father (=cause).atthi [imā lokā sukatadukkaṭā] sattā opapātikā,There are benefactor deva (such as died mother, died father).atthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipannā ye imañca lokaṃ parañca lokaṃ sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedenti.There are teachers who have done right path then have clearly viewed this-aggregate (=cause) and another-aggregate (=effect) by themselves.


Samatha while studying I heard about the practice of concentration. But I work 13 hours per day doing coding. How can I meditate while studying, thinking really deep?

I can focus on one static object, but not reading (coding) documentation, write code remaining in one state of completely self center

Higher levels of concentration is not possible while the mind is active but you can have some level of non-exclusive focus on like the breath or bodily sensations while working. You need to develop initial and sustained focus on a chosen object.


Talents/Skills we possess as Humans I have a strong desire to be an actor but I don't possess such skills... So is it possible that after reincarnation I come back in a body/form with acting skills. (I know this is a childish question but please help me)
I really want to know.

You can be reborn in this life as an actor. In a fundamental way, life is like a stage and we are the actors in the play. I guarantee you that your desires will lead to results.


How to avoid subtle biases and inclinations to influence phenomena when doing vipassana? In other words, how do I know if I'm really being objective?

Find out the difference between what are concepts and what is.

Follow the sensation of the breath not the idea of the breath.

Follow the sensation of the feet as they move exactly in the present moment and don't follow the idea of the feet.

Notice thoughts as they happen or as they are remembered but don't make an effort to notice or not notice the content of the thoughts.

Notice what mental content is being reacted to, notice intentions.

When you merely witness what is in attention and realize that it is what it is then there cannot be any bias in that moment. Bias comes with consepts.


What does Buddhism say about practicing Spiritism? What Buddism teaches about Spiritism, especially the Kardecist Spiritualism Doctrine (link above)?
Is it wrong to try to communicate with the ghosts and to learn from spirits?

Despite the idealised and Romanticised versions of Buddhism popular in the West, which suggests that Buddhists are only interested in Enlightenment, historically and presently Buddhists have always maintained social practices which are unrelated to the such lofty goals. Amongst these are belief in and practices related to unseen entities which can loosely be called "spirits".

Spirits play an important role in daily life in almost all traditional Buddhist countries. In Burma for example, spirits are called "nat" and in Thailand "phi" (Encylcopedia Britannica). Phi are spirits of towns, homes, caves, and so on. Such spirits are the object of rituals and superstitions. Nats are imagined to look like humans. Thai people make little houses for spirits to live in.

In addition the traditional texts of Buddhism are full of references to spirits (devatā) of various kinds. Prominent types include yakkha, nāga, and kinnara. Tree spirits were, and still are in modern India, a focus of religious activity. The commentarial back story to the famous Karaṇīya Metta Sutta tells of how the sutta was spoken after some monks disturbed a family of 'tree spirits' or rukkhadevatā, who responded with fearful apparitions and terrible smells. (See How the Karaṇīya Mettā Sutta Came About). Tree spirit worship is also common in Thailand. Across India and Asia large old trees become shrines.

It seems that Buddhists assimilated animistic beliefs very early on, along with ideas and practices from Brahmin culture, and possible Zoroastrianism (via migrating Iranian tribes). Buddhism has always been syncretistic (i.e. it assimilates elements from other traditions). It's very likely that when speakers of Indic languages, who eventually became the dominant culture, first ventured into the Ganges Valley, they encountered people who spoke Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman languages for whom animism was a principle form of religion. They are the likely source of yakkhas for example, who share many characteristics with Burmese nats.

Many modern day Buddhists of my acquaintance are firm believers in ghosts, spirits and minor deities. I have been present at and even participated in more than one ritual to propitiate local spirits for example (in New Zealand, Britain and Spain). An account of some of these modern practices can be found in a book by Sally McAra, Land of Beautiful Vision, which is an anthropological account of a stupa building project by a Triratna Buddhist group in New Zealand. This includes discussion of the idea of local spirits, influenced by Māori beliefs.

So while the specific form of spiritualism you ask about is unfamiliar, Buddhists through the ages have believed in and engaged with spirits of many different kinds.


How much should one eat when following the not-eating-after-noon precept? In my understanding, there are a few ways to follow the not-eating-after-noon precept. Here are what I know of:

Two meals per day + juice/sugar water: breakfast and lunch, juice or sugar water for dinner.
Two meals per day: breakfast and lunch, nothing but plain water after noon.
One meal per day: lunch only. Plain water only before and after lunch.

I am a layperson working in an air-conditioned office. In my experience of method 1, I can do with normal amount of breakfast and lunch. But for method 2, sometimes I need more amount of lunch, say 1.5 times of a normal lunch. Never did try method 3.

I wish those who have experience can share their thought on the appropriate amount of food, and also the ways of following it. I believe Buddha had suggested to have moderate amount of food, but how much is considered as moderate?

It will depend on the amount of physical work one does, but since you've said you work in an office, I would say one meal a day is enough for maintaining the body healthy if you have no digestive problems. I started having one normal-sized meal per day 2 years ago and I've had no problems. I'd recommend seeing what fits for you by making gradual adjustments.

Bear in mind that the following quotes are directed at monks but, depending on one's health & working conditions, laymen are also capable of following the advice:

  “And how does a bhikkhu observe moderation in eating? Here, reflecting
  carefully, a bhikkhu consumes food neither for amusement nor for
  intoxication nor for the sake of physical beauty and attractiveness,
  but only for the support and maintenance of this body, for avoiding
  harm, and for assisting the spiritual life, considering: ‘Thus I shall
  terminate the old feeling and not arouse a new feeling, and I shall be
  healthy and blameless and dwell at ease.’ It is in this way that a
  bhikkhu observes moderation in eating.
  -AN 4.37, Non-decline (Aparihāniya-suttaṃ)

  “Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. By so doing, I am free from
  illness and affliction, and I enjoy lightness, strength, and a
  comfortable abiding. Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. By so
  doing, you too will be free from illness and affliction, and you will
  enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding.”
  -MN 65, To Bhaddāli (Bhaddāli-suttaṃ)

  And how, bhikkhus, should the nutriment edible food be seen? Suppose a
  couple, husband and wife, had taken limited provisions and were
  traveling through a desert. They have with them their only son, dear
  and beloved. Then, in the middle of the desert, their limited
  provisions would be used up and exhausted, while the rest of the
  desert remains to be crossed. The husband and wife would think: ‘Our
  limited provisions have been used up and exhausted, while the rest of
  this desert remains to be crossed. Let us kill our only son, dear and
  beloved, and prepare dried and spiced meat. By eating our son’s flesh
  we can cross the rest of this desert. Let not all three of us perish!’

  “Then, bhikkhus, the husband and wife would kill their only son, dear
  and beloved, prepare dried and spiced meat, and by eating their son’s
  flesh they would cross the rest of the desert. While they are eating
  their son’s flesh, they would beat their breasts and cry: ‘Where are
  you, our only son? Where are you, our only son?’

  “What do you think, bhikkhus? Would they eat that food for amusement
  or for enjoyment or for the sake of physical beauty and
  attractiveness?”

  “No, venerable sir.”

  “Wouldn’t they eat that food only for the sake of crossing the
  desert?”

  “Yes, venerable sir.”

  “It is in such a way, bhikkhus, that I say the nutriment edible food
  should be seen. When the nutriment edible food is fully understood,
  lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood. When
  lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood, there
  is no fetter bound by which a noble disciple might come back again to
  this world.
  -SN 12.64, Son's Flesh (Puttamaṃsūpama-suttaṃ)


Opposite of buddhism Is there anything considered the opposite of Buddhism? I have guesses and I'm thinking contrasts might give interesting insights.

In my limited understanding, the concept of an "opposite" to Buddhism is over dichotomising. I think some meaning might be put to it though if we consider what's offered as "not-buddhism" here The Four Seals of Dharma and consider thoughts, actions, and other deeds which might increase suffering for oneself and others.

What are we likely to believe that runs contrary to Buddhism and is likely to cause harm?

Possible examples below.

For each of Rinpoche's points we have:

"All compounded things are impermanent": A negation would be "Some compounded things are permanent." While the opposite would be "All compounded things are permanent." We readily see the opposite is false just by virtue of things being able to move. What things can we consider permanent? If we just postulate the existence of such, what are implications and what destructive actions might they lead to? I draw a blank here.

"All emotions are painful": Any contrary to this whether a negation or a precise opposite would probably imply some clinging. If we regard an emotional state as truly representing reality, we are likely to cut ourselves off from reality. Does any emotional state entail a bit of ego, a certain false self distorting our perspective? We also have the dualism problem Rinpoche elaborates.

"Everything is empty; lacking inherent existence": He simplifies, The way things appear is not the way they actually are. The opposite would be, appearances are never deceiving. This means we should never doubt our first impressions.Now impressions are often out of context. What we think they are, we think they are, despite other impressions giving us more insight. I think this would increase delusion.

"Nirvana is Beyond Extremes": I'm not sure what this means in its original form and have no guesses as to what might constitute an opposite.

Well, first point... Things do not have opposites. Things simply are. Qualities have opposites, and to the extent that a 'thing' is seen as an epitome of certain qualities, we can point at other 'things' that have opposing qualities. So (properly speaking) Buddhism doesn't have an opposite, although there may be other movements that try to create exactly the opposite of the qualities that Buddhism strives for.

With that in mind, I'd point at any kind of fanaticism: political nationalism, religious fundamentalism, commercial exploitation, ideological extremism... any movement that intentionally distorts perception and understanding, and purposely creates turmoil, in order to advance some abstraction. I'll leave examples to the reader, so as not to politicize.


When will a Buddhist accept doing analysis? As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where analysis is necessary to remove an attachment, automatically rejecting intellect means (1) the attachment is not removed, and (2) they don't think they have attachment at all. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have anti-thought bias, and I think anything they say would be thought-terminating clichés at that point.

How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant?

Related:

intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?

In the Hindu tradition they talk about four different yogas, or spiritual learning styles (the following adapted from the Vedanta Society, of whom I am fond):

Bhakti Yoga: the path of love and devotion. This path emphasizes practices such as prayer, chanting, and meditation on the loving presence in our lives.
Jnana Yoga: the path of knowledge. This path uses reason and discernment to discover the divine nature within by casting off all that is false, or unreal.
Karma Yoga: the path of selfless work. Those who follow this path do work as an offering and expect nothing personal in return, practicing detachment and equanimity.
Raja Yoga: the path of meditation. This path allows us to experience higher states of consciousness where we achieve a deeper understanding.

The Hindu tradition sees these as equally valid and non-exclusive, and while this can cause some confusion and consternation at times, it rarely leads to outright disputes.

The Buddhist path focuses on what the Hindus would call raja yoga. There are many examples of the other modes — e.g. the Bodhisattva vow, which is karma yoga; metta practices, which are bhakti; and studying the precepts and teachings, which is jnana — but since Buddhism has always been (to coin a term) 'anagnostic' (rising up out of innate knowledge), the other modes have always held a lesser place in its worldview.

All of which is to say: you cannot expect everyone to follow your path, or to agree with you that it is correct, and if you wish to challenge a dominant paradigm you must first respect that paradigm and the people who practice it.

I see you have a bee in your bonnet on this issue. You want to 'fight' a 'bias', and that attitude is itself problematic. The best way you can serve others is by understanding what they are trying to offer you. When you understand them, then you will be in a position to change their minds; not before.


How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible? How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?
This is a question I’ve made to myself in multiple oportunities, especially after having explained the basics of (what I understand about) the Dhamma to people not acquainted with it. When in such circumstance, I interpret that thought (the question) not necessarily as doubt in the Dhamma, but as a question of “common-sense”.
I have my own arguments that I’ve been buiding over the years about why I think attaining Nibbana is possible, but ultimately, it seems to be just a statement coming from faith and from the extension of a principle that until now has proven to be true, logical, compatible with evidence and useful (namely, the idea of the dukkha as a consequence of tanha, and that the diminishing of the presence of tanha leads to the diminishing of the presence of dukkha).
But, what does assure us that such principle could be applied until the complete eradication of dukkha?
It’s like thinking that just because the scientific method has shown itself to be useful in -apparently- understanding some aspects of reality (based on our ability to use the information gained through the application of the method to predict outcomes, to built technology to achieve some ends, and the ever growing power to keep understanding more and subtler aspects of nature), that would necessarily mean that understanding everything about reality is possible. Personally, I don't think that's the case, because I consider the possibility of reaching a point where our technology does not "expand" enough the power of our senses (i.e., we reach a practical limit of detection of events or presence of some entity or phenomenon), or that there could be stuff in Reality that do not interact with the things we can effectively interact (no matter how subtle or indirect the degree of interaction with such phenomena).
Could it be the case that there is a physical, biological or spiritual (whatever that could mean) condition that could limit the application of the Buddhist method to the very end, just like what could happen with the application of the scientific method?
Just in case, I don’t see any problem admitting to myself that faith in -what the suttas tell us about- the Buddha and in my own experience is what keeps driving me forward in this path. I think that science is not that different in this regard: through inductive reasoning, and assuming the reality of an external world, the possibility of knowledge of (at least) some parts of it, and the regularity of events, faith (or confidence in the reality of the assumptions) seems to be an useful principle when investigating nature.
So, the question can be formulated as such: what is the epistemic justification for having confidence on the possibility of complete eradication of dukkha? One can have confidence, but based, for instance, on this definition of knowledge, how can we justify the belief about the possibility of Nibbana, beyond inductive reasoning and confidence?
I think this question could be particularly beneficial for putting to test the recurring idea of both Buddhism not contradicting knowledge gained (or possible to be eventually gained) through empirical means, and Buddhism as a “science of the mind”.
I’d love to here your thoughts on this.
EDIT: There's an ongoing discussion on this same question of D&D-SuttaCentral. There are very good answers and feedback in my opinion. If you're interested, here you'll find the thread.
Kind regards!

the diminishing of the presence of tanha leads to the diminishing of the presence of dukkha... the extension of this principle... via inductive reasoning... applied all the way until complete eradication of dukkha...

Let's reason logically:
We know that everything in life of a sentient being can be subsumed under subjective experience. For a sentient being subjective experience is life, subjective experience is what matters.
All subjective experience can be broadly categorized as either "rather good" ("nice", "right", "satisfying", "positive", "pleasant", or at least acceptable/neutral) or "rather bad" ("nasty", "wrong", "annoying", "negative", "painful" etc). Therefore, for sentient beings, the character of their subjective experience is the essence of the difference between the Good and the Bad.
Now, subjective experience is made of the mind, it is a state of mind. There's no subjective experience outside of mind. And the nature of mind is representation, it is made of information that stands for something. Therefore subjective experience is a flow of interpretation generating a stream of representations. How can it be good, right, pleasant or bad, wrong, painful?
The nature of interpretation is such that it allows no contradictions. Contradicting evidence interferes with interpretation. Contradicting conclusions are a failure of interpretation. Therefore any such interpretative contradictions are harmful to the very process of interpretation which is the nature of the subjective experience.
Therefore it is the interpretative contradictions that make the difference between the good, right, pleasant, harmonious experience and the bad, wrong, painful, discordant experience.
Now, the interpretative contradictions come from a clash of two or more incompatible representations pertaining to the same subject. The way we give rise to interpretative contradictions is twofold. The coarse ones are created by getting into a circumstance of life with inherent contradiction between the elements of the situation. The subtle ones are generated directly in the mind.
According to the Buddha, the coarse ones are eradicated through the consistent practice of social and behavioral ethics - choosing one's actions such as to not create causes for discordant circumstances - while the remaining subtle ones are eradicated in meditation, by mastering one's attention and interpretation mechanisms as to prevent all kinds of inner discord.
If this were all there was to Buddhism, your doubt would be justified. Indeed, how can we know with absolute certainty that it is possible for an individual sentient being to reach a state where their mind, their process of interpretation, will no longer give rise to any and all interpretative contradictions caused by incompatible representations? Isn't the very nature of mind being a product of representations - simplified and partial by their very nature - inevitably leads to arising of conflicts? Isn't representation inherently conflict-prone?
To answer this question we need to get very clear about the mechanism behind the process of interpretation. Interpretation is an act of translating one or more signs into a category of experience this sign (or signs) signify (or represent). These links between signs and the categories, as well as the signs and the categories themselves, is something we learn from experience and absorb from our parents and other people as well as from various media.
As a sentient being accumulates these signs, categories, and interpretations - it connects them together into one semiconsistent structure called "everything I know about the world". The same totality of one sentient being's representations, with all its opinions and interpretations is what makes up its personality. Personality is the other side of the coin of "the world as we know it". The root of personality is Ego, the inferred notion that "I am the subject and my experience is consistent". In other words, Ego is this assumption that our interpretation and therefore our experience is done from a certain point of view, a certain perspective. 'I am' - thinks the ego - 'therefore my opinions and my actions have an inner logic to them'. The job of ego is endless self-rationalization in order to prove its own existence.
Because ego is all about self-rationalization, it must maintain a semblance of consistency at all cost. Guess what, this dependency on consistency is exactly what makes ego vulnerable to contradicting interpretations! So whenever we have a case of incompatible representations, it is the ego that suffers! It is the ego that is hurt by the conflict! In and off themselves the contradicting interpretations are just that, a logical contradiction. It is hurtful only because we identify with our process of interpretation, we declare ourselves to be the interpreter.
And herein lies the answer to your question. We know the complete liberation from dukkha is possible because we know it is not to be achieved by the process of asymptotic approximation of the conflictless harmonious state. (Although as shown by the Buddha, reducing the outer and inner conflict goes a long way towards achieving the clarity of mind required for the final realization.) Instead, it is achieved by removing the very foundation of conflict - the grasping at a point of view called "I". When this is done, resulting in the sentient being having no point of view, no position - the representations of the world continue clashing as before, but for the one like this there's no more conflict.
In summary, we don't need mathematical induction too see that complete liberation from dukkha is possible. What's necessary and sufficient is to understand the second noble truth: the arising of dukkha happens due to grasping, the root of grasping is the ego's demand for continuous consistency, therefore letting go of that demand, i.e. letting go of identification with one's knowledge, view, position, perspective, in short, letting go of self-identification - is the final liberation.

the Buddha: Well said, well said! That's right. You have understood it perfectly. You have understood the nature of mind. You are ready to become the next Buddha of this world.
I: Suuuure, and the elephants are actually pink!
the Buddha: That's right. Elephants are actually pink. Everything is pink when you understand the nature of mind.


Protection from tree-stumps In the Paritta Parikamma, there is the line:

  May you take care in protecting yourselves from the dangers of tyrants, robbers, human beings, non-human beings, fires, floods, demons, tree-stumps, thorns, evil planets, epidemics, wrong-doers or heretics; from wild elephants, horses, beasts, oxen, dogs, serpents, scorpions, poisonous snakes, leopards, bears, hyenas, boars, buffaloes, ogres, devils etc., and from dangers of various fears, diseases and disasters.

What dangers would tree-stumps pose?
What would protection from tree-stumps look like?

Protection from tree-stumps

Santa100 already gave an answer from a historic perspective.
Here is an answer from a modern perspective. The dangers and solution seem to still be the same.

  What dangers would tree-stumps pose?

According to "Dangers of Tree Stumps – Land Owners’ Responsibilities", the dangers are: constant tripping hazard, the stump harbouring insects, equipment damage.

  What would protection from tree-stumps look like?

The solution would be to remove the stump by oneself or hire a professional stump remover.