What are the differences of Phala Samapatti between each stage of sainthood? What are the differences of Phala Samapatti between each stage of sainthood? The fruit of each stage of Sainthood possibly would be different. Hence there would be some distinction and differences between the stages of sainthood.

The fruition consciousnesses are classified as being resultant consciousnesses (vipākacittāni) so they differ based on what the wholesome consciousness produce them, so the difference between the fruit of a stream-enterer and a sakadagamin is the wholesome consciousness that causes them. For the fruit of stream entry, the wholesome consciousness that causes it is the path consciousness of stream entry, and for a sakadagamin it is the path consciousness of a sakadagamin.

Then one will wonder what is the difference between the different path consciousnesses. That is an easier question to answer. It is the path consciousnesses that cut through the fetters. The path consciousness of stream entry cuts through the first three fetters, the path consciousness of a sakadagamin weakens desire and ill-will, etc...

For more information on this I would recommend reading §26 and §27 of A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma and chapter 22 of the Visuddhimagga. Both of these books are freely and legally available online as PDFs.


A few quetions on metta I was practicing metta meditation today and the thought came up: "What if your wish for happiness for one person (Person A) causes another to suffer indirectly (person B)?"

My understanding of the problem: the wish of metta is conditional, that is, it is for person A. Since metta is meant to be an unconditional love, how can we wish metta for individuals? Doesn't metta only make sense if it is wished for all beings?

How can we wish metta and have that wish be moral without understanding the consequences of what that wish may cause. Is metta not meant to be a literal wish? I have a feeling that I am not fully understanding metta properly, so I'd like to hear where I am falling short in my understanding.

Kind wishes.

As I understand things: Metta-meditation is not "magic", not something like "positive voodoo". In the first instance it is a training for you and your ability for loving kindness.
Based on this it is also a stepwise training: you start with simple ones (loving kindness with yourself, your mama, your spouse, your best friend). After you have some fluent experience you change the subject to more neutral persons, and then even to some people you dislike (or you think they dislike you), or to rivals.
The effect of the training - if successful for you : then your new way of impulses might have effects to the world...


Is there a reason not to practice jhana? From a chemical point of view, there has to be an after effect of the amount of joy and happiness one feels, right ?

In a spiritual point of view, I know one should be aware of attachement to jhana.

I am wondering because I experienced first jhana for the first time this week, and my natural tendency was to repeat this experience as much as I could in the following days.
Is it advisable ?

Absolutely not! Go for it! (Assuming when you say first Jhana, you actually mean first Jhana and not something else).

  "There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.

  "Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; just so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...


Is intention and purpose the same? Given that there are 'intentions' (cetanā) which lead (if they're not neutral) to either wholesome fruits or unwholesome fruits -- then is the same also true for 'purpose' (sankappa), i.e.:

Are there wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral purposes?
Which purpose could be 'wholesome' (if there is a purpose that fits that description)?
What is the difference between a 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome' purpose?
How could a wholesome purpose look like?

Definitions:

'Purpose': objective, agenda, goal, target (outwardly, 'more or less', 'near and far', 'time and place').
'Intention': state of ceto in action (inwardly)

Samples:

If your purpose is to accumulate (material things, a state of becoming): is it possible to maintain wholesome intentions?
For example: you like to have a monastery be built, you like to have a medi-community to grow, to be maintained.

If your intention is wholesome, is it possible to strive after a non beneficial purpose?

If your purpose is to let go (of material things, states of becoming): is it possible to maintain unwholesome intentions?
For example, you have buliding material and you are willing to let go of it, you have time and you are willing to let go of it.

If your intention is unwholesome, is it possible to strive after a beneficial purpose?

The wholesomeness and unwholesomeness and neutrality is decided by what you would perceive when you experience or feel the result. This is the differentiation between them.

Generally aversion are painful when doing and so is when you get the result.

Generally clining based acts are pleasant when doing and also when you get the result.

Generally neutral sensations are when they are neither the above but still with the root of ignorance.

The motivation associated with the purpose decides what is the result. This also has some sensation associated with it. This can be used decide what is wholesome or not when the volition is formed as detached observer as sometimes these minds spontaneously arise. (All 121 Citta has sensation associated hence any through arising is Dukkha - Dukkha Dukkha, Viparinama Dukkha, Sankhara Dukkha - whatever the sensation.) There are 7 roots which are Ahetuka (only enlighten person experiences this), Loba, Dosa, Moha, (unwholesome) Aloba, Adosa, Amoha (wholesome). When minds rooted in the above arise the Dukkha (painful experience, pleasant experience - unsatisfactoriness of change is pleasent experience, neutral experience - fabricated existance) or sensation associated with the roots are there also and you experience unsatisfactoriness in a subtle way. The sensation can be used to identify what the volition behind a purpose when the classification of the roots are not clear cut.

Though the action is same this might be might be motivated by different intentions or purposes in which case the results and wholesomeness will differ based on the motivation and what roots are present. Hence the Dukkha when volition forms and the Dukkha when the results do manifest will also differ accordingly, but distinction is from the Dukkha you experience or type of sensations. E.g. the purpose of a surgeon cutting a person is motivated to save the life but in the case of a robber it might be greed and aversion to kill and rob, but the action is same but the purpose is different. Also you maybe donating something to a allied country motivated block import of the same from another country hence indirectly economically sabotage another country, in which case you seemingly doing good but the purpose is not. With the volition you experience the sensation associated the root and many more times amplified when you experience the fruit.

Intention, action and result decides the karmic formation. Sometimes good intention may not result in positive outcome nevertheless the though does bear fruit perhaps not as weighty as a rebirth linking Karma. If you have the intention but not follow though you still have a weak Karma. If you have intention and follow through and the desired result happens then this is a more intense Karma. Whatever the case motivation decide the feeling associated resulting experience and also see it when the volition forms. The taste of the fruit you take and plant will have the same taste and the fruits the tree would bear. Intention is the initial fruit from which you take the seed to plant.


Buddhism in the Middle East It is said, Buddhist missionaries made it to Alexandria Egypt and else where in the Mediterranean circa 200 BCE.   Have any scholars and/or archeologists found any evidence of Buddhism being practiced in the Eastern Mediterranean?

I was reading about this because of the famous Milinda Questions. They are a set of questions asked by  Indo-Greek king Menander I (Pali Milinda) of Bactria from a 'Arhath' monk. Therefore it is possible that this Indo-Greek Kingdom probably had relations with both India and Mediterranean.


Is it too much focus on awareness in regular daily life a bad thing when beginning mindfulness? Does the attempt to bring awareness into all aspects of life as a beginner have a greater potential of producing negative affects when starting.

I'm wondering if too much practice can come as a shock to the mind if awareness fades. Or is it the case that mindfulness always produces positive results as long as it doesn't battle the mind and ones practice continues with a calm nonjudgmental refocusing of the mind when it wanders?

When you are mindful you should be be mindful of the 4 Frame of Mindfulness. These are all tied with sensation. If you are looking at bodily posture or movement you sense this through your sense faculties. In once if comes in contact with the sense faculties you get a sensation as per dependent origination. Similarly for other frames of Mindfulness. You have to be mindful of the arising and passing away of sensations being equanimous. This has a very soothing effect.

Even a circus girl has to be mindful in order not to hurt or kill your self. This type of mindfulness does not reduce stress but creates more stress. So you should practice the right type of mindfulness which takes you out of misery than create more misery.


Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times? Buddhists advise against "me and mine" does that include times? Do Buddhists really talk about "my" future past and present?

If so, what are the nature of those times? Specifically: will "my" present always be "my" past?

I'm just asking because I'm trying to work out if there's any reason to believe that, if this will be "my" past, will "I" then exist in the future.

It's often said that impermanence is the Buddha self. Could that be one answer: and why believe it?

These are covered in the:

15 Wrong / Right Views
16 Doubts
108 thought-courses motivated by craving mentioned in this answer

15 Wrong / Right Views

  Let go of the past

  “How, bhikshus, does one pursue the past?

  (1) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such form in the past.’

  (2) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such feeling in the past.’

  (3) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such perception in the past.’

  (4) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such formations in the past.’

  (5) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘I had such consciousness in the past.’

  This is how, bhikshus, one pursue the past.

  And how, bhikshus, does one not pursue the past?

  (1) One does not seek delight there, thinking, ‘I had such form in the past.’

  (2) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such feeling in the past.’

  (3) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such perception in the past.’

  (4) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such formations in the past.’

  (5) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘I had such consciousness in the past.’

  This is how, bhikshus, one does not pursue the past.

  Let go of the future

  And how, bhikshus, does one hold fond hope for the future?

  (6) One seeks delight there thinking, ‘May I have such form in the future.’

  (7) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such feelings in the future.’

  (8) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such perception in the future.’

  (9) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such formations in the future’

  (10) One seeks delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such consciousness in the future.’

  This is how, bhikshus, one holds fond hope of the future.

  And how, bhikshus, does one not hold fond hope for the future?

  (6) One does not seek delight there, thinking, ‘May I have such form in the future.’

  (7) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such feelings in the future.’

  (8) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such perception in the future.’

  (9) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such formations in the future’

  (10) One does not seek delight there, thinking: ‘May I have such consciousness in the future.’

  This is how, bhikshus, one does not hold fond hope of the future.

  Let go of the present

  And how, bhikshus, is one dragged along [distracted] by each present state as it arises?

  (11) Here, bhikshus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma, who has no regard for true persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dharma,

  regards
  - form as self, or
  - self as possessed of form, or
  - form as in self, or
  - self as in form.

  (12) He regards

  feeling as self, or
  self as possessed of feeling, or
  feeling as in self, or
  self as in feeling.

  (13) He regards

  perception as self, or
  self as possessed of perception, or
  perception as in self, or
  self as in perception.

  (14) He regards

  formations as self, or
  self as possessed of formations, or
  formations as in self, or
  self as in formations.

  (15) He regards

  consciousness as self, or
  self as possessed of consciousness, or
  consciousness as in self, or
  self as in consciousness.

  This is how, bhikshus, one is dragged along [distracted] by each present state as it arises.

  And how, bhikshus, is one not dragged along [undistracted] by each present state as it arises?

  (11) Here, bhikshus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for the noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dharma, who has regard for true persons and is skilled and disciplined in their Dharma,

  does not regard

  form as self,
  nor self as possessed of form,
  nor form as in self,
  nor self as in form.

  (12) He does not regard

  feeling as self,
  nor self as possessed of feeling,
  nor feeling as in self,
  nor self as in feeling.

  (13) He does not regard

  perception as self,
  nor self as possessed of perception,
  nor perception as in self,
  nor self as in perception.

  (14) He does not regard

  formations as self,
  nor self as possessed of formations,
  nor formations as in self,
  nor self as in formations.

Bhadd’eka,ratta Sutta

16 Doubts

  He unwisely attends in this way:

  (1) ‘Was I in the past?’

  (2) ‘Was I not in the past?’

  (3) ‘What was I in the past?’

  (4) ‘How was I in the past?’

  (5) ‘Having been what, did I become what in the past? [What was I before I became that in the past?]’

  (6) ‘Will I be in the future?’

  (7) ‘Am I not in the future?’

  (8) ‘What will I be in the future?’

  (9) ‘How will I be in the future?’

  (10) ‘Having been what, will I become what in the future? [What now would lead me to that future
  state?]’”

  Or else, right now he inwardly has doubts about the present, thus:

  (11) ‘Am I?’

  (12) ‘Am I not?’

  (13) ‘What am I?’

  (10) ‘Having been what, what will I become in the future? [What now would lead me to that
  future state?]’”

  (11) ‘Am I?’

  (12) ‘Am I not?’

  (13) ‘What am I?’

  (14) ‘How am I?’

  (15) ‘Where has this being come from?’

  (16) ‘Where will it [this being] go?’”

Sabb’āsava Sutta

I have quoted the Pali Suttas. I would believe the Āgama texts may have a similar parallel.


What is Sang Hyang Adhi Buddha? https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanghyang_Adi_Buddha

In Indonesia, due to muslim influence, believes in an "Esa" God is one of the founding principle of Indonesians.

The words "Esa" in Indonesia can mean many things. Some says it means one (as in islam), or united (as in christianity) or comprehensive (according to my hindu friends).

It seems that whoever wrote "Ketuhanan yang maha esa" wants to unite Indonesians under some open to interpretation terms.

The buddhists in Indonesia then have this concept  of Sang Hyang Adi Buddha which they called is "God"

Is it?

What is it?

Is it God? I thought God is more like Bakka Brahma in Buddha.

Is this just Indonesian thingy or is it common among buddha?

In that wikipedia article I found a strange paragraph

  “Ketahuilah Para Bhikkhu, Ada sesuatu Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang
  Tidak Menjelma, Yang Tidak Tercipta, Yang Mutlak. Wahai para Bhikkhu,
  apabila Tidak ada Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang Tidak Menjelma, Yang
  Tidak Diciptakan, Yang Mutlak, maka tidak akan mungkin kita dapat
  bebas dari kelahiran, penjelmaan, pembentukan, pemunculan dari sebab
  yang lalu. Tetapi para Bhikkhu, karena ada Yang Tidak Dilahirkan, Yang
  Tidak Menjelma, Yang Tidak Tercipta, Yang Mutlak, maka ada kemungkinan
  untuk bebas dari kelahiran, penjelmaan, pembentukan, pemunculan dari
  sebab yang lalu."

I have no idea what  Udana Nikaya (VIII: 3) is. I wish we have something like biblehub for buddhism. Let me translate that to English.

Know Bhikkus, Something is not born, something doesn't manifest, something isn't created, something is absolute. Hi Bhikkus, if nothing is not unborn, not manifested, not created, not absolute, then we cannot be free from birth, manifestation (or incaranation/reincarnation), forming, and resulting out of previous causes. But Bhikkus, because something is not born, not manifested, not created, not resulting from previous cause, then there is a possibility to be free from birth, manifestation, forming, and resulting from previous causes.

Any Indonesian can say that my translation is about right. Am I?

According to Wikipedia, Indonesia has an official state policy policy/philosphy called Pancasila i.e. "Five Precepts" (which are not the same as the "Five (lay) precepts" of Buddhism).

  Belief in the One and Only God (in Indonesian "Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa"),
  A just and civilized humanity (in Indonesian "Kemanusiaan Yang Adil dan Beradab"),
  A unified Indonesia (in Indonesian "Persatuan Indonesia"),
  Democracy, led by the wisdom of the representatives of the People (in Indonesian "Kerakyatan Yang Dipimpin oleh Hikmat Kebijaksanaan, Dalam Permusyawaratan Perwakilan")
  Social justice for all Indonesians (in Indonesian "Keadilan Sosial bagi seluruh Rakyat Indonesia").

My guess (I don't know) is that the first precept is designed to prevent sectarian conflict (if there's one and only one God, then hopefully people shouldn't fight about whose God is which and so on).

My reading of Wikipedia is that, for Buddhism to exist with that (Indonesan) context, in must fit in with those precepts, and therefore:

  Sanghyang Adi Buddha is a concept of God in Buddhism in Indonesia. This term was used by Ashin Jinarakkhita at the time of Buddhist revival in Indonesia in the mid 20th century to reconcile the first principle of the official philosophical foundation of Indonesia (Pancasila), i.e. "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa" (lit. "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence") that requires the belief in a supreme God, with Buddhism which strictly speaking does not believe in such monotheistic God.

I guess one way in which the Buddha might be like God is that the Buddha advises humans on what laws  to follow?

I don't know how else it's interpreted (I expect there are other interpretations).

I have no idea what Udana Nikaya (VIII: 3) is. I wish we have something like biblehub for buddhism.

https://suttacentral.net/ might be like what youre looking for, i.e. it has translations in many languages of many suttas.

Here is

Wikipedia's article about the Udāna
Suttacentral's list of Udāna suttas
A link to Udana number 8.3 (or "VIII: 3" as it's written in the Indonesian Wikipedia)
A link to the English translation of that sutta

Note that that sutta is talking about "Nibbāna", not about the Buddha; but the suttas teach that Nibbāna is the state which the Buddha attained.

All this time I thought the essence of Buddhism is that nothing is permanent. And yet here, Buddha says that something is permanent.

Buddhism teaches that all sankharas (all "conditioned things") are impermanent.

Nibbāna is an exception to that rule (not included in that rule), becase Nibbāna is unconditioned (these these topics for further details about "unconditioned").

Also some schools of Buddhism de-emphasise the importance of Nibbāna. Wikipedia's Nirvana (Buddhism) -- Mahayana aticle says,

  The Mahayana (Great Vehicle) tradition envisions an attainment beyond nirvana, namely Buddhahood. [...] The Mahayana path aims at a further realization, namely Buddhahood or nonabiding (apratiṣṭhita) nirvana. A Buddha does not dwell in nirvana, but engages actively in enlightened activity to liberate beings for as long as samsara remains.

It seems that this concept is only popular in Indonesian buddhism. Are other buddhist in other countries have monotheistic beliefs too?

Some schools of Buddhism seem to me to be a bit like theistic beliefs -- see Pure Land Buddhism for example.

Some schools seem polytheistic (with many Buddhas, or at least many manifestations of Buddha).

And some schools are polytheistic but may de-emphasise the importance of "gods", and explain for example that a god, too, even a god (or, a god's time/existence in a divine realm) is temporary.


Any benefit from meditation, if your mind is already completely blank? I have never meditated before. I really want to get into meditation to explore the benefits, especially trying to understanding who I am and how my mind affects my perception of reality (looking for spiritual growth etc).

So, for the past week I have spent an hour a day, what I understand as meditating, on my own in a quiet room. From my very first session onward, my mind has simply been completely blank during meditation (after allowing 1 minute to adjust to such a state). I don't experience any form of brain chatter (I hardly ever do), I sit easily for an hour with only a handful of thoughts occurring to me, although I feel completely focussed, awake, present and aware. I don't force a blank mind, it simply goes quiet when I focus on breathing (perhaps due to my inability to multitask). In short, I simply feel I get no benefit from this, other than experiencing some sort of longish-lasting blissful state (but I thought there is more to it).

From my limited understanding, I understand that the ideal meditation state is getting your mind as still as possible, then simply observe (non-judgmentally) any thoughts passing by, realising it's all conceive by the mind and learning from what you witness as a kind of 'outside observer'.

Since I don't observe much, I feel I don't learn anything at all.

Can anyone perhaps please shed some light on my situation and tell me what benefit I can get from meditation when I find my mind is already completely blank and I have no thoughts during meditation sessions.

Just to give you some background context in the event that it might help ... I have immense focus and no ability whatsoever to multitask. e.g. I literally have to stop a conversation when I plug a plug into a wall socket. On the other end, I can easily sit still and concentrate for hours and hours. In general, my mind is overflowing with ideas whenever I want it, but I simply find that my mind goes offline when I meditate and I don't find it helpful in my deeper spiritual search.

Mumonkan - Case 4: The Western Barbarian With No Beard
The Case:
Wakuan said, "Why has the Western Barbarian no beard?"
Mumon's Comment:
Study should be real study, enlightenment should be real
enlightenment. You should once meet this barbarian directly to be
really intimate with him. But saying you are really intimate with him
already divides you into two.
Mumon's Verse:
Don't discuss your dream
Before a fool.
Barbarian with no beard
Obscures the clarity.

When I first started out, I had a very similar experience with meditation as you.  It was never really difficult for me to sit.  I mean, seriously - butt, cushion, breath, calm.  It's not that hard, right??  I'm sure you've figured it out by now, but for most people, it's not so easy.  For them, that place of calm that you experienced so quickly can be years away.  For these folks, a chattering mind and fidgeting body are obstacles that will take all sorts of sitting and sweat to unseat.  Believe it or not, though, these people are at an advantage.  To practice Buddhism isn't to sit well and have blissful experiences on the cushion.  On the contrary, to practice Buddhism is to work through our bullshit and burn through our karmic obstacles.  And it takes one hell of a hot fire to do that.  If we were to liken Buddhist practice to a forge we have to stoke, then those who struggle with sitting are blessed with a huge, nearby wood pile of problems and difficulties that they can quickly burn up.  They come out of the gate burning like stars.  And it's that blazing inner fire their struggles have helped establish that make it that much easier for them to incinerate their deeper, psychological obstacles.  People like us, well, we have to go searching much deeper in the forest in order to find enough wood to keep our practice fueled.
Which brings us to the question of what you should do now.  How do you fuel the fire of your practice?  The first thing I'd ask is whether your practice is going as well as you think it is.  When you sit, do you remain completely motionless the entire time?  If not, start there.  Next, if an hour is so easy, why not try an hour and a half?  I actually find that my meditation sessions don't really start to take off until after the first hour.  Longer sitting can lead to better sitting.  The same goes for frequency.  Are you sitting everyday?  If not, why not?  If you are, why not try sitting twice a day?  And even if you've got all that going, when was the last time you meditated 10 hours a day for a week long retreat?
So now that we've got that out of the way, onto beards and barbarians.  Remember how I mentioned that Buddhist practice isn't about sitting well and being blissful?  This is key.  Real practice is when you meet the western barbarian face to face and are really intimate with him.  You are the Western Barbarian.  When was the last time you really took a look at your beard in the mirror?  Once an adept has establish a good sitting practice, the rest of their days are spent examining that beard - those mental hangups and karmic obstacles - through a variety of insight practices.  These can come in the form of Vipassana, Zen koans, sutra study, keeping the precepts, etc. etc. etc.  These are the true forges of enlightenment.
So that should keep you busy for a couple of decades.  Have fun!!!!  :-D


Is it useful to practice intoxicated? I am aware that drinking is against the fifth precept, but there are certain occasions where I can enjoy a few drinks (few times a month). I read a lot that it is not recommended to meditate purposely on any drug - but what if I did take a few drinks, should I still meditate (e.g. Vipassana) or should I skip it?

I would skip it, allow me to explain why.

Just a little bit of context:
Your question touches on a very important point about meditation currently many people see meditation as a simple tool for relaxation, some mix meditation with music, some use it for healthy benefits only, stress reduction etc... there is nothing wrong with that, however in Buddhism meditation is seen as something very different from that, much more powerful.

Meditation is something sacred, special, divine, that is why we prostate, that is why we are thankful for the opportunity to meditate, it is something that we should pay respect to, Buddha attained enlightenment meditating.

In a Nutshell, as a way of showing respect for the meditation process you should never do it after drinking, keep it as something pure, something special in your mind and in your routine.

PS: This is my approach, I understand people from other traditions may think differently


Is physical pain only 'remembered' or 'anticipated' so actually there is no pain? If so, how to understand? I don't know whether this is an Buddhist point of view, but it comes from Byron Katie. She says that there is no real pain because it is only remembered or anticipated. But I don't understand that. So is this also a Buddhist kind of mediation, if so can you explain how physical pain doesn't exists in the now?

For example if I chew on my tongue it can hurt very much, but for me that pain does really exist at that moment and the time after. So how can she say it is only a remembering or anticipation of it? How does buddhism sees this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ul5UI6KO50&t=1140 (scroll to time min 19:00 through 20:20)

In the Buddha's teachings feeling is of three kinds: pleasant, unpleasant, neutral. Feeling is dependent on contact with the senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, sound, mental object ( idea, thought, other)

  "An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling?

To see the difference read the continuation here: Sallatha Sutta: The Dart (SN 36.6)


Are there detailed Buddhist teachings on/about energy (viriya)? If memory serves correctly, the historical Buddha did mention contemplating/investigating energy (viriya). Also remember mention of energy leading to the cessation of dukka.

But does the Buddha, or other Buddhist teachings, ever expound upon energy in-depth, specifically techniques on how to raise/rouse energy — perhaps with the same level of detail the Abhidhamma does with the 121 types of consciousness — other than by intention? (as in:

“What is virya? It is the mind intent on being ever active, devoted, unshaken, not turning back and being indefatigable. It perfects and realizes what is conducive to the positive.” via: The Abhidharma-samuccaya from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vīrya )

Buddha's many life stories are about the teaching of energy. More information from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C4%ABrya


Length of daily meditation (Soto zen) Most Soto Zen sources that I've seen advise daily Zazen, preferably when first rising and before going to bed. However, few make reference to a length of time. The only one I remember says half an hour. At this point I feel like 15 minutes would be a serious challenge (I am a beginner). Is this a problem on my end, or could I perhaps start with 15 and work up? If so, at what rate should I increase?

If you have a Sensei or Roshi, ask them. If not, I would recommend you to start with a length which is challenging but not impossible to manage. From time to time you can do a longer meditation. In example, on a weekend sit 4 times 15 minutes with 5 minutes kinhin between. You'll find this a valuable experience. Don't just stay with a specific time without changing: no challenge means no progress. Zen meditation is about interrupting, its hard work. If you feel relaxed, work harder.

There is no official recommendation because every teacher recommends it different. In example Kodo Sawaki emphasizes Zazen and he would most likely recommend stricter practice than modern teachers.

I would definitely recommend you to find a meditation group (sangha) as the sangha is also part of the way. Questions like you asked can't be answered easily, especially by people like me who never met you. Additionally you might get theoretical answers by people like me who are not competent enough to guide you (I am not a sensei, just a student). Remember, zen is a way, not just a quantified meditation block.

However, if you don't have a sangha close (or just crazy people in it) it's better to start somehow instead of doing nothing. So I would suggest the 15 minutes and work up and keep reading old masters. I recommend sawaki specifically to you because of the question you asked.


Earth covered with water in the beginning? I have heard a monk saying, in the beginning of this kappa Earth was covered with water. And a god or a brahma, I dont remember exactly whom, had put a lotus seed into that water and there grown 5 flowers and they represented the 5 Buddhas (Kakusanda, Konagama, Kashyapa, Gautama, Meithri) in this kappa. But I could not find where in Tripitaka did the lord Buddha say that. So I highly apreciate if someone could help me to find any reference to this.

Thanks in advance.

I recently discussed this in my blog. Here is a quote:

  The Buddha proceeds to tell Vasettha a cosmogony, a myth about the
  origin of the world and life. The earth was originally entirely
  covered by water, and everything was blinding darkness. There were no
  sun, moon, stars, night, day, months, fortnights, years, seasons, or
  gender. Interestingly, scientists believe that the earth was
  originally a “waterworld,” almost entirely covered by water, about 2.5
  billion years ago. The only life on earth at that time was sexless
  algae and bacteria. After a very long period, a skin formed on the
  surface of the water like the skin that forms over hot milk as it
  cools. In this passage, the Buddha demonstrates that he understands
  that the cause of the one world ocean at that time was the deep mantle
  of the earth, which was 200 degrees hotter than it is now, and also
  that it was cooling. As the deep mantle cooled, the continental crust
  formed must have been as described in the sutta.

  During the waterworld era, any oxygen produced by photosynthesising
  bacteria would have been quickly used up through reactions with
  decaying organic matter in the oceans.

  When the newly emerged land eroded, it produced sediment that washed
  into the oceans and buried the organic matter, preventing further
  reactions with oxygen, the scientists believe. As a result, oxygen was
  allowed to build up in the atmosphere and enable oxygen-breathing life
  to evolve and flourish.

  The eroded sediment would also have fertilised the oceans with
  phosphorous, an important nutrient for living things.[1]

  The Pali Canon calls this phosphorus “skin” rasa-pathavi (lit.
  ‘earth-sap’). Interestingly in view of the subsequent reference to
  luminance, phosphorus emits a faint glow when exposed to oxygen. It is
  also an essential element of the human genetic material, DNA and RNA.

http://palisuttas.com/2015/04/26/aganna-sutta-dn-dn-27/


If Sabbe Dhamma Anatta then is there hope? I am hopeful that I will attain Anatta. After I attain Anatta I will cease to be expressible. That hope motivates me to give up the clinging to forms, feeling , perception , consciousness etc... But what about the clinging to the hope of getting Nirvana...? Should I give up hope of getting Nirvana in order to achieve Anatta or Nirvana ?

Nobody attains Anatta. Everything is Anatta to begin with. It's just an aspect of all realities. I think you have Anatta confused with Nibbana.


Questions about the “Tatiyavitthārasutta” SuttaCentral's
Pāli text of SN 48.17, “Tatiyavitthārasutta” is,

  “Pañcimāni, bhikkhave, indriyāni. Katamāni pañca? Saddhindriyaṃ … pe … paññindriyaṃ—imāni kho, bhikkhave, pañcindriyāni. Imesaṃ kho, bhikkhave, pañcannaṃ indriyānaṃ samattā paripūrattā arahaṃ hoti, tato mudutarehi antarāparinibbāyī hoti, tato
  mudutarehi sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti, tato mudutarehi uddhaṃsoto hoti akaniṭṭhagāmī, tato mudutarehi sakadāgāmī hoti, tato mudutarehi sotāpanno hoti, tato mudutarehi dhammānusārī hoti, tato mudutarehi saddhānusārī hoti. Iti kho, bhikkhave, paripūraṃ paripūrakārī ārādheti, padesaṃ padesakārī ārādheti. ‘Avañjhāni tvevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, pañcindriyānī’ti vadāmī”ti.

In this Sutta:

What are asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī and sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī ?
What is the meaning of vadāmī?
Do dhammānusārī and saddhānusārī mean Cula Sotapanna?
Is the maximum of seven lives applicable to Cula Sotapanna?

Thanks.

What are asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī and sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī ?

In SN 46.3, Bhikkhu Bodhi translates these terms as:

'Nibbāna without exertion'
'Nibbāna with exertion'.

This translation appears inaccurate to me, since 'sankhara' here probably means 'thinking' rather than 'exertion' (although the practical meaning is the same).

The terms 'asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī' & 'sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī' are described in AN 4.169, which states per the translation below:

  Cattāromecattārome?, bhikkhave, puggalā santo saṃvijjamānā lokasmiṃ.
  Katame cattāro?

  017.09. Bhikkhus, these four persons are evident in the world. What four?

  Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo diṭṭheva dhamme
  sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. Idha pana, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo
  kāyassa bhedā sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. Idha pana, bhikkhave,
  ekacco puggalo diṭṭheva dhamme asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. Idha
  pana, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo kāyassa bhedā
  asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti.

  Here, bhikkhus, a certain person extinguishes here and now with
  substratum. A certain person extinguishes with substratum at death, a
  certain person extinguishes here and now without substratum. A certain
  person extinguishes without substratum at death,

  Bhikkhus, which person extinguishes here and now with substratum?

  Kathañca, bhikkhave, puggalo diṭṭheva dhamme
  sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu
  asubhānupassī kāye viharati, āhāre paṭikūlasaññī, sabbaloke
  anabhiratisaññī, sabbasaṅkhāresu aniccānupassī. Maraṇasaññā kho
  panassa ajjhattaṃ sūpaṭṭhitā hoti. So imāni pañca sekhabalāni
  upanissāya viharati— saddhābalaṃ, hiribalaṃ, ottappabalaṃ,
  vīriyabalaṃ, paññābalaṃ. Tassimāni pañcindriyāni adhimattāni
  pātubhavanti—saddhindriyaṃ, vīriyindriyaṃ, satindriyaṃ,
  samādhindriyaṃ, paññindriyaṃ. So imesaṃ pañcannaṃ indriyānaṃ
  adhimattattā diṭṭheva dhamme sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī hoti. Evaṃ
  kho, bhikkhave, puggalo diṭṭheva dhamme sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī
  hoti.

  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu abides reflecting loathsomeness in the
  body, loathsomeness in food, detachment from all the world, seeing
  impermanence in all determinations and the perception of death is
  thoroughly established in him. He abides relying on these five powers
  of a trainer- Such as the powers of faith, shame remorse, effort and
  wisdom. The five faculties of faith, effort, mindfulness,
  concentration and wisdom are sharp in him as a result he extinguishes
  here and now with substratum.

  Bhikkhus, which person extinguishes with substratum after death?

  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu abides reflecting loathsomeness in the
  body, loathsomeness in food, detachment from all the world, seeing
  impermanence in all determinations and the perception of death is
  thoroughly established in him. He abides relying on these five powers
  of a trainer- Such as the powers of faith, shame remorse, effort and
  wisdom. The five faculties of faith, effort, mindfulness,
  concentration and wisdom are blunt in him as a result he extinguishes
  with substratum after death.

  Bhikkhus, which person extinguishes here and now without substratum?

  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual thoughts, angry
  thoughts, hurting thoughts and evil thoughts ... re ... and abides in
  the first higher state of mind. Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes ... re ... abides in the second higher state of mind.
  Developing equanimity to joy and detachment ... re ... experiences
  pleasantness with the body too and abides in the third higher state of
  mind. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with
  equanimity. Dispelling pleasantness and unpleasantness and earlier
  having dispelled pleasure and displeasure, purifying mindfulness, so
  that unpleasantness or pleasantness does not enter the mind, he abides
  in the fourth higher state of mind. He abides relying on these five
  powers of a trainer- Such as the powers of faith, shame remorse,
  effort and wisdom. The five faculties of faith, effort, mindfulness,
  concentration and wisdom are sharp in him as a result he extinguishes
  without substratum here and now.

  Bhikkhus, which person extinguishes without substratum after death?

  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual thoughts, angry
  thoughts, hurting thoughts and evil thoughts ... re ... and abides in
  the first higher state of mind. Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes ... re ... abides in the second higher state of mind.
  Developing equanimity to joy and detachment ... re ... experiences
  pleasantness with the body too and abides in the third higher state of
  mind. To this the noble ones say abiding in pleasantness with
  equanimity. Dispelling pleasantness and unpleasantness and earlier
  having dispelled pleasure and displeasure, purifying mindfulness, so
  that unpleasantness or pleasantness does not enter the mind, he abides
  in the fourth higher state of mind. He abides relying on these five
  powers of a trainer- Such as the powers of faith, shame remorse,
  effort and wisdom. The five faculties of faith, effort, mindfulness,
  concentration and wisdom are blunt in him as a result he extinguishes
  without substratum after death.

  Bhikkhus, these four persons are evident in the world.

The sutta is unambiguous. 'Asaṅkhāraparinibbāyī' appears to mean 'extinguishing without using the sankhara aggregate', namely, the development of jhana, which is the stilling of thought. 'Sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyī' appears to mean 'extinguishing with using the sankhara aggregate', namely, the development of wisdom or right view.

  What is the meaning of vadāmī?

'Vadami' simply means 'speak' or 'I say' (it seems).

  Do dhammānusārī and saddhānusārī mean Cula Sotapanna?

Dhamma-follower & faith-follower appear to not be sotapanna (stream-enterer) but headed for sotappana (stream-entry).

  Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear…free of patchwork. In the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus, which is
  clear…free of patchwork, those bhikkhus who are Dhamma-followers or
  faith-followers are all headed for enlightenment. MN 22

  Is the maximum of seven lives applicable to Cula Sotapanna?

No. The suttas do not mention "seven more lives". The suttas only mention: "seven more", which obviously means "seven more fetters to breakthrough", as indicted by SN 13.1:

  In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to
  stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended &
  extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having
  at most seven remaining [fetters] is next to nothing: it's not a
  hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with
  the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of
  breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is
  of obtaining the Dhamma eye."


Where in the Tripitaka completion of the formation of Karmic result is mentioned? For Karma to be complete a certain set of conditions need to be present. What are the Suttas / Abhi Dhamma in this these sets of conditions presented in? Do Suttas / Abhi Dhamma mention what happens if some of the conditions are not met (but volition is present)? What are the instances where the completion of the Karmaic result or fomation is mentioned regarding morality and precepts, i.e., the necessary and sufficient conditions to transgress each or the 5 or higher precepts on which the Karmic result become complete?

I think that the "conditions to transgress precepts" are spelled out in the Vinaya in great detail. For example, in The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained,

Pages 245 through 247 define what "a lie" is
Pages 54 through 74 define "stealing"
Pages 75 through 85 defining "killing"

And similarly for other (monastic) precepts.


Help trying to find a sutta speaking of the pleasures of the householder One of the suttas where the Buddha is critical of a monk as not living the holy life the right way and at the same time by not disrobing missing out on the pleasures of the householder's life.
In effect the meaning was:  missing out / depriving himself of both opportunities - not only the higher one but the lower one as well.

Update
Found the sutta, posted own answer.
Thanks ruben2020 for sharing the dhammapada suggestion, and Yeshe for the formatting of my own answer.

There is one reference for this in Dhammapada 155 - 156:

Verse 155: They, who in youth have neither led the life of Purity nor
have acquired wealth, waste away in dejection like decrepit herons on
a drying pond deplete of fish.
Verse 156: They, who in youth have neither led the Life of Purity nor
have acquired wealth, lie helplessly like arrows that have lost
momentum, moaning and sighing after the past.

This is the commentary for it:

The Story of the Son of Mahadhana
While residing at the Migadaya wood, the Buddha uttered Verses (155)
and (156) of this book, with reference to the son of Mahadhana, a rich
man from Baranasi.
The son of Mahadhana did not study while he was young; when he came of
age he married the daughter of a rich man, who, like him, also had no
education. When the parents on both sides died, they inherited eighty
crores from each side and so were very rich. But both of them were
ignorant and knew only how to spend money and not how to keep it or to
make it grow. They just ate and drank and had a good time, squandering
their money. When they had spent all, they sold their fields and
gardens and finally their house. Thus, they became very poor and
helpless; and because they did not know how to earn a living they had
to go begging. One day, the Buddha saw the rich man's son leaning
against a wall of the monastery, taking the leftovers given him by the
samaneras; seeing him, the Buddha smiled.
The Venerable Ananda asked the Buddha why he smiled, and the Buddha
replied, "Ananda, look at this son of a very rich man; he had lived a
useless life, an aimless life of pleasure. If he had learnt to look
after his riches in the first stage of his life he would have been a
top-ranking rich man; or if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have
been an arahat, and his wife could have been an anagami. If he had
learnt to look after his riches in the second stage of his life he
would have been a second rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu
he could have been an anagami, and his wife could have been a
sakadagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the third
stage of his life he would have been a third rank rich man, or if he
had become a bhikkhu he could have been a sakadagami, and his wife
could have been a sotapanna. However, because he had done nothing in
all the three stages of his life he had lost all his worldly riches,
he had also lost all opportunities of attaining any of the Maggas and
Phalas."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 155: They, who in
youth have neither led the life of Purity nor have acquired wealth,
waste away in dejection like decrepit herons on a drying pond deplete
of fish.
Verse 156: They, who in youth have neither led the Life of
Purity nor have acquired wealth, lie helplessly like arrows that have
lost momentum, moaning and sighing after the past.

In this YouTube video, Ven. Yuttadhammo explains these verses.


Pro's and cons of Buddhist books What would a perfect book about Buddhism look like?

Between translations of ancient texts... most of which are deep but rather obscure... and modern books by Theravada, Zen, and Vajrayana teachers... and even the books that try to distill Buddhist principles for non-Buddhist audience... -- what would you like to see in a perfect book?

Would it focus on accurately explaining and defining Buddhist concepts and technical terminology, step by step, form basic to advanced?
Would it stay away from the technical jargon and speak about our everyday problems and how we can better overcome them?
Would it re-tell the Buddha's personal story in a way that would illuminate the Teaching?
Would it take one topic (e.g. Anatta) and explore it in depth from all sides?
Would it focus on practice more than on theory? On daily life practice? Or on meditation?
Which particulars topics would you like to see in the book's Table of Contents.

What is missing in the Buddhist books you have read, and what would you like to see improved in your ideal book?

I think there is no perfect formula for a book. Different approaches apply to different target audiences for different objectives.

Even some of Ajahn Brahm's non-technical books of humor and anecdotes (like "Don't Worry, Be Grumpy") are useful to certain types of audience who need to have their negative emotions soothed, while being treated to subliminal doses of the Dhamma.

I personally would like to see a book that can reach out to Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike, help them, and invite them to look at Buddhist teachings more deeply.

Non-Buddhists usually know about Buddhism's first noble truth about suffering. They also tend to be aware about the focus on meditation as a technique to reach enlightenment. Recent advancements in mental healthcare have taken at least a part of Buddhist mindfulness for treating depression, anxiety and coping with chronic pain. This has made Buddhism more popular.

However unfortunately, many non-Buddhists still think it's a depressing religion that shuns the material world and relationships, and exhorts people to become monks who meditate all day to become stoic and unemotional.

On the other hand, Buddhists who are not well-aware of the Dhamma, tend to focus on attending ten-day meditation courses and trying out meditation techniques without understanding what they are ultimately meant for. Furthermore, without improving their virtues (sila) and personal habits, meditation may not be useful as the five hindrances would continually beset them.

From my study of the suttas, I feel that there is a huge part of the Dhamma that can benefit both groups. This would be what I call "wholesome living and skillful thinking" or an application of Buddhism into psychology for laypeople.

Such a book would explain mindfulness, heedfulness, virtues (sila), dealing with addiction, anger management etc. For e.g. this question (and this follow-up question) on Buddhism.SE asked about how to deal with the arising of contempt towards other people. A book on wholesome living and skillful thinking would relate contempt to aversion and delusion, and may suggest the reader to overcome contempt with compassion through understanding the background and underlying situations behind the behavior of other people.

I would also like to see this book explaining concepts of skillful thinking using simple non-technical terms with anecdotes and practical examples. However, it should also include copious references from the suttas to support its arguments, as that would invite both Buddhists and non-Buddhists to look into the suttas more deeply, as a source of inspiration for daily living.

Managing relationships, finances, career etc. should also be covered in this book.

Overall, this book should give readers the impression that Buddhism guides Buddhists, non-Buddhists, laypeople and monks alike towards cultivating short term, medium term and long term happiness on the journey towards the complete cessation of suffering, through wholesome living and skillful thinking. The book should also portray the Buddha as a pragmatic master psychologist, through his own words from the suttas.

It may also be useful if the book focuses only on a few core techniques like letting go (by not clinging onto incoming stimuli), reframing (for example, meditating on unattractiveness to overcome lust), compassion (i.e. understanding the reason for, and trying to reduce, the suffering of others) and so on.


Reflexive awareness? Indian philosophers, both Buddhist and others, are divided on how they stand on the issue of reflexive awareness. As I understand it, reflexive awareness can be formulated thus: when I remember yesterday's blue sky, I not only remember the sky, but seeing the sky. Thus, remembering seeing the sky, my awareness - at the time of seeing the sky - must have been "aware of itsef". As far as I can understand reflexivity is supposed to pertain to awareness per ce, not only vision. (I hope my formulation here makes sense, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Questions

Does anyone have some arguments both for and against reflexive awareness? They should preferably be from one or more of the Indian Buddhist saints, but also formulated in your own words.
Does anyone have links to sources discussing for and against reflexive awareness, in the context of Buddhism/Indian Buddhist philosophy?

A relatively easy source on that is Unique Tenets of The Middle Way Consequence School, by Daniel Cozort. Better ones are Khedrup Je's Dose of Emptiness, and Shantideva's Bodhisattva Deeds.

Vaïbashikas and Madhyamika-Prasangika do not assert self-knowers (self-cognizers). The other schools do. However, if Prasangika refute self-knowers, they do assert that awareness is self-knowing. It just does not know itself in the way that other schools posit. Prasangika refute self-knower as presented by other schools. Other schools posit a self-knower that is:

special in that it is neither a main mind nor a mental factor
realizes an apprehender (i.e. another consciousness) in a direct and non-dualistic way
one entity with the consciousness it knows.

The idea is that other schools of thoughts (tenets) from Svatantrikas down to and including Sautrantikas claim that if there was no self-knower, one could remember blue but could not remember having seen blue. Prasanngika claim that there is no need for self-knowers to be able to remember having seen blue, because the eye-consciousness apprehending blue implicitly realized itself at the time of seeing blue. Implicitly means by way of the object not appearing. So, when one remembers blue, he also remembers "having seen blue" by way of relation; realizing having seen blue is induced by remembering the object, because the consciousness and its object were already related by the time of seeing.

What follows are arguments from Geshe Gyaltsen's teachings. There are a commentary to the chapter 9 of Shantideva's Bodhisattva Deeds.

  Prasangika: "There is no self-knower realizing an apprehender directly
  and explicitly in a non-dual manner, because Buddha said mind cannot
  see itself as the sword cannot cut itself."

  Prasangika: "If a self-knower was to realize itself in a non-dualistic
  manner, it would follow that [the apprehended object and its
  apprehending consciousness] are of the same isolates."

  Cittamatrin: "The self-knower is like a butter lamp, illuminating both
  the outside and itself."

  Prasangika: "The butter lamp does not illuminates itself since it does
  not need to be illuminated. The butter lamp does not need to
  illuminate itself since it does not obscure itself[...] The fact that
  the consciousness illuminates is known by the consciousness, which is
  of a different substance. 'Consciousness illuminates' is known by
  what? By another consciousness or by itself? If we say consciousness
  illuminates and that is known by another consciousness, that
  consciousness should be known again by another consciousness and that
  should go on like this without end."

  Prasangika: We do not need that self-knower since the eye
  consciousness explicitly realizes its object and implicitly realizes
  itself, while realizing its object.

  Through relation of experiencing another, that is when the eye
  consciousness sees blue, it also experiences itself, in relation to
  realizing blue. Therefore there is no point in asserting a
  self-knower.

  This is possible because both do not exist inherently and therefore
  can be related. By remembering the object, one implicitly realizes the
  subject.


When we do any moral act on the basis of greed, we get merit or sin I am hindu. So
My  mind  say if you Will help anyone .
 you get rewards for example  job,beautiful wife, health,
Rebirth good place and  rebirth in  healthy human beings.
So I do good act for rewards.

This is also my greed .?
This is sin?
This is good deed?

The Buddha speaks of three sorts of kamma:
Deeds done with the intention to create the experience of pleasure,
deeds done with the intention to create the experience of pain,
and deeds done with the intention to end kamma.

Good deeds, your helpful deeds, are deeds done with the intent to create pleasureable experience. Such deeds will create pleasurable experience.
There is no denying that. Good deeds that produce pleasurable experience tend to result in attachment to the things of this world and the things of this world, being ending things, will result in pain to one who is attached to them. But there is no thing in Buddhism like 'sin'. It is a matter only of personal welfare.

In Buddhism the goal is the ending of kamma, and good deeds are kamma, so the advice for one seeking the goal is not only to eliminate bad deeds, but to eliminate good deeds as well.

Deeds that end kamma are those based on the 8-fold Way. They are intentional deeds of not-doing and letting go. For example, Samma Vaca, High Talk, speaks of training yourself to abstain from saying what is not true. Faced with a desire to get something that is thought to be obtainable only through a lie; one intentionally abstains from that lie. By that abstention from reaction to that desire, that old kamma that resulted in the desire is halted, and that potential stream of kamma that would have resulted from the lie is still-born, dead in its tracks. The whole of the 8-fold Way consists of those places and behaviors and ideas which when followed result in the ending of kamma.


Is it OK to mentally multi-task during vipassana meditation? It appears that I have found it possible to focus both on the breath (as a meditation object) and to be aware of a bit of a train of thought.

Is this acceptable, or unacceptable, or should it be avoided? Or, is it perhaps simply varying "snippets" of mind-moments where I am slipping in and out of bare awareness of the meditation object?

Multi-tasking is an illusion... I have read that the mind and the senses are like a monkey sticking its head out six different windows rapidly in succession.

A great lama once told me that trying to solve a puzzle when you sit down to meditate is in actuality making another samsara.


Gautama self torture, holding his breath I posted yesterday here for my first time and received many very helpful answers. I'm so grateful for having found this site because I always have questions.

In continuing with yesterday's question regarding the Buddha's path to enlightenment, during his 6 years of searching he practiced extreme fasting, which I've heard of. But there's one mention that I've come across that states the following:

"Another way of torturing his body was to hold his breath for a long time until he felt violent pains in his ears, head and whole body. He would then fall senseless to the ground." (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/14lbud.htm)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the holding of the breath practice? Not that I'm interested in trying it myself or anything, that is, I'm aware that the Buddha eventually found these extremes to be unskillful, thus the middle way became his goal. I'm just curious as to its roots and the thought behind it.

Thanks!

Kevin

In the ancient Hindu tradition, Tapasya or severe asceticism was the practice that was thought to give one special spiritual superhuman powers. There is some truth to that, if you think about it - it all boils down to developing will power.

What Buddha has realized, is that self-mortification and infliction of physical and psychological pain is counterproductive to the goal - however, development of will power - especially as it comes to one's ability to control one's thoughts, emotions, and the state of mind - is confirmed to be as valid as ever.

Holding one's breath is not especially more useful than any other physical exercise involving application of will power, otherwise Buddha would have taught it post-bodhi, but I'm sure there are other physical and mental exercises that can help one develop will power and control over one's attention, emotions, associations, mood, and energy - without risking health issues.


Are the four noble truths supposed to be applied to every type of anguish separately? In the answer to another question user Dhammadhatu wrote that according to the Four Noble Truths

suffering is to be comprehended,
the origin of suffering is to be abandoned,
the cessation of suffering is to be realised, and
the path to the cessation of suffering is to be developed.

That's the theory.

Is it correct that this process needs to be applied to different types of suffering separately, like explained below?

Imagine that on a given day I experienced and registered following phenomena:

Someone said something and I was upset for 15 minutes.
I was angry at the people around me in a crowded place and wanted punch them in the face.
Instead of doing something productive, I watched a movie I saw many times before.

All three are symptoms of suffering. In step 2 (origin of suffering is to be comprehended) I find out, what exactly it was that caused my suffering.

In the first example it may be my wish to be accepted by all people, and when someone reacted in an unexpected way, I interpreted it as if thy weren't liking/accepting me.
In the second example the cause of the suffering was my emotional (I just don't like it) and fact-based (among every 100 people, there are at least 5 rude idiots) aversion to crowded places.
In the third example the cause of the suffering was my thought that I'm too weak resisting the habit of watching movies I already saw.

Step 3 maybe the goal -- how do I want to behave in future, if I experience a similar situation? What could be a better response to it?

In the first example I could realize that the number of people, whose opinion really matters to me is very small, and the person I was upset about wasn't one of them.

In the second example I could decide to

avoid crowded spaces at all (e. g. by coming and going to work outside of the rush hours),
when I experience bad emotions I use them as motivators (emotional fuel) for work (say to myself "work hard now in order to never see those ... faces in the public transport").

In the third example I could decide to

allocate a quota of my weekly time for entertainment and then use it for that purpose without guilt,
define a healthy reward for not watching that movie (if I work instead of watching the movie today, I'll do something fun tomorrow),
during that work I'm supposed to do, regularly think about why (to what end) I do that work and artificially create a feeling of joy during work so that gradually it will become a reward in itself (more attractive than watching a movie).

The final and fourth step is to implement these solutions, i. e. develop a habit of reacting to old challenges in a new way. Then, other types of sufferings will appear, which I handle in an analogous way. Note that for every type of suffering I design a separate strategy.

Is this how the Dharma practice is supposed to work?

To answer your question, 'yes', dhamma practise is done in ways you described.

When it is comprehended our suffering arises from our self-centred desires & attachments towards things, we work to change those unhealthy desires, views & habitual reactions (which arise in many forms & are summarised as greed, hatred & delusion).

This is called 'Right Effort', which is the effort to prevent & give up unhealthly & unwise states of mind and the effort to develop & maintain healthy & wise states of mind.

This 'Right Effort', particularly in the social situations you described, often is about changing the way we think about & view things and often requires the creative & thoughtful efforts shown in your post. In Buddhism, this creative thinking for developing solutions is called 'wise reflection' ('yoniso manasikara'). The purpose of it is to change to a kind of thinking that does not produce greed, hatred, anger, confusion & suffering.

The Buddhist scriptures provide an example of this in the discourse on Two Sorts of Thinking


Someone has an illness which is inevitably going to kill them. Why? Imagine following situation: A person who thinks of themself as a good person, meaning they are mostly nice to people and act and think almost always morally. Said person is diagnosed with an illness that has no cure and is inevitably going to kill them in, say, a year. How would a Buddhist explain this?

I already know about the four noble truths as well as the noble eightfold path. Also I know that one could explain it with the concept of rebirth. But I'd like a more in-depth explanation and I'm interested if there are other ways of explaining it or if I am wrong with the information I already have.

The way my teacher taught me, he said most (but not all) illnesses are karmic results of attachments. In his explanations, these attachments are often tendencies that are passed from generation to generation - from parents to children. So most diseases have roots in attachments that ran strong in previous generations of the family.

In my teacher's explanation, a disease is always a way to get rid of attachment, either voluntarily - through spiritual growths, or forcefully - through loss and death.

If a given member of the family has a problem with attachments that were passed on, and this time can spiritually evolve enough to abandon the attachments and grow beyond them, then the karmic disease can be circumvented or quickly healed.


Does using a pdf for sale for free violate the 2nd precept? So I enjoy Dungeons and Dragons a bunch, and have recently begun trying to follow the first 5 precepts of Buddhism. I'm not a practicing Buddhist, but I think they are a good way to live my life. So I have lots of PDF's that I didn't pay for bookmarked so I can use them, but since I didn't buy them would that count as breaking the do not steal precept? Thank you!

The 2nd precept states:

"2.
Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given."

In order to break the precept 5 factors must be fulfilled.

Conditions that Break the Precept
The five factors of the second precept are:

para-parigga-hitam -- article(s) with a concerned owner.

para-parigga-hita-sannita -- one knows there is a concerned owner.

theyya-cittam -- the intention to steal.

upakkamo -- the effort to steal.

tena haranam -- the article(s) is (are) stolen through that effort.

All of the above factors must be fulfilled in order to break the precept. So if you can answer no to one or more of them you didn't break the precept.


Who sings Om mani padme hum mantra? I love the tone of this song, although not understand the meaning.

Om Mani Padme Hum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FODfgCrSaw

What's her name ? Why do people venerate the bow ?

You will probably not find a better explanation than that of the Dalai Lama.

It is very good to recite the mantra OM MANI PADME HUM, but while you are doing it, you should be thinking on its meaning, for the meaning of the six syllables is great and vast. The first, OM, is composed of three pure letters, A, U, and M. These symbolize the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind; they also symbolize the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha.
The entire talk can be found here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/omph.htm

Thus the six syllables, OM MANI PADME HUM, mean that in dependence on the practice which is in indivisible union of method and wisdom, you can transform your impure body, speech and mind into the pure body, speech, and mind of a Buddha. It is said that you should not seek for Buddhahood outside of yourself; the substances for the achievement of Buddhahood are within. As Maitreya says in his SUBLIME CONTINUUM OF GREAT VEHICLE (UTTARA TANTRA) all beings naturally have the Buddha nature in their own continuum. We have within us the seed of purity, the essence of a One Gone Thus (TATHAGATAGARBHA), that is to be transformed and full developed into Buddhahood. (From a lecture given by His Holiness The Dalai Lama of Tibet at the Kalmuck Mongolian Buddhist Center, New Jersey.)


How to handle contrition I've hurt a beloved one a lot. I've done something which is unforgivable to this person and the contrition is eating me up.

Contrition is, of course, a essential part in learning and preventing mistakes from beeing done multiple times.
However, my regret is blocking me, I can't think about anything else.

Has Buddha told us anything about this?

Of course I have to, and already do, a dialoge with this person.
However, how should I handle this within myself?

In suttas Buddha says this to people feeling remorseful about their past: there is no use worrying about the past you can't change. Focus on acting with skill going forward.

One of the most underappreciated techniques in Buddhism is weaving useful narratives. This is when you tell yourself a story about yourself in a way that induces and sustains the good states of mind. The story can't be a lie though! -- so before you can do it, you have to actually repent/reconcile/resolve to not let it happen again.

So the first step is to actually finalize the internal decision: what shall you do differently from now on. Then you should let some time pass to give you a chance to act in the new way. And then you can say hey, I have not committed the same mistake for such and such time, I think I am good now. Simple, right?

Check out the story about Angulimala and a Pregnant Woman. It illustrates this principle brilliantly.


Types of Concentration? My field of perception is very wide. It often becomes so wide that it loops back onto itself in some odd kaleidoscopic fashion.
This has rendered my previous methods of concentration unhelpful. Previously concentration was very deliberate and contrived and my surroundings would phase off into obscurity in favour of a pin-point focus on my chosen object. It opened up some interesting doors.
The application of attention on a particular event such as breathing is very different. It is different because it is inclusive of all other phenomena, like the universe is doing the concentration from which no personal claims can be made. I find this to be a distraction but there is a part of me that wants to embrace this inclusiveness. This leaves me with some dissonance between the previous method - in particular my attachment to the results incurred from that method. Moreover, when I try to apply myself in the previous way, I suffer - I guess I've just answered my own question in some ways.
Is this change in concentration to be expected?
Can you share any resources from either Theravada, Mahayana or Zen that would help me further my understanding of this matter?
Best wishes

It might be difficult for readers to understand exactly what you're experiencing in your meditation. You learn techniques of meditation to get you started on a path, but eventually that path must be understood by you, personally. You become like a scientist experimenting with what works and what doesn't work. For that you have to know what "working" even means... as you develop your path, this is an essential aspect to understand. What am I trying to achieve here when I sit down to meditate?
The path the Buddha described made Tranquility and Insight the markers of progress. If what you are experimenting with, within your own mind and body framework, moment to moment, is (over time) leading you to more and more calmness of mind, calmness of body, then you might be able to consider whatever methods you were employing successful.
Similarly, if whatever you are experimenting with, within your own mind and body framework, moment to moment, is (over time) leading you to deeper and deeper understanding of the nature of reality (three marks of existence), causing you to see more finely these qualities, subtler and subtler in your experience, then you might be able to consider whatever methods you were employing successful.
Both these two developments, Tranquility and Insight, should lead to letting go, fading away, cessation of your experience, in a gradual way.
AN 4:170
Mindfulness of the breath is a common practice that can develop both of these to their fruition.
SN 54:13
As you practice in this way, the Four Establishments of Mindfulness should simultaneously be developed.
MN 10


Is there any benefit in abstaining from listening songs? All the songs which I have been listening since childhood are constantly popping up in my mind even the songs which I listened in the childhood.

Shall I now stop listening any song altogether providing I want to uncondition my mind completely? Are there benefits to stop listening them?
Also what shall I do when these old songs pope up again in the mind?

Note: If it's helpful to answer let me inform you that I have been practicing mindfulness along with anapansatti.

If you stop listening to songs, eventualy the odds of fragments of song poping in the mind would shrink, but is that realy what you are looking for ?

A better way to approach this would be to let go of the aversion you feel toward having songs beeing replayed in your mind.

When it occurs, do as you do with any other distraction or thought. Watch is appear and disappear by itself, watch for any sensation or thought that may arise because of it.

Even if you decide not to listen to music anymore, you will be exposed to it against your will from time to time, so you can't really count on "dropping the listening habit" strategy alone.

Please also consider that one can listen to music in order to feel sensual pleasure, which is unskillful, but also to engage with a particular art form which won't prevent your spiritual growth at all. See this question Buddhist view on Art and being an Artist.

Music can increase one's motivation in his spiritual developement, by giving access to particular emotions one would have never felt otherwise.

Just a few examples on the top of my head :
If you are on a bad day, listening to a particular song could uplift your mind and give you the motivation to sit and meditate.
If you have trouble feeling goodwill towards other human beeings, try listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Also 5th symfony can easely be interpreted by the story of a person who gradually overcomes his bad kamma. 6th symphony is about joy associated with nature. And so on.

As with any other actions, you should contemplate the effects of listening to music. With time you will build up discernement, and avoid situations when listening to music is unskillful.
Be good to yourself and don't beat yourself over it unnecessarily. When you see clearly the drawbacks of music, things will resolve quite naturally.


prior life what hope can we have related to our present life? If our present existence is the result of something we could not control (from a prior life), what hope can we have related to our present situation in this life?

Our present 'existence' (state of mind) does not have to be related to a prior life. The scriptures explain having such a view results in having no hope & leaves one stuck in inaction.

  When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a
  contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those
  brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

  Tittha Sutta


What are the different forms of nibbāna? Often people refer to nibbāna with the cessation of all mental defilements.
However, does nibbāna also encompass 'momentary cooling off', for example when one engages in the various contemplations / mindfulness of breathing? If I, for example read suttas, I feel my mind is getting calmer and calmer, as if a heavy burden wanes.

Another 'momentary nibbāna' would probably be samādhi, where all hindrances lie dormant, right?

This talk may help answer the question: Nibbāna for Everyone.


What does Anusaya Kilesa means? How to remove them completely? (2000 years old Buddhist cave near my village)

Anusaya kilesa is lying dormant karmic influence after attaining Nirvana. I am putting various views as under;

SN goenka told in his speech that it can only remove by Vipassana. He put forward Buddha's journey towards enlightenment, denying every teacher discovered the way, Vipassana.
Dr. Ambedkar says that Vipassana only can't remove it. He emphasis on doing good deeds is the only way with perfected 10 paramitas. He also said Nirvana doesn't mean "Inactive calming down of flame" but that of "blowing out with wholesome deeds"! He is hero in our nation who did welfare of depressed and downtrodden peoples.
The great old Kapila of that day where Siddhartha born, says, when the pot is removed by potter after done, he remove it and stops stroking further. So, for time being that movement of wheel is compared to dormant karmic influence of prarabdha karma. He says in knowledge all karma that previously done and yet to come doesn't exist. But the small portion of prarabdha karma still remains. That portion of karma can be compared to arrow has been released from bow and no one can stop it.
Buddha also said in some poem, "I am unbound, my granery is empty by not putting new grains. I emptied it".

Please all venerable sir and upasakas, clear this doubt. Please answer it with minimum scriptural texts. Personal experience is more I am interested in. Thank you in advance. May all being Happy!

After attaining Nirvana, there is not any anusaya kilesa lying dormant. Nirvana is the uprooting of the anusaya kilesa.

Also, anusaya kilesa is not exclusively karmic influence. Anusaya kilesa starts as a natural in-born element, unrelated to kamma, as follows:

  For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the notion
  ‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the
  underlying tendency to identity view lies within him. A young tender
  infant lying prone does not even have the notion ‘teachings,’ so how
  could doubt about the teachings arise in him? Yet the underlying
  tendency to doubt lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone
  does not even have the notion ‘rules,’ so how could adherence to rules
  and observances arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to adhere to
  rules and observances lies within him. A young tender infant lying
  prone does not even have the notion ‘sensual pleasures,’ so how could
  sensual desire arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual
  lust lies within him. A young tender infant lying prone does not even
  have the notion ‘beings,’ so how could ill will towards beings arise
  in him? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will lies within him.

  MN 64

Anusaya kilesa is "uprooted" by seeing clearly the five aggregates and six spheres are not-self (anatta), as follows:

  Bhikkhu, when one knows and sees... nonself, the underlying tendencies
  are uprooted.

  SN 35.56

Or as follows:

  And what is the way of developing immersion further that leads to the
  ending of defilements?

  It’s when a mendicant meditates observing rise and fall in the five
  grasping aggregates.

  ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.

  Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of
  feeling.

  Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the
  ending of perception.

  Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of
  choices.

  Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is
  the ending of consciousness.’

  This is the way of developing immersion further that leads to the
  ending of defilements.

  AN 4.41

As for Dr. Ambedkar, his statement is false and an unwholesome wrong view about Buddhism for political purposes.

Also, the truth of Buddhism cannot be understood without scriptural texts.


In how far does involvement in certain undertaking effects one, good or bad? In how far does one take part on skilfull or unskilfull undertaking?

In how far does one receives the fruits of good or bad actions by means of getting involved by toughts, signs and deeds, by assosiation with tendencies and certain objectives and aims?

Are there even disadvantages, benefits, for one if just seeming for others to be near of certain undertakings?

And how should common-kamma here be understood?

(Note that question in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

If:

rejoice in others' action - mental approval
partake in the activity

one accumulates common karma.

Also, being encouraged or not (sasañkhārikam / asañkhārikam) does matters. This reduces potency. In case of doing something as a group, not everyone will have the same motivation. If one is self-motivated karmic potential is high. If one loses motivation and seeds some self-encouragement it is lesser. If one needs external encouragement it will be even lesses.

If a group is taking some negative action. One should disassociate with the negative action and also not rejoice in that is being done. One should encourage others to disassociate. One should not encourage anyone to do what is negative.

If a group is taking some positive action. One should associate with the positive action and also rejoice in that is being done. One should encourage others to associate. If one's motivation lapses one should encourage oneself.

If one is a monk being suspected of doing wrong may discredit the institution/order of monks. So it best to be mindful of if this happens. For a layperson disassociating mentally is enough to prevent karmic repercussions, as karma is volition based, but wise even not to appear as associated as this will have social consequences.

Even if one does not have the means to participate or do a positive action if one mentally approved it then one partakes the merit. If one is indifferent or does not approve one does not get karmic results. Same is true for negative actions.


What prevents us from attaining Nibbana? What prevents us from attaining Nibbana?
Is it the ignorance or the craving?

So, what should we focus on, in order to attain Nibbana?
Is it uprooting the craving or uprooting the ignorance?

Because of what reason the uprooting of craving happen?
and
Because of what reason the uprooting of ignorance happen?

It's a "false dichotomy" to ask, "Is it this or that?" -- because it's both: they're related.

Given the "three poisons" (ignorance, desire, and aversion) I think that ignorance is described as the "root" of the other two -- it's because of ignorance that there's desire.

The word "ignorance" has a range of meanings: What is the difference between moha (delusion) and avijja (ignorance)?

I think that the four noble truths talk about the cessation of craving; and that the doctrine of the twelve nidanas say that craving is conditioned by sensation -- that it's caused or fuelled by e.g. "delighting" in pleasant sensations, aversion to unpleasant sensations, ignorance during neutral sensations.

So instead there should be "just seeing" and so on.

Another (more complicated) answer is that it's caused by habits or habitual tendencies, different kinds of desires and ignorance and wrong views: see for example What is effluent?

--

A more literal answer, I read that the 12 nidanas can be divided into groups:

Causal process of previous life:

Ignorance
Sankharas

Process of effect in the present life:

Consciousness
Name-and-form
Six sense-bases
Contact
Feeling/sensation

Causal process in the present life

Greed
Appropriation
Becoming

Process of effect of future life:

Birth
Death

According to that model it's the link between 7 and 8 which you can affect, i.e. that where it's possible to "stop the wheel" -- because that's the part of it which happens in the present.


How to find motivation to overcome a hindrance in the moment of truth? I am trying for a long time to find motivation to practice meditation - i think i found a good general motivation finally after watching a dhamma talk

but it still doesn't fully solve my problem  :      when i have the hindrance show up - how to overcome it ?  hunger - tiredness - pain - cold ect

now people can say : "just be mindful of it and let it go"    BUT  .....   how do i find motivation to be mindful at that specific moment ?  i can be mindful for half an hour meditating being mindful  but what should i do when i become very tired or very hungry - where its very hard to stay mindful - what gives me the power to overcome it than - how to find motivation to be mindful at that specific hard moment ?

the only motivation possible is the internal readiness to cultivate the mind and the virtue, understanding that this is what's the Noble Eightfold Path is about

the motivation to follow the path proposed by the Buddha comes from the very understanding of the 4 Noble Truths at least at the intellectual level

so if one does have desire to end suffering they'll follow the path which facilitates attainment of that goal, and strive for proper maintenance of mindfulness

if such understanding and desire are not there, then there's no point in forcing oneself and looking for other types of motivators

speaking of hunger, it's the same as forcing oneself to eat without being hungry or even have an appetite

if one understands the concept of suffering but the understanding still doesn't engender enough will power to follow the Path, there's a good chance that the understanding isn't profound enough and so more reflection on suffering and its ubiquity is probably required

here maranasati may come in handy to develop a certain degree of samvega

Maranasati sutta 1 (AN 6.19)
Maranasati sutta 2 (AN 6.20)

in the Capala sutta (AN 7.58) the Buddha instructs Ven Moggallana on the strategies of dispelling drowsiness during  meditation, which may be of help in cases of waning mindfulness

in the Vitakkasanthana sutta (MN 20) the Buddha explains how to counteract unskillful mental states with appropriate attention

in the Aggi sutta (SN 46.53) he explains what mental states are appropriate for development of certain factors of awakening


Sexual Coersion within a Sangha I have been four years a practicing Buddhist in England.

I am struggling now in bringing understanding to my experience, I would be greatful for any insight, and I appreciate that it is hard to communicate fully on the internet.

I know there has been sexual misconduct within this particular Order before. I have within the last five months been a victim of sexual coercion and minor abuse with another Mitra in the Sangha (I use the terms and definitions provided by my communication with the helpline I rang). I am struggling to stay with my own experience now, as my need for safety has become tenfold. And my relationships within the Sangha I find now to be deeply tense, as my friends within the Order who I spoke to about this responded with advice that it would be helpful to bring compassion to this other Mitra in this situation.

I am sorry to say that I feel frightened that this would be the response... Is it helpful, skillful, to give my energy to this Sangha that seems to tolerate sexual miscunduct, up until it is themselves who are experiencing it?

I apologise for my confused sentences, and really, anything you can say that would help to bring light to this I would be very greatful for.

I don't wish to call myself a victim, and for the purpose of bringing compassion to the situation... to get help, it seems that the culture understands my experience to be that of a victim.

Many thanks.

There is no way around it. Sexual coercion and abuses (minor or otherwise) are reprehensible and they should be addressed.

For you to have compassion is wholesome, but it should not prevent you from taking the necessary measures. Your compassion should open your eyes on the fact that (1) you might not be the only one victim (2) the person responsible of sexual coercion must be protected from himself, and others and yourself must be protected from this person as well.

You should report to the authorities of the place you stay; and to the actual authorities (i.e. police) and you might consider seeing a psychologist so that the issue will be addressed by someone who is utterly foreign to the Buddhist circle.

The fact that the center does not take it as an issue to begin with shows that they have a blind spot (or selective attention). But sweeping things under the rug is not an option. Healing never comes from escapism, but from shedding the light of understanding and awareness on issues.

In addition, however acquainted with the working of the mind sangha can be, monks are not trained the way psychologists are. They can hardly address serious issues such as depression, suicidal ideations, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder and so forth. It is difficult enough to help someone handle average afflictions - for instance if you are angry with your friend who cheated on you with your wife. Dealing with more serious issues is entirely different.

And definitely find yourself another sangha. Do not surrender your personal judgement when you entrust yourself to someone else (be it a sangha or a teacher). To entrust yourself healthily, you must not give up your own judgement and discrimination. Quiet the opposite, the teacher is not "the one who knows" and possesses a magic wand. He is the one true friend who accompanies.


How do I recognize the attachment to certain things? How do I know whether I am attached to ceratain things or not ?
Examples:

When we attached to the taste we will trying to find more & more tasty foods. We can reduce that by getting a simple meal, cutting the extra meals or only taking 2 meals per day like monks.
When we attached to the clothes , we are trying to buy latest/expensive clothes. We can reduce that desire by wearing simple and charm clothes.

The questions is, How do I know whether I am attached to my career , exam results or not ? ( Now I am in the university. I have to work for exams. Sometime I feel , I am attached to exam results) If it is, How do I work without attaching to it ?

I read this answer already: Should I do what I don't want to do ?

How do I know whether I am attached to my career , exam results or not ?

The evidence for attachment is dukkha (suffering/discomfort/dissatisfaction). In your next sentence you seem to be aware of feeling the attachment (vedana). The answer to your question then lies in how that makes you feel.

  ( Now I am in the university. I have to work for exams. Sometime I feel , I am attached to exam results) If it is, How do I work without attaching to it ?

It's pretty much an either/or deal: You can either attach to a specific outcome, such as exam results, or put your effort into non-attachment according to buddhist dhamma.

To my understanding you can't do both, which can put us in a bit of a difficult existential quandary: The question whether you should be attached to your studies or not is only for you to determine.

In case you want to develop a buddhist practice, getting into the meditation called anapanasati is a good start. Also, it is a meditation that can yield good consequences for a lifetime.

This is a good start:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html

You will find plenty of discussion/instructions here:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=anapanasati


What does Buddhism say about creativity and spiritual development? Does Buddhism say anything about a relationship between greatness in art, music or other creative areas, and spiritual development? For example, consider the well-known great composers: is there anything to say about how they are able to produce astoundingly complex and beautiful works, like symphonies? (Answers from any tradition are fine.)

Addition: I mean being actively creative, not just listening to music. Is being active and creative valued in Buddhism, or is the point to extinguish everything? What is the purpose of life besides trying to scream and run away? (OK, getting a bit frustrated here.) If life arose for any reason, would it not be to enjoy being in all its forms, and all activities? Or is that a Vexing Question?

In Asia, the various forms of Buddhism have inspired uncountable number of art objects created over the centuries: statues, monuments, temples, icons etc. Some art forms, particularly Japanese ones, are considered no less than expressions of the Enlightened Mind.

Many Zen Masters were known for their calligraphy, drawing, and/or poetic skills. The now famous music of shakuhachi flute was popularized by the Fuke sect of Buddhistm.

Late Chogyuam Trungpa Rinpoche was known for his endless creativity. Check out his True Perception: The Path of Dharma Art, Timely Rain: Selected Poetry of Chogyam Trungpa, The Art of Calligraphy, and other writings.

Teacher I.L. declared awakening of the enlightened creativity, as a tool for the universal benefit to oneself and others, to be the point of Enlightenment. From other teachers I heard that creativity is one of the hallmarks of Enlightenment, as the mind without defilements uncovers potential for unlimited uninhibited creation.

So in short, most of the time Buddhism welcomes art and creativity, especially the kind that either expresses Enlightened Mind or popularizes Dharma.


Zen koans, is there any point in thinking about them? Or must we just count our breaths and repeat the phrase?

I was asked I think "what is your original face" - and I think it's the way / tao, but that's just something that occurred to me, I wrote down on a computer and it seemed alright.

It's not that I want to be a part of some tradition or church, really. But all I got out of counting breaths was a lot of leg pain, somewhat (but not completely) offset with some nice feelings and lots of stuff like this /<<<^^^^^

That type of koan is called a breakthrough koan. It is meant to lead to a sudden, initial insight that is direct awareness.

I have heard practice of breakthrough koans described as, "becoming one with the koan", which implies concentrating on it like a mantra.

The insight it leads to is beyond concepts. So by becoming one with the koan, in a flash, you will actually experience "Mu"/tao/the way. As opposed to just conceptualizing it.

Wuzu Fayan said, “It is like an Ox that passes through a latticed window. Its head, horns, and four legs all pass through. So, why can’t its tail also pass through?”

The ox, being conceptual thought, has been transcended; "Mu"

  I think it's the way

Don't think. Transcend thinking. That is the way.

edit: Venerable Chong An Sunim explains there are different ways to approach koans. His suggestion is to do regular meditation (e.g., mindfulness of breathing). Sometime later, either while meditating, or just in everyday life, you will have an epiphany in regards to the true meaning of the koan.


gratitude towards & repaying the debt to one's parents Consider these two texts:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html
the part that contains:

  Mother & father,
  compassionate to their family,
  are called
  Brahma,
  first teachers,
  those worthy of gifts
  from their children.
  So the wise should pay them
          homage,
          honor
      with food & drink
      clothing & bedding
      anointing & bathing
      & washing their feet.
  Performing these services to their parents,
  the wise
      are praised right here
      and after death
      rejoice in heaven.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.031.than.html

  But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father.

What is are the appropriate ways to combine the meaning/purpose of these, considering that there is some potential to misunderstand the way these two guide us to treat our parents?

Combining these 2::
There are lot of if-else cases here, might not be able to cover them up.

Understand from below scenario.

I am a well grown up person, a householder. Living independently, standing on my own foot. Either I regularly pay visit to oldies or live with them. I take care of them although they are stingy, fool, unvirtuous etc. in terms of dhamma or might be physically as well. I respect them, wash them, provide them food, clothing, medicines, etc.

I also try to change their views, try to establish them in dhamma by myself trying to walk on Noble path of householder under dhamma.

Another Scenario::
Parents are enjoying their oldage in their own way, they have enough financial & physical support other than me. Either they don't want to see me or yes we have still good relation.
In this case, I am also living independently, living my householder life under dhamma. Here,  I maintain compassion in mind towards them & gives metta so as they would also take homage to buddha & his dhamma.

As a homeless or as a monk::
I am living my peaceful life and never turns back from my parents, if they are against me & want to kill me for I joined Buddhism, who cares? Death is certain? If they are not against me, it's good. Whatever the case is, I maintain compassion for the body I received from them. This compassion here acts as mental-vibrant-food for them and also as blessings for them. I am ready to accept them in Sangha, if they are ready to follow stated percepts.

Whatever the case is, I am not running away from maintaining compassion. I am not running away from the duties. I am not doing it to get something in return but by understanding as to how difficult it is for a parent to give out a new body.

This doesn't mean that I support their wrong view of buddhism or of dhamma. In terms of dhamma & sila in life, I am still determined & strong.