Unclarity on Sati-Sampajañña In one Sutta the Buddha said that one should constantly be mindful of the fact of anicca. In the Satipatthana Sutta he said that when one is dressing, eating, speaking etc. one should be aware that he is doing exactly that.

Now my two questions (and yes I know that Sati is more than just present moment awareness in that it can also mean remembering something or calling somethibg helpful to mind)

The aspect of knowing what one is doing is connected with mental noting, right? Because the Buddha never (correct me if Im wrong) mentioned to note something as seeing, seeing, touching, touching.. etc.
If I am not mistaken the Buddha said one should constantly dwell/remind oneself of the fact of anicca but at the same time one should know what one is doing. This is confusing. When does one know when to use "what one is doing-mindfulness" and when to dwell on "impermanence-mindfulness"?
Is continous present moment awareness actually endorsed by the Buddha? Kind of confusing because first of one cannot be mindful all the time and secondly, how is one able to be present aware if one uses sati in the "remembering" sense when for example a hindrance is present?

I think that the word "constant" or "continous" is just a word that puts strong emphasize on a specific activity, but I might be wrong.

In one Sutta the Buddha said that one should constantly be mindful of the fact of anicca.

Sure. But you need to understand what the terms really mean.

Mindfulness (sati) means to remember.

Anicca is a wisdom (panna).

Sampajanna means 'situational wisdom', which is applying wisdom to a situation.

Mindfulness must remember to apply wisdom.

Therefore, mindfulness & wisdom always operate together.

There cannot be mindfulness without wisdom.

This is why the term 'sati-sampajanna' is often used, as a compound.

This video might help: Buddhist Meditation (4) Sati Sampajanna

This book might help: The Natural Cure for Spiritual Disease by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

  In the Satipatthana Sutta he said that when one is dressing, eating, speaking etc. one should be aware that he is doing exactly that.

Not really.

In the 1st part, about "I am walking, "I am standing", etc, the word is "pajānāti", which means to know. Here, knowing with wisdom is not emphasised. This is more about knowing with concentration.

In the 2nd part, about "going forward, looking ahead", etc, the word is "sampajānakārī". This not only means awareness but having wisdom with awareness.

As the video states, 'sampajanna' is of the wisdom faculty & not of the concentration faculty. Awareness without ready wisdom is not sampajanna.

  Now my two questions (and yes I know that Sati is more than just present moment awareness in that it can also mean remembering
  something or calling somethibg helpful to mind)

Sati is never present moment awareness. Sati is only remembering or calling something to mind.
Present moment awareness may be a result or outcome of using mindfulness but mindfulness itself is not present moment awareness -- see this answer for a more detailed explanation.

Present moment awareness is simply a clear consciousness (vinnana), called 'anupassi' ('seeing') in the Satipatthana Sutta.

  The aspect of knowing what one is doing is connected with mental noting, right?

Not really but sort of. Noting is a very subtle thing. Noting does not have to be strong thinking, as the Burmese Mahasi teach. The mind can note very silently, such as knowing it is typing on this website.

  Because the Buddha never (correct me if Im wrong) mentioned to note
  something as seeing, seeing, touching, touching.. etc.

Of course he did, in the Satipatthana Sutta, that you mentioned, where it states: "I am walking", etc. However, this is only beginner's practise.

  If I am not mistaken the Buddha said one should constantly dwell/remind oneself of the fact of anicca but at the same time one
  should know what one is doing.

There are many wisdoms apart from anicca. All sati-sampajanna includes some type of wisdom.

The Buddha did not actually teach to constantly remind oneself of anicca because this would mean the mind is always thinking. Instead, one only reminds oneself of anicca when necessary.

To goal of meditation is to stop thinking so the mind has concentration so it can develop calm and then see anicca directly (rather than reminding oneself about anicca).

  This is confusing.

What is confusing is your views about it. Yes, you are making it confusing for yourself.

  When does one know when to use "what one is doing-mindfulness" and when to dwell on "impermanence-mindfulness"?

When required.

  Is continous present moment awareness actually endorsed by the Buddha? Kind of confusing because first of one cannot be mindful all
  the time and secondly, how is one able to be present aware if one uses
  sati in the "remembering" sense when for example a hindrance is
  present?

Your questions are like: "How & when & why do I do this turn when surfing and surf inside the wave when surfing?" before you have even learned to paddle a surfboard & catch a wave.

  I think that the word "constant" or "continous" is just a word that puts strong emphasize on a specific activity, but I might be wrong.

I think you are thinking too much. When the mind has developed some calmness, it will begin to understand the teachings and what to do. Developing some calmness does not require too many questions & answers.


Where did the Buddha say that the minor rules for monks could be ignored? In his lecture course Sacred Texts of the World, Grant Hardy said that the Buddha had instructed that the minor rules for monks could be ignored. However the Buddha didn't say which rules he considered minor so when the Vinaya was being compiled all the rules were included just to be sure.

I find this intriguing. Does anyone know where the Buddha said this - is there a reference in the Pali Canon or elsewhere about this. I believe this happened near to the Buddha's death so it could be one of the sutras about his paranirvana.

Also, within the Vinaya or commentaries is there any indications about which rules are considered minor or of lesser importance that the others. Did any of the Buddha's intention in this matter make it into the texts - assuming that Grant Hardy is accurate in this issue.

The sutta is DN 16, where the Buddha is giving his last instructions. He gives four injunctions in total:

Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.

"And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend,' let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir' or 'your reverence.'

"If it is desired, Ananda, the Sangha may, when I am gone, abolish the lesser and minor rules.

"Ananda, when I am gone, let the higher penalty be imposed upon the bhikkhu Channa.""But what, Lord, is the higher penalty?""The bhikkhu Channa, Ananda, may say what he will, but the bhikkhus should neither converse with him, nor exhort him, nor admonish him."

(source)

It's an interesting allowance, given what he says earlier in the same sutta:

"The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they ... appoint no new rules, and do not abolish the existing ones, but proceed in accordance with the code of training (Vinaya) laid down;

The vinaya (Culavagga) gives an account of the sangha's decision in regards to this allowance:

Then the venerable Ânanda spake thus to the Thera Bhikkhus: 'The Blessed One, Sirs, at the time of his passing away, spake thus to me "When I am gone, Ânanda, let the Samgha, if it should so wish, revoke all the lesser and minor precepts."'
'Did you then, venerable Ânanda, ask the Blessed One which were the lesser and minor precepts?'
'No, Sirs.'
Some Theras then said that all the rules save the four Pârâgikas; others that all save those and the thirteen Samghâdisesas; others that all save those and the two Aniyatas; others that all save those and the thirty Nissaggiyas; others that all save those and the ninety-two Pâkittiyas; others that all save those and the four Pâtidesaniyas were lesser and minor precepts.
Then the venerable Mahâ Kassapa laid a resolution before the Samgha: 'Let the venerable Samgha hear me. There are certain of our precepts which relate to matters in which the laity are concerned. Now the laity know of us that "such and such things are proper for you Samanas who are Sakyaputtiyas, and such and such things are not." If we were to revoke the lesser and minor precepts, it will be said to us: "A set of precepts was laid down for his disciples by the Samana Gotama to endure until the smoke should rise from his funeral pyre. So long as their teacher remained with these men, so long did they train themselves in the precepts. Since their teacher has passed away from them, no longer do they now train themselves in the precepts.'
'If the time seems meet to the Samgha, not ordaining what has not been ordained, and not revoking what has been ordained, let it take upon itself and ever direct itself in the precepts according as they have been laid down. This is the resolution.
'Let the venerable Samgha hear me. [These things being so] the Samgha takes upon itself the precepts according as they have been laid down. Whosoever of the venerable ones approves thereof, let him keep silence. Whosoever approves not thereof, let him speak. The Samgha has taken upon itself the precepts according as they were laid down. Therefore does it keep silence. Thus do I understand.'
(source)

It is considered meaningful what language the Buddha used to give his allowance ("If it is desired"). The commentary to DN 16, picking up on this, explains the whole issue as a means of showing Maha-Kassapa's strength in leading the sangha to the right decision. The sub-commentary elaborates, explaining it as a means of showing that the sangha followed the Buddha's rules because they wanted to, not because they were forced to.
The commentary also comments on the issue of Nagasena's decisive answer (in the Milindapanha) in regards to what really constitutes "lesser and minor rules" (according to him it was the dukkata and dubhasita offences). It explains that some say Maha-Kassapa didn't know, and that was the reason why he decided they should keep them all. The commentary says this view should not be entertained; that Nagasena gave a decisive answer because he didn't want do give opportunity for debate, whereas Maha-Kassapa simply didn't want to abolish the lesser and minor rules (khuddānukhuddakāpattiṃ na samūhanissāmi).
Either way, the decision reached by the first council with Maha-Kassapa as its head is to be considered authoritative, until and unless someone decides to revoke that sangha-kamma.


What is the best of Jhanas and breathing meditation? I have heard two ways off approaching mindfulness of breathing:

Breath in a inhale-pause-exhale-pause pattern, focusing on the
sensations of the breath at the nostrils and the silences at the
pauses between breaths.You would control your breath in this method.
Quiet your mind and just follow the sensations of your breath as it naturally arises.

Questions are

Should you control your breathing if you want to reach the Jhanas?
Which one is best if you want to attain the jhanas?

At the start of practice, it helps to cultivate concentration, so focusing on one object single-pointedly, whether it's the breath, a sound, or something in the visual field. The manners in which this concentration is developed can give different results for different people, so I'd say to experiment and see which works for you.

I will say though, that focusing on the natural arising and passing of the breath can lead to a subtle realisation that the breath is arising and falling all by itself, utterly disconnected from the noticing of it. It's very interesting to 'catch' your body breathing, independent of your control.


What is the meaning of the Datthabba Sutta? In relation to the question: "Is there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation?", I read the following quote from SN 36.5 on the internet:

A mendicant who sees pleasure as pain, one who has seen the pleasant as painful, who sees the pain in happiness, Yo sukhaṃ dukkhato adda,
and suffering as a dart, the painful as a dart, views the painful feeling as a thorn, dukkhamaddakkhi sallato;
and that peaceful, neutral feeling adukkhamasukhaṃ santaṃ,
as impermanent, addakkhi naṃ aniccato.
sees rightly; sa ve sammaddaso bhikkhu,
they completely understand feelings. parijānāti vedanā;
Completely understanding feelings, So vedanā pariññāya,
they’re without defilements in this very life. diṭṭhe dhamme anāsavo;

Not necessarily adhering to the literal translations above:

What is the meaning of the Pali in verse above from Datthabba Sutta?

Does the Datthabba Sutta support the idea: 'there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation'?

How does the above verse in the Datthabba Sutta reconcile with the Pali verse: "Nibbanam paramam sukham: Nibbana is the supreme happiness"?

Are any of the translations above of the three Western monks accurate so to inspire faith in these ordained Westerners?

MN1 states:

MN1:171.4: ‘Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti—

The happiness of nibbana is therefore empty of nandī.
MN1 also states the difficulty of this understanding:

MN1:172-194.31: But the mendicants were not happy with what the Buddha said.

Perhaps the clarification here may help, since there is identification in nandī:

MN1:148-170.24: nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ na maññati, nibbānasmiṁ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṁ meti na m
aññati, nibbānaṁ nābhinandati.

MN1:148-170.24: But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as
extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment.


Can bad kammas be eased by apologizing? For example if I have lied to my parents and can the bad kamma be deleted when I apologize to them?

What is the difference between the bad kamma that are committed to parents and ordinary people?

Apologizing is good Karma that has a mitigating(not delete) effect on the bad Karma you had committed:
ex:

The story of Soreyya.
Devadatta taking refuge of the Buddha just before being swallowed by earth.
The story of Bhaddā Kapilānī Therī

Bad Karma committed against parents are highly potent compared to ordinary beings. Ex: Killing parents makes birth(next life) in hell inescapable and you will have to face the consequences in the subsequent lives until you end Samsara.


The "empirical self" in Buddhism Is it right to say that all Buddhists both do and don't believe in the "empirical self", as in the conscious mind and its concomitants?

And in order I might make sense of your answer, can the latter "not self" be thought of as an absence of any conscious mind from reality itself?

Finally, does that reality include or consist of the Buddha and how can we unenlightened beings confirm that, besides confirming suchness, when it seems we cannot confirm suchness is known?

Peter Harvey in the selfless mind says:

  an empirical self strictly speaking neither exists nor does not exist

In advance stages of Buddhist mediation the exercise is to reduce non conducive notions (see: Girimananda Sutta for such notions). The notion of self or not self is a notion, and it is these preconceived notion you should eliminate as clinging to them causes misery when reality does not match with you notion.

If you have a self image that I am so and so and when this gets shattered it causes pain. If you do not hold into such notion then there is no pin.


Is it right, according to the Vinaya, to charge for Dhamma classes? (I'm not talking about donations, but a fixed amount per class one has to pay) There is a Buddhist Centre close to me that charges circa USD8.00 for Dhamma talks, in one hand I don't like the idea of any religion charging people because poor people will not be able to participate, but on the other hand things are expensive here and they need to pay the bills, my country is not Buddhist at all so running a centre here only on donations must be very hard.

So, from a Vianaya and Buddhist ethics standpoint, is that allowed?

Vinaya only applied to Monks. If it is lay teachers charges may be a possibility but as per my opinion highly not recommended. As for monks I don't think they should do this at all. The trustees (Dayaka Sabawa) may do it but again highly unadvisable as per my opinion.

But having said this, I do not like the idea of any charge. Buddhism was taught free of charge and has maintained this tradition through out most of history.

Also Buddha put much effort to become a Buddha and tough if for free. It is morally wrong to charge for teaching something the Buddha put so much efforts into when we are just teaching what he prescribed.

If you look at https://www.dhamma.org/ you will see a lot of centers all run solely by donation through out the world. So the donation model does work.


Software programming/Art and Buddhist Practice - Pursuing creative activity I have read this question but I'm seeking more advice.

So it is quite obvious in the activity of software programming that we cannot help but think about programming concepts and also end up creating objects as concepts (as in Object Oriented Programming) and make something work.

Now, I understand their usefulness in the context of what I am working on.

Invariably, I get flustered and frustrated sometimes when something doesn't work because I am lost in the process of creation of that thing which I am currently working on, the cause being I am not mindful. Because mindfulness means there is an observer observing the mind and thoughts, which may lead to emotions. But in this activity the mind is busy creating things which would work on a system.

Also, sometimes work is incomplete, and you do get an urge to work on something but also you could spend the time to do samatha or vipassana. How to decide efficiently in these cases?

How to balance mindfulness, be equanimous and pursue this kind of creative activity at the same time? Or is this a curse that you cannot do it effectively in the process of creativity?

I would like to know if someone dealt with this and how? Thank you.

Yes it's a problem.

To some extent an impossible problem, in the sense that ...

  The Difficult We Do Immediately. The Impossible Takes a Little Longer.

Quote Investigator also gives that as,

  "If it's possible, it's done. If it's impossible it will be done.

  I get flustered

Anyway, I read "I get flustered" as saying that when the going gets difficult then you suffer a crash.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance talks about this (which can happen as the result of some "set-back") as a "gumption trap" or "loss of gumption".

The way I perceive it as that I need to use my head for storage: my head is meant to be running (or at least simulating the running of) the software, simulating input data (possibly several data, all possible data), keeping in mind the expected output, comparing my model of the needed software with my observtion of the actual software, understanding the "steel threads" while using hygienic techniques to sanitize any errors paths. If there's a setback (e.g. an emotional setback) then I might lose all that and it takes a while to reconstruct it. If I'm (emotionally) unwilling then the afflictive emotion is what occupies (clouds) the head. And repeated setbacks might tend to train you to feel aversion (which is a vicious cycle).

See also Are mindfulness and flow related -- I wanted to find the answer[s] to that useful, but haven't yet.

My little understanding of flow is two-fold:

If you use a scanner (perhaps an MRI) to look at brain activity, they say a a brain in 'flow' state is less active than unusual, i.e. there are various parts of the brain which aren't active; perhaps that's like, those other parts of the brain are distractions, or like, various flaps and spoilers and undercarriage and so on is folded away when an airplane is cruising.
Flow state happens when the difficulty of the work is in a Goldilocks zone: not too easy (which is so boring that it doesn't hold your attention), and not too difficult (which a mind that wants to experience success might be averse to).

Consequently, two bits of advice:

Avoid distractions
If the work is too difficult then simplify it (e.g. analyze it, write it down, automate testing, etc.).

Furthermore:

If you stop working because you care too much, because you identify with the failing software, then try to be a bit more dispassionate
Conversely if you stop working because you care too little, then maybe reflect a little more on the (real world) consequences

A technique which can help is incremental development: take it from one working (satisfactory albeit non-final/temporary) state to the next ... perhaps like Tai Chi walking where you maintain balance during and after each step, or like rock-climbing where you move from one safe hold to another.

  and frustrated sometimes when something doesn't work

It's not going to "work" until it's 'finished'. The majority of your time is with it unfinished and therefore in a non-working state ... so you can't afford to get too personally upset about that, perhaps like a doctor couldn't afford to get too upset with everyone's illnesses (or a garbage collector with people's garbage).

Perhaps ideally you'll see that "not working" as a fault of the software (not a fault of you), and identify what and how to add to or remove from the software (including, your model of the software).

However the dissatisfaction you feel with non-working software is why they're paying you (to work with it) and why you're motivated to fix it: the subjective experience needn't be entirely pleasant all the time.

I guess that I may be more of a "feeler" than a "thinker" (than most other programmers are) on the MBTI, so I use my feelings (e.g. "satisfying" or "not satisfying") as a tool which gives me feedback of whether the software is working. I can't wholly recommend that (it has drawbacks) but that's maybe what I have to work with.

If you're aware you've become "frustrated" then a change in pace or situation might help (see also "the aha! moment"); I won't recommend you go for a cigarette, but maybe take a walk outside.

  How to decide efficiently in these cases?

A traditional way to do that is with a clocked schedule:

"For the next hour, I'm going to be working"
"I'm going to work from 14:00 to 17:30 with a short break each hour"

Whether that's "efficient" I can't tell you. Some other people swear by "being in the zone" at irregular hours.

  I would like to know if someone dealt with this and how?

Perhaps it's obvious they do. Maybe they master it, continue to practice it, and experience its "three characteristics" too.


is buddhism outside the idealism and materialism? is buddhism is not certainly the idealism or materialisn?Buddhism philosophy is about the consequence mechanism about five elements* and those elements aren't viewed as the material,antimatter or spirit.But the motion and change of them is showing that Buddha or at least the nearest original of his book want to say that the motion and objective reality(material or time) is real,and it sounds like materialism.But the motion is come from,where?isn't it an conscious,thinking of mind construct from data,to create the motion,the time concept and feeling about it?Some time buddhism mention about mind,but doesn't it say the mind is a part of motion of elements?* fundamental elements (vietnamese: ngũ uẩn)

Buddhism points out that both are concepts, reality is free of concepts (unless we impose them).

In my experience concepts like idealism etc. are deeply ingrained, unlike "my nose is itchy", so it's useful to remember they're just in my head.


This consciousness turns back; it doesn't go further than name-and-form In SN 12.65, we read about the cyclic relationship between consciousness and name-and-form, which has been asked in this question.

However, this sutta also has the curious phrase in bold below.

What does this phrase mean? "This consciousness turns back; it does not go further than name-and-form."

How does it fit with the rest of sutta?

As translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does birth come
  to be?… existence?… clinging?… craving?… feeling?… contact?… the six
  sense bases?… name-and-form? By what is name-and-form conditioned?’
  Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a
  breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is consciousness, name-and-form
  comes to be; name-and-form has consciousness as its condition.’

  “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘When what exists does
  consciousness come to be? By what is consciousness conditioned? ’
  Then, bhikkhus, through careful attention, there took place in me a
  breakthrough by wisdom: ‘When there is name-and-form, consciousness
  comes to be; consciousness has name-and-form as its condition.’

  “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘This consciousness turns back; it
  does not go further than name-and-form. It is to this extent that one
  may be born and age and die, pass away and be reborn, that is, when
  there is consciousness with name-and-form as its condition, and
  name-and-form with consciousness as its condition. With name-and-form
  as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as
  condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
  suffering.’

As translated by Bhikkhu Sujato with Pali version included (from here):

  This consciousness turns back from name-and-form, and doesn’t go
  beyond that.

  paccudāvattati kho idaṃ viññāṇaṃ nāmarūpamhā na paraṃ gacchati.

In his analysis, Buddha sought to identify the semiotic precursor/counterpart for the experience of death. Going backwards from death, he identified the notion of "life" (jati, the notion of separate organism that gets born and dies) as the precursor/counterpart of death.

Going further backwards, he identified a chain of precursors/counterparts supporting each other in the process of semiotic development. These were appropriating experience aka becoming, object grasping aka goal-setting, obsession aka craving, associating a feeling with object, contact with object, six doors of contact, and namarupa or the labeled objects themselves.

He then tried to identify a precursor or counterpart for namarupa, information about objects and identities. He realized that vijnana or ability to differentiate objects from their background and from each other (the function that gives rise to our basic awareness of the world), is the precursor/counterpart of namarupa.

Naturally, the next step was to try and identify the precursor/counterpart for vijnana (recognition/differentiation). Upon much thinking, Buddha came to conclusion that namarupa itself was the counterpart of vijnana. Indeed, there may be no differentiation of objects without capacity for recognition, and there is no capacity for recognition without notions of objects.

At that moment Buddha realized that the entire chain of phenomena he has been analyzing, including death, is completely included in the realm of objective thinking. In other words, the entire experience of living and dying is a story our object-obsessed mind is telling itself. This realization was a huge breakthrough and a major step in the direction of Enlightenment.

At a later date, Buddha reconsidered this idea that vijnana and namarupa are each other's precursors and instead came up with an alternative chain which had "accumulated tendencies" (samskaras) and "ignorance" as two more links of the chain. This is the version of DO that ended up becoming the classic we know today.

Anyway, the importance of this realization still stands, that all our experienced phenomena are mind-made ("form is emptiness"), and this mind itself is a reflection of interaction of phenomena since beginningless times. In Mahayana we say, phenomena are empty, and mind is empty as well, these two emptinesses are a reflection of each other and yet they manifest as seeming reality ("emptiness is form"). This relationship is an important topic of analytical meditation in Tibetan Mahayana.


What exactly is the logical relation between the links in the twelvefold chain of Pratītyasamutpāda? I'm struggling hard to make final sense of the chain of "dependent origination". In the oldest texts in Pali and Sanskrit, already, there are different explanations.

The Mahānidānasutta, where the chain has just nine links, the general formula is

  x-paccayā y

meaning

  through the condition of x, y (is).

Now the question arises, what kind of condition this is thought to be: a sufficient condition? A necessary condition? Or both of them?

The second part, states quite clearly, that if x is not there, then y is also not there, implying necessity of x for y.

Now, a general rule (e.g. Majjhima Nikaya 38, 19) states:

  imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati

which translates as:

  If that is, this is, through arising of that, this arises

This is also consistent with a parallel in the Sanskrit Catuṣpariṣatsūtra but not with the view, that we are dealing with mere necessary conditions. They need to be sufficient, for this general statement to apply.

Now here things become even more complicated, since another general rule, actually a seemingly extended version of the former states (MN 79, 7, also in SN and Udana)

  imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati; imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati

which now means

  When that is, this is, through arising of that, this arises; when that is not, this is not, with cessation of that, this ceases.

implying biconditionality.

How are the different versions explained? What is, in the end, the relation between the links? What can be thought to be the Buddha's original version and intention?

As I understand, the relationship is that of mutual implication. This meaning is reflected in the name pratitya-samutpada, that is often translated as "dependent co-arising" and such.

Mutual implication means one of the categories serves as context for the other and the other way around. Top is defined against bottom and vice verse. Life is defined against death and vice verse. This (upclose) is defined against That (far). Subjective is defined against Objective.

The twelve nidanas are meant to explain the emergence of the notion of Death by implication from Birth, of Birth by implication from Identifying with Separate Being, of Identifying with Separate Being by implication from Goal-making, of Goal-making by implication from Temporal Projection, of Temporal Projection by implication from Sensation as Result, of Sensation as Result by implication from Contact, of Contact by implication from Doors onto the world, of Doors onto the world by implication from Objects, of Objects by implication from Recognition, of Recognition by implication from Imprints, of Imprints by implication from Ignorance.


Why would a non-dualist mind choose the Bodhisattva path once it has stopped differentiating between suffering and non-suffering? As I understand from what contact I've had with Mahayanist explanations, a prominent feature of the enlightened mind is that it no longer splits the world into "X and non-X" categories but sees it all as a single harmonious continuum. But that would mean the same mind would also no longer split human experience into "suffering and non-suffering". What motivation, then, to follow the Bodhisattva path of helping all beings escape "suffering", if "suffering" is no longer distinguished?

Or is it the case that Mahayana never said enlightenment guarantees that a Buddha will take this path, and therefore that Mahayana does not guarantee you will come out a moral person once you have followed the path to its end?

What motivation, then, to follow the Bodhisattva path of helping all beings escape "suffering", if "suffering" is no longer distinguished?

The motivation is that, although Bodhisattva no longer splits the world, Bodhisattva understands that others still do and therefore have the basis for suffering.

In other words, suffering still exists for sentient beings, even though for Bodhisattva there is no suffering, no beings, and no Bodhisattva.

Because Bodhisattva understands that the nature of suffering is subjective experience, Bodhisattva helps out of great compassion.


Help Me Choose which meditation i Should do Anapanasati or Brahmaviharas? I have been going through this dilemma for almost a year now in choosing a meditation object..

I only wish to take one meditation object.The reason being i maintain this object through out the day and i gather momentum with it.I noticed if i practice two meditations even if it's very short i lose momentum with my previous one.I think because i've inclined the mind towards one object so when it switches i am not developing much concentration.

The main problem i have is i really love and enjoy anapanasati.Piti and sukha are quite developed so i enjoy it very much and can sit longer. I can gather momentum,its relatively easy to turn my attention to the breath through out the day..now here's the bad part... MY EXTERNAL situations in life just seem bleak,unfriendly,uninspiring,lonely,dull i start getting emptier and emptier like less socialising less entertainments moving towards like a letting go type of life it's freeing and a relief  except nobody is friendly around me.Like things are just DRY and uninspiring around me.

On the other hand when i practice Brahmaviharas,the result are immediate and everything around me is great,people are friendly,i feel protected from harm,pleasant situations.HOWEVER,i don't really prefer this meditation object because it's tiring and i can't sustain it through out the day repeating phrases.Its tiring basically.Also it's not as still as anapanasati which i prefer but if i don't practice the brahmaviharas life just gets very bleak very fast.When i do practice even for 5 minutes everythings just annoyingly great and sugary sweet.Its really wearing me out trying to choose.

Should i just ignore being afraid of unpleasant situations and emptiness/seclusion and incline the mind towards the breath which i know i can make progress or should i just do brahamaviharas and keep everything around me happy?

Thanks

Brahmaviharas is a lower type of meditation than Anapanasati. In Brahmaviharas you use your intellect, to make up suggestions or narratives, that condition your point of view a certain way. In Anapanasati you don't use your intellect to generate anything, you just let go of hangups and let them dissolve. Anapanasati is more direct.

The Buddha said, we don't have to rush to finish the with-intellect meditation and jump to the direct. In fact, he said we should max out the first type until we had enough of it at which point it would seem too artificial. I think that's exactly where you are at.

So at this point it makes sense for you to do Anapanasati. However, it sounds like you misunderstand what that means. Anapanasati is not just watching your breath and disconnecting from the world. It is using the breath as a focal point for directly seeing your mind, and cutting through any negative thoughts that assault you.

The end result is that you come back to a fresh open mind, as if you have just awoke.


What explains the membership of Shingon's 13 Buddhas list? The list of 13 Buddhas (which is actually Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Wisdom Kings) plays a role in Shingon gongyo and funerary rites.  What accounts for why these particular 13 are set aside for special attention?

Fudo (Acala)
Shaka (Sakyamuni)
Monju (Manjushri)
Fugen (Samantabhadra)
Jizo (Ksitigarbha)
Miroku (Maitreya)
Yakushi (Bhaisajyaguru)
Kannon (Avalokitesvara)
Seishi (Mahasthamaprapta)
Amida (Amitabha)
Ashuku (Akshobhya)
Dainichi (Vairocana)
Kokuzo (Akasagarbha)

Minor update: I did some googling on this, it appears that lists of Buddhas, sometimes very long lists of Buddhas, occur throughout the Mahayana cannon.

Courtesy of Brian Gentz

The list of 13 Buddhas used in Shingon funeral rites is based on the chief Buddhist deities found on two important mandalas used by Shingon practitioners in ritual practices: the Taizokai (Womb World) mandala and the KongoKai (Diamond World) mandala.  It is understood the deities assist the living and the deceased by guiding them into the realm of enlightenment.  Depending on the anniversary date of the deceased, a memorial service associated with the deity is held for the deceased.

Each deity on the list plays an important part at different levels of the two mandalas in assisting the initiate reach enlightenment.   These mandalas are aggregates of additional mandalas from the early Vajrayana tradition.  The mandala principals for the illustrations and placement of the deities roles are found in early Vajrayana texts: the Womb World Mandala is found in the Mahavairocana Tantra, and the Diamond World Mandala is found in the Vajrasekhara Tantra.

List of 13 Buddhas and the dates for the corresponding memorial services:

Fudo (Acala) - The Immovable Radiant King, 7th day
Shaka (Sakyamuni) - Sage of the Shakya Tribe, 14th day
Monju (Manjushri) - Bodhisattva of Beautiful Splendor, 21st day
Fugen (Samantabhadra) - Bodhisattva of Universal Beauty, 28th day
Jizo (Ksitigarbha), - Bodhisattva Storehouse of the Earth 35th day
Miroku (Maitreya), - The Benevolent Bodhisattva 42nd day
Yakushi (Bhaisajyaguru), - Buddha of the Master of Medicine 49th day
Kannon (Avalokitesvara), - Bodhisattva of Compassion 100th day
Seishi (Mahasthamaprapta), - Bodhisattva Who Proceeds With Vigor 1st anniversary
Amida (Amitabha), - Buddha of Infinite Life and Life 2nd anniversary
Ashuku (Akshobhya), - The Immovable Buddha 6th anniversary
Dainichi (Vairocana), - The Great Buddha of Universal Illumination 12th anniversary
Kokuzo (Akasagarbha), The Storehouse of Space Bodhisattva 32nd anniversary

Garbhadhatu Mandala (Womb World Mandala)

Courtesy of Peehyoro Acala

Vajradhātu Mandala (Diamond World Mandala)

Courtesy of Peehyoro Acala


When seeking information is sarcasm seen as a deliberate lie? I will be completely honest in admit that I do not get sarcasm.

When a person says something sarcastic I end up believing what they say, until they give that look that almost says 'Um, that was sarcastic. Duuh!" And I'm left at the butt of the joke.

My problem here seems to stem from a simple truth to lie perspective. If I were to ask someone a question I expect an honest or helpful answer, where sarcasm may be neither of these things.

Example: "Do you have a bathroom?" 'No, we go in a bucket.'

Say I'm at a new place, asking a person I've never met or only met once or twice. In this case I was hoping for a simple 'Down the hall to the left.' as an answer but I've been met with sarcasm.

Even though I'm pretty sure this house has a bathroom I do not know this 100%. If I did not know sarcasm existed (which in my mind and experiences is basically the case) I have two options. Believe the information I have been given, or look that person in the face and say "You have just lied to me."

It would seem that calling a person out on this deliberate lie (this sarcasm) would be extremely rude, and force the person to admit to giving me false information. At the same time this seems to be the only way to obtain the truth, the only real answer I ever even wanted to hear.

I understand that sarcasm can be funny, in context. My basic understanding is that once you get to know someone well enough you will catch those subtleties in there speech, whereas with another less known person they believe their own lie (sarcasm as knowing the information to be false but not sharing that fact) making it hard to tell if it truly was a lie simply because it was a joke 'Duuh!'

There are many more examples of sarcasm I have come across, some easier to catch than others and some easily rectified by a simple 'Just kidding.'

To sum all this up googling Sarcasm gives me: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt. Which does not sound lighthearted at all, the word Mock standing out.

I'm not asking why people are sarcastic but why it's seen as such a go to form of comedy when it seems so detrimental to the person being mocked as well as detrimental to the person being sarcastic (at least from a Buddhist standpoint)? Is sarcasm as a response to a question, when that question is looking for an undeniable true answer, seen as bad Karma?

Any information on the Buddhist thoughts on why we use sarcasm and what it is, as well as from other/more modern sources on the subject (ex.South Parks Sarcastiball episode) would be greatly appreciated if I Am to understand this experience more. Thank you.

Sarcasm isn't a deliberate lie, because the intention isn't to lie or mislead, but it is wrong speech, because it has the capacity to hurt people.

Per Buddhism, unless a statement is true and beneficial, it is not right speech. And joy derived from the suffering of others isn't wholesome.

Ironically saying "You lied" to someone who is being obviously sarcastic can be seen as a kind of sarcasm itself, since it can be viewed as being affectedly sincere.

  The criteria for deciding what is worth saying

  [1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

  [2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

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

  [4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

  [5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

  [6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata
  has sympathy for living beings."

  — MN 58
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/


Are impressions or vasanas found in the Pali Canon? According to this answer:

  Kilesa has a residual impression which is called vāsanā which even
  arhats have. Only a Buddha eliminates that. This is what drives
  habits. Many habits are reflexive and there no much thoughts of the
  intention behind it. If it is purely reflexive it does not have karmic
  consequences.

Are vasana or residual impressions found in the Pali Canon? Preferably in the Sutta Pitaka.

What about the statement that arhats or arahants still have vasanas, but Buddha does not? Is this also in the Pali Canon?

Would arahants still have impressions although they had eliminated latent tendencies (anusaya)?

Vasana (Tendency Continues Life After Life)
Predisposition plays a role in a person's life, past or present. Tendency to proliferate bad habits in promoted by kelisa (mental defilement). Vasana based on morality
or good deeds is classified as samma chanda (wholesome wish). This vasana is inherent in the mind-continuum of all beings. Thus in your past kamma actions if you
have cultivated greed along with them, your vasana will now be greedy in nature. If
you do not reform this bad tendency in this existence, raga carita vasana will continue to dominate you in your future births as well. Dosa, moha, and vitakka characters
also, will continue to dominate likewise. If you are endowed with paññā carita now
and if you cultivate wisdom continually, this tendency will produce its own result here
and hereafter. You will be reborn a person with paññā in forthcoming existences.

Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Ashin Janakabhivamsa


Is non-emptiness empty? The term "non-emptiness" appears in the literature. For example from Chi-tsang (madhyamaka):

  When the sutras speak of "the emptiness of visible form" this refers to its emptiness and lack of a true substantive nature; therefore it is called empty. It does not mean that conventional visible reality is empty (nothingness?). Since the substantive nature is an empty nothingness, therefore it is called empty. This is the real truth. The non-emptiness of conventional reality is called the worldly truth.

I just mean the opposite of emptiness.

Is non-emptiness empty, and in what way?

Since Mahayana Agama contains parallels in the Pali Cannon I am answering using the Suttas in the Pali Canon which I am more familiar with.

Abiding or contemplating the 3 characteristics [impermanence (anicca),
suffering (dukkha) and not-self (anatta)] is called abiding in emptiness. [Cula Sunnata Sutta, Maha Sunnata Sutta] The opposite of the 3 characteristics is perversions (vipallasa) [what is impermanent is taken to be permanent; what is painful is taken to be pleasurable; what is not self is taken to be a (or the) self; and what is impure is taken to be pure]. [Vipallasa Sutta] Hence non empty might mean something is deluded, i.e., conceptual constructions are empty since they breakdown under further scrutiny. Attachment to concepts, review and throughts or being subjected to the perversion is non empty.

Also:

  Verse 11:

  They take untruth for truth; they take truth for untruth; such persons can never arrive at the truth, for they hold wrong views.

  Verse 12:

  They take truth for truth; they take untruth for untruth; such persons arrive at the truth, for they hold right views. At the end of the discourse, many people came to be established in Sotapatti Fruition.

Source: Dhammapada Verses 11 and 12 Sariputtatthera Vatthu

Contrary to the usage on perversion described above someone taking untrue and truth, wrong view as right view, something of low value as valuable can be considered empty in this context and some one taking truth as the truth, ... can be considered non empty in this context.


Sociality and meditation I had a question.

I have been getting deeper into the Buddha's teaching and meditation & I feel awkward to be around or to talk to people, specifically those who do not meditate.

  How do I overcome this or is this OK?

Talking to people, even if they are not meditators, shouldn't feel awkward if this talk has some meaning and is not mere chit-chat. Therefore, use conversation as another form of your practice, trying to be aware of what are you talking about, with what intention. Also, try to stay away of not so uncommon tendency among people who meditate to look upon to people who don't. This is another way of practice, developing compassion and understanding for all people, all beings, even when they behave differently. Since we are all in the same boat, we can't separate ourselves from them and we really shouldn't. Instead, just trying to look at them with more compassionate, more loving eyes. And sometimes that's not so easy. :)


Sloth-torpor-Restlessness-worry I meditate first think in the morning and every morning i have to face sloth and torpor.When i face sloth and torpor i make a mental note and i can see how is impermanent and  uncontrollable and after a while  it seams that i overcame it,so then when i go back to the raising and falling i can see it very clear from the beginning until the end and back again without interruptions.Then little by little thoughts and restlessness begin to disturb this clarity of mind,at this point the mind is very energetic and again i make a mental note and it passes away.Is like that there is not balance when the mind is concentrate i have to face Sloth-torpor and in the other hand and when is energetic restlessness come up.

Before i was forcing to stay with the raising and falling and i began to see how aversion was coming up and i was just dealing with it,little by little i learn to don't force to much.there is not aversion anymore but seams that there is not balance.Is this just normal or i am doing something wrong?

Sorry again for my english and i hope that what i write is understandable.

You should use the 5 faculties and 5 powers to balance you mind to dispel some the niwarana.

When restless this is because your have become too energetic but lacking in concentration. Best is to do Anapana to increase concentration
When sleepy this is because you have high concentration but lack energy best is to practice Satipatthana, or instruction in the Capala Sutta
You have too much faith backed with little wisdom, you accept theory due to faith than at the experiential level, then you should develop your wisdom to see what you have faith in, at the experiential level.
When you have lack of faith or doubt the teachings (you have learned too much with little experiential knowledge) you might either get lazy, so develop some confidence to practice by contemplating qualities of the Triple Gem enough to get you to practice and experience in reality the truth of what your have learned
When you have ill will try metta or realise you have will will
When you have desire realise it or contemplate on impermanence or realise have desire

To realise that the hindrances are arising you have to develop strong mindfulness.

Also as a final note with any hindrance or any other mental state there is and associated sensation. This arises and passes away. At 1st you will see it at a gross level as e.g. just sleepy but then you will sense they are made of smaller quantum of smaller sensations arising and passing away. Having said this the feelings and their arising and passing away due to metal factors or content is very difficult to sense. The Vipassana method based on the Pacalā Sutta:

    “Nothing is worth clinging to”

    When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One:
    “In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”

    “Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to.
    And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all].
    Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all
    things.

    Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.

    As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]

    he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;

    he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;

    he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;

    he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).

    When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world.
    Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.


What is a Mudra and what do they mean? In Buddhist iconography the figures are illustrated or depicted with various hand gestures.  The symbolic hand gestures are called mudras.  What is the significance of a Buddhist mudra? What are the various meanings for different popular mudras?

Courtesy of Jordan

Courtesy of Asia Society

According to Dr. Robert Thurman:

  The mudra “is a sacred gesture symbolically expressing inner wisdom,
  or, in tantra, a female consort for yogic practices that harness
  sexual energies to the path.  Some of the main gestures we see in
  Tibetan images are abhaya, the gesture of fearlessness, the right
  hand held in from with open palm raised up: dana, the gesture of
  giving, the right hand held open and downward;
  dharmacakrapravartana, the teaching gesture, each hand held with thumb and index fingers touching and the other three fingers upraised,
  the two hands touching each other in front of the heart center;
  dhyāna, contemplation gesture, either one or both hands held flat in the lap; trisharana,  the Triple Refuge gesture, similar to the
  teaching gesture, with the emphasis on the three upraised fingers,
  representing the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha; tarjanī, threatening
  gesture, with either hand held forward in a fist, the index and little
  fingers raised up; varada, boon-granting gesture, just like the
  giving gesture; and vitarka,  analytic or fine discernment gesture,
  like a one-handed teaching gesture, one hand held up with thumb and
  index finger forming a circle, the other three fingers raised up.” 1

Abhaya Mudra:

Courtesy of Acerca de Ernest Cappa

Dana Mudra:

Courtesy of Angela Wheeler on Ink me

The righthand is in the dana mudra gesture.

Dharmacakrapravartana Mudra:

Courtesy of Acerca de Ernest Cappa

Dhyāna Mudra:

Courtesy of eric_m #dhyanamudra - Instagram

Tarjanī Mudra:

Courtesy of erinhosfield #tarjanimudra - Instagram

Varada Mudra:

Courtesy of buddhabe #vitarka

Right hand in varada mudra.

Vitarka Mudra:

Courtesy of buddhabe #vitarka

Mandala: The Architecture of Enlightenment by Leidy and Thurman pg 168


Question about Buddhism How would you describe the Buddhist world view. Is it realism where everything we observe is really existing out there in a public world and we are observing it or some sort of idealism whereby everything is mind which seems to be from what I have heard in one dhammapada verse but then I also read about the great elements or matter which exists according to Buddhism, so which one is primary matter or mind or what is the right relation between them?? Or maybe Buddhism is something in the middle maybe??, well I have no clue that is why I am asking you this question. I would like to hear both the Theravada and Mahayana perspectives.

Thank you,

what I have heard in one dhammapada verse

You heard this verse wrongly. This verse says all modes of behaviour are created by mind and, when the mode of behaviour is impure, suffering follows; and when the mode of behaviour is pure, happiness follows. This Dhammapada verse is about "kamma" rather than "solipsism".
Since Buddhism teaches suffering is caused by craving, attachment & self-centredness and suffering ends when craving, attachment & selfing are abandoned, whether things exist or not is not relevant to Buddhism.

If, while he is dwelling by means of this dwelling, his mind inclines to speaking, he resolves that 'I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening or Nibbana — i.e., talk about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.' In this way he is alert there.
MN 122


What is the meaning of 'defiled cognition'? I have noticed in discussions of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy that the way ordinary folk see things is described as 'defiled cognition'. I would like some pointers on what this means and where to do some reading on the idea.

Also is there any cross-cultural equivalent, in Western philosophy or religion?

In Mahayana, "defiled cognition" is ignorant apprehension of standalone (svabhava) entities, both internally (as personal self) and externally (as various quasi-separate objects).

It is on the basis of this that experience is then divided up into "wanted" and "unwanted", a necessary condition of suffering.


Can someone provide online resources to learn Vipassana and Metta? Anything like a PDF or a website link or a podcast audio is OK for me :)

Here I am listing some useful resources for an introduction to Vipassana as taught by S. N. Goenka in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin:

An Introduction to Vipassana
S. N. Goenka's Inspiring Speech at United Nations
Eilona Ariel's (A documentary filmmaker and Vipassana meditator) TedX Talk
Doing Time, Doing Vipassana - a documentary on use of Vipassana in Tihar Jail
Dhamma.org - link for 10 day course registration at one of many centres in the world
Introduction to the technique of Vipassana and Code of Discipline for the meditation courses


Awareness in the body : ticklish/tingling feeling I'm trying to anchor my awareness while sitting at the desk.

When bringing awareness to the body , I'm getting a tickling/tingling in the body .  So to make it bearable I'm trying to move attention to different body parts and it keeps following too.  So unable to hold awareness in the body for a long time.  Is there any advice/guide on this ?

Relax your facial muscles & take an out-breath or let go of some out-breathes.

In your efforts to anchor awareness, it sounds like you are suppressing the (mental) tension stored in your physical body (which will arise into your awareness if meditating).

Balance your effort. At regular intervals, take your foot off the accelerator; ease off the throttle.


The paradox of the Bodhisattva Path (Bodhisattvayāna) Everybody is born under his own Karma. Indeed, while respecting the Dharma, we need to follow our own paths. Monks live an undisturbed life inside closed communities apart from samsaric suffering. And when they are ready, they try to enlight others under the Bodhisattva_vow
If Sunyata is the ultimate reality, why hasn’t anyone achieved the ability to save others nowadays?
UPDATED:
How (and with all respect) the Dalai Lama and other monks can have reached the Enlightenment if he wasn't able to free in this life ALL human beings?
They are not reborn KNOWING TO BE a Bodhisattva. They can maybe get near it with a hard work and faith, and so they cannot free others from bonds in this life. Furthermore, they can teach a path, which is of course important, but the basic logic of BEING a Bodhisattva contradicts this flow.
How can Bodhisattvas enlighten others if they themselves are not fully enlightened? If they are enlightened, then they would not have been reborn in the first place. If they were reborn, then it means they are not fully enlightened and therefore still working towards it and at this time, cannot liberate others because they themselves are not liberated. And they cannot be liberated until ALL beings are liberated, due to the Bodhisattva Vow. That's the paradox of the Bodhisattva path.
How can the paradox of the Bodhisattva path be resolved?

There is no paradox.  Rather, it seems there may be some mistaken assumptions behind your question.
First, if someone is enlightened that does not mean that they will enlighten all people. For example, The Buddha was enlightened and yet he did not enlighten all people.  In fact, after his enlightenment, he actually wondered whether he should teach what he learned to others!
Second, no one can enlighten anyone, they can only help or hinder people on their quest to enlightenment.  Whether someone gets enlightened is up to that person.
Third, you don't need to be enlightened to help others on their quest for enlightenment.  For example, I am not enlightened, but I can still explain the benefits of mindfulness to another person.  This can encourage the other person to try mindfulness practices, and this can set them on their journey to enlightenment.
Finally, a Bodhisattva chooses to forego Nirvana in order to aid all sentient beings.  Depending on which definition you go by, this aid can be mundane -- such as feeding the hungry, reducing pain, etc... Or it can be sublime, such as aiding people on their quest for enlightenment. Either way, there is no paradox here; the Bodhisattva chooses to be reborn.


How should a married person get ordained in Theravada Buddhism? Can a married person who does not have children ordain if he has the consent of his parents? Does his wife has to give permission? How much contact should he keep with his wife after he ordains?

A married man need not ask his wife for permission. Even the permission from one's parents was once disregarded by Sariputta (in ordaining Revata).

According to the rules (Pāc. 80), though, a woman has to get permission from her husband. This seems to be a carry-over from patriarchal Indian society. I would suggest that in societies where woman are seen as equals to their husbands rather than property, this rule should be broken. I know this isn't the direction of your question, but just for the sake of completeness, the point of the rule was that angry husbands posed a threat to the sangha (I was almost beaten in modern day Sri Lanka by one such jealous husband for ordaining his wife).

Assuming you are confining your question to men wanting to become bhikkhus, there is no requirement for consent from one's wife. Examples of married men becoming monks (ostensibly without the permission of their wives) are Ratthapāla, Culakāla and Mahākāla, and Yasa.

Note that having children is not a barrier to ordination (for women either).

As for contact between spouses after ordaining, the answer is pretty obvious; the spouse should be treated as any other lay person, though special care should be taken not to fall back into attachment with them. The story of Maha and Cula Kala is instructive in this regard.


Is anything ever complete? I think Buddhists agree that the past cannot return, look at e.g. Dogen on firewood, or perhaps the Awakening of Faith

all that had been conceived in the past was as
hazy as a dream, that all that is being conceived in the present is
like a flash of lightning, and that all that will be conceived in the
future will be like clouds that rise up suddenly.

There are no "wholes" in Buddhism. But are there, conventionally speaking?

Vasubandhu rejects both wholes and combined sets (whether cohesive or
merely contiguous). Wholes are rejected by appealing to the Buddhist
reductionist principle which says that only the component parts of an
entity are real (aggregated wholes, on this view, are not).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/
I was merely some things may be of the sort that could potentially be wholes, but never are: and so they are never complete. Is that the case, why, and if so, so what?

Take the canonical example of a chariot.
Does anyone say that the chariot is not ultimately real, but you can conventionally find the chariot in among its parts - that it has then itself as a part - meaning the chariot appears to be a whole: it is potentially but not actually as there is always more.

Everything is work in progress (becoming)  except Nibbana (non-becoming) according to Buddhism.


Performing magic breaking the fourth precept(lying)? Magic used to be a great passion of mine. Performing card tricks etc. Im thinking of picking it up again, but what ive been thinking is if the performance of a trick constitutes breaking the fourth precept(lying)?

For exampe saying: "Now the coin is in my hand" even though the hand is empty, then making it dissapear.(Perhaps a bad example but you get the point).

Will doing magic for the purpose of entertainment create any negative karma due to the lying and deceptions?

From what ive understood its all about intent. So if the intent is to entertain is it okay?

Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

I don't personally see any problem with it. Although what you are saying is technically untrue, in the case of stage magic the audience knows that the performer is using sleight of hand and that it's just a trick. It's no more deceptive than telling a joke or a fairy tale. Technically the words aren't true, but the listener knows that. Unless you are trying to convince people that you actually do have powers like some fraudulent faith healers do and stuff, I wouldn't worry about it.


Is there any place for Omens in Buddhism? An omen is viewed as a sign from the natural world that delivers a message of some sort. Typically this message is seen as an indicator of coming good or evil events.
I know this has nothing to do with the Noble path and Buddhist practice in general, but I know that some lamas or highly attained monks from other traditions demonstrate psychic powers. Also, there are various rituals in Vajrayana which are performed to attain certain spiritual and mystical energies states.
So can we train our minds to read omens? Also, can we make use of omens to grow spiritually? Like for e.g. in India. if a black cat crosses our path we consider it as a bad omen and usually abort what we were set to do or become more cautious doing it.

Omen reading, astrology, palmistry and other such things are considered "animal arts" and wrong livelihood for monks in DN 2 quoted below. In general, even for laypersons, this would be considered "animal arts", and therefore unskillful or unwholesome.

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
his virtue."


Controlling your own volitions? I've come across a contradiction in my practice. In truth you have no control of the mind, things arise and cease based on extremely subtle influences by defilemets at the roots. Yet the dammapada says to be the master and control your mind/volitions.

I've also asked this on radio.sirimangalo site but not sure which you use for monk radio now.

As my teacher explained, whether we do or do not have freewill, when we drive the car, we must drive it well. Similarly, regardless of whether meditation is happening by itself, or "I" do it, it must be right meditation.

Practically speaking, we can control our mind, we can choose whether to get angry or to let go, whether to break through our phobias or to give in, whether to tolerate pain or to give up. This is our choice.

Similarly, we do have a choice of perspective: we can think we are sentient beings, having been born and destined to die, or we can generate the mind of nirvana. You always have choice, period.

Buddha was a huge opponent of the no-free-will-type theories with their tendency to take away motivation to strive for Enlightenment.

Now surely meditation is not about rigid control either. It's not about letting your mind run loose, nor is it about following an algorithm.

Enlightenment involves losing the form, true, but it also involves developing tremendous will power. These are the two legs we walk on the path.


Proper Meditation Upon A Physical Object I've been previously practicing meditation with the breathing, but for various reasons, among which my inability to latch on to the breath and my facility to focus upon outer objects, I want to engage in outer object-focused meditation. I'd like to know if anyone can explain the process by which to engage in these meditations, and explain the elements linked with focusing and analyzing the object.
Thanks

I cannot answer your original question, however, I second the comments above: stick to the breaths.

I would recommend using Buddhadasa Bhikkhu interpretation of the scriptures for the 1st step of your meditation: learn the long breath by controlling the flow of air coming in and out of your lungs, this will relax your body and help you move to the next steps.

Much more details here:

Mindfulness with breathing: Dhamma Talks
Mindfulness with breathing: full book


Working with hallucinogenic images during meditation I often experience hallucinogenic images during meditation. I don't believe they are caused by lack of sleep as they occur irrespective of my state of tiredness. Typically the sequence goes

Meditating with a lot of discursive thoughts
Discursive thoughts settling down
Commencement of strange dream like images
If i go through this then thought drops away and it the start of a calmer more focused meditation

I don't always get the images but if I do then they are very difficult to work with. They are more dominating than the discursive thoughts and more difficult to see them for what they are. However I know that if I can go through this stage then meditation really becomes a lot easier and more pleasurable afterwards (fourth stage above).

Has anyone got any advice about working with these kind of hallucinogenic images? Is there any advice either from traditional texts or contemporary teachers about them? Is it just me?

There is an interesting section on Visions and Signs in the teachings of Ajaan Fuang.

  § "Don't be amazed by people with visions. Visions are nothing else
  but dreams. There are true ones and false ones. You can't really trust
  them."

  § A Bangkok housewife who was practicing meditation with Ajaan Fuang
  heard some of his other students say that meditation without visions
  was the straight path. It so happened that she had frequent visions in
  her meditation, and so hearing this made her wonder why her path was
  so winding and convoluted. When she asked Ajaan Fuang about this, he
  told her: "Having visions in your meditation is like having lots of
  lush wild greens growing along the side of your path. You can gather
  them as you go along, so that you'll have something to eat along the
  way, and you'll reach the end of the path just like everyone else. As
  for other people, they might see the greens without gathering them, or
  may not even see them at all — because their path goes through arid
  land."

  § "Visions — or whatever things appear in the course of your
  meditation: It's not the case that you shouldn't pay any attention to
  them, for some kinds of visions have important messages. So when
  things like this appear, you have to look into how they're appearing,
  why they're appearing, and for what purpose."

  § "There are true visions and false visions. So whenever you see one,
  just sit still and watch it. Don't get pulled into following it."

  § "You should watch visions the same way you watch TV: Just watch it,
  without getting pulled inside the tube."

  § "If you can't let go of your visions, you'll never gain release."

  § One of Ajaan Fuang's students asked him, "When you see something in
  a vision, how can you know whether it's true or false?"

  His answer: "Even when it's true, it's true only in terms of
  convention. You have to get your mind beyond both true and false."

  § "The purpose of the practice is to make the heart pure. All these
  other things are just games and entertainment."


How to acknowledge emotions and their consequences in day to day life? Do you have any suggestion on how to view the act of sexual intercourse objectively? For example, when we view a lady, we view her as a composite of flesh, bones, feces, pus, joint oil, etc.

Similarly in which way can we address sex neutrally without labelling it as good or bad? This is because I have learnt to remove my lust for the human flesh, but not for the sexual act. Is there any thought based method using which I can achieve this feat? Similarly while using urge surfing, when a lustful desire comes up I repeat in my mind "pleasure, pleasure" -- similarly how can I combat a desire to have sex through this technique as I am on a period of abstinence?

I see you have accepted an answer but i feel like to add something because I can personally feel related.

  learnt to remove my lust for the human flesh, but not for the sexual act

Do yo mean like you learnt to let go of the ice but still desire its cooling property?

If so, that means you can let go of rupa (form) but stuck at kama sanna (perception of sensual pleasure).  Perception of grossness of body may not help with kama sanna because you are already above Rupa and dealing with something of a higher level.

So many ways to deal with kama sanna such as meditation.  I promise you it will help.

FYI: I recognize a pattern for terms Buddha used for satisfactory in sensual pleasures; kama chanda, kama raga, kama sanna, kama yogi.  Each has specific use and definitely not interchangeable.  For example, when Buddha taught about sensual pleasure in 5 hindrance, or jhanna, he would use kama chanda, or kama sanna.  Howerver, when he talked about higher fetters or an anagami, he would use kama raga or kama yogi.

For those who are interested in the difference between Kama Chanda (English-sensual desire), and kama raga (sensual lust): The Greater Discourse to Mālunkyāputta


Is Venerable Mahakashyapa still Alive? Is the disciple of Lord-Buddha Mahakashyap still Alive?

"The Venerable Mahakashyapa is still present in the world. When he left home under the Buddha, he was already one hundred sixty years old. At the time Shakyamuni Buddha had spoken Dharma for forty-nine years in over three hundred Dharma assemblies, Kashyapa was already over two hundred years old. After Shakyamuni Buddha entered Nirvana, Kashyapa went to Southwestern China, to Chicken Foot Mountain in Yunnan Province. It has been over three thousand years since the Buddha's nirvana, but Mahakashyapa is still sitting in samadhi in Chicken Foot Mountain waiting for Maitreya Buddha to appear in the world. At that time he will give Maitreya the bowl which the Four Heavenly Kings gave Shakyamuni Buddha and which Shakyamuni Buddha gave him, and his work in the world will be finished.

  Is that all true that he still's exists?

I have no definite answer, but maybe this info will be useful:

According to Mahayana views, the material world we ordinarily perceive is only a part of reality. Another part of reality can be viewed as some kind of "spiritual realm", Sambhogakāya.

In a sense, both that spiritual realm and this material world are projections from true reality. It's not like there are other dimensions somewhere out there; rather, limits of our ordinary perception let us see only a part of what is here.

On some levels of advanced practice, we are able to perceive Buddhas and Bodhisattvas from Sambhogakaya realm,

  may gain access to the Sambhogakaya and receive direct transmission of doctrine.

(All the quotations are from the link above).

  In the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, Chan Master Huineng describes the Samboghakaya as a state in which the practitioner continually and naturally produces good thoughts:

    Think not of the past but of the future. Constantly maintain the future thoughts to be good. This is what we call the Sambhogakāya.

    Just one single evil thought could destroy the good karma that has continued for one thousand years; and just one single good thought in turn could destroy the evil karma that has lived for one thousand years.

    If the future thoughts are always good, you may call this the Sambhogakāya. The discriminative thinking arising from the Dharmakāya (法身↔fashen "Truth body") is called the Nirmanakāya (化身↔huashen "transformation body"). The successive thoughts that forever involve good are thus the Sambhogakāya.

In that light, it seems quite possible that Venerable Mahakashyapa abides in Sambhogakaya to these days, and it's not impossible to meet him and receive teachings.


Is kamma the driving force behind dependent origination I hope someone could help me clarify something about dependent origination, is Kamma the driving force behind dependent origination ?

Karma in this case sankhara is what creates the future cycle of Dependent Origination (DO).
Sankhara / Karma is created due to craving. Caving is due to our habitual reaction to sensation/stimuli due to ignorance. If one develops wisdom one does not react to sensation which leads to unwholesome mental states.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Pahāna Sutta
When one creates Sankhara this intern creates the future round of rebirths. If one equanimous while seeing impermanence without generating craving one does not create sankhara / karma.
To train your mind one can try the following a course of meditation:

http://www.dhamma.org/en/index or
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html


should i consider this as a hindrance in my practice advice solicitated:i went to a wedding to perfect my mantra recitation and help around in the vedic work say,setting the "havan-kunda" etc.at night on the last day while i was sleeping in the outhouse,my sister was sleeping beside me, well aware of this fact,was in deep sleep,in my sleep i saw an arousing dream and then in a semi awake sate put my arms around her first in a brotherly way,but then lust gripped me,but i immediately retracted my hand and then went to bed..crying...my questions are...will god forgive me for my sin....moreover i did not spill my virya(semen)but i did commit a break in Brahmachari(out of the 8 breaks)so have i lost my rank of a Brahmachari ?????please help me.....(though this queation pertains to hinduism,i feel my Buddhist brothers and sisters can help)

In my opinion, you have not lost your brahmacharya because your action was not intentional because your mind was in partial sleep. In Buddhism, for sin or transgression to occur, it seems there must be conscious intention.

If you want to train in discipline like a Buddhist, you should never sleep with your sister, let alone with any other female, even your mother, let alone in public, because, for a brahmacharya, nocturnal emission can happen anytime.

Buddhists do not believe in God. Sexual arousal is caused by chemicals, electrons & hormones and only enlightened beings do not have sexual arousal. Sexual arousal is 'not-self' ('anatta').

The error you made was to sleep with your sister. As a brahmacharya, you must not do this because a brahmacharya should no longer behave like an ordinary householder.


According to "proper speech" in Buddhism's eight-fold path, is cursing allowed if it's necessary to get the point across? One of the points of Buddhism the eight fold lists "proper speech," but does this propriety in speech include the ability to insult others or express yourself strongly through the use of curse words/ cursing if it's necessary to get the point across to someone who wouldn't get the point otherwise? Why/ why not?

One of the Five Precepts (pañca-sila) - the basic training rules that is observed by all practicing Buddhist lay men and women -  is to follow the precept of abstaining from wrong speech. Wrong speech involves a great many things apart from uttering falsehoods. It includes insulting speech, malicious speech, even gossip.  This in positive terms is the practice of Right Speech.  It is said that "If you can't control your mouth, there's no way you can hope to control your mind.” This is why right speech is so important in day-to-day practice.

Cursing if it's necessary to get the point across to someone can be termed as harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person's feelings). The important point is that you were mindful of this slip. I do not see it as a transgression. It is not a sin as that of a transgression against a god, as in other faiths. This is only a trifling unwholesome act done by one who strives to practice the Dhamma, as opposed to the same act by another. What I said above is in keeping with the scriptures.

  “Suppose that a man were to drop a lump of salt into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the lump of salt, and unfit to drink?”
  “Yes, lord ….”
  “Now suppose that a man were to drop a lump of salt into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the lump of salt, and unfit to drink?”
  “No, lord ….”
  “In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil act done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling act done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.”
  — AN 3:99


Relationship between the 5 higher fetters and the Three Characteristics or the Three Doors I use the definition of Three Doors posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/

To me, it looks like there is a connection:

Desire for existence in the realm of form
Desire for existence in the immaterial realms

They are about the tension between being and non-being. In other words, existence or non existence of the self, and that pretty much is Emptiness of the self.

Conceit

The conceit "I am... (this or that)". This looks related to Signlessness (there are no inherent attributes).

Restlessness

Seems related to Wishlessness.

Ignorance

This kind of encompasses everything.

Of course, the Three Doors are related to the Three Characteristics too.

Emptiness -> no-self.
Signlessness -> impermanence.
Wishlessness -> unsatisfactoriness.

I am understanding the fetters wrong and making up the relation or does this makes sense? I'm trying to understand them as good as I can.

Like they say on reddit, the 3 doors are not in the suttas. The 3 doors are some inventions from the commentators of some mix of commentaries, abidhammas, and suttas.
Those are not the dhamma. Even the mix of commentaries, abidhammas, and suttas on which they comment is not the dhamma. Even the suttas alone can be  blindly said to be the dhamma.

So first, the usual way use of doors is the ''guarding of the sense doors''.
For the signless, there is plenty of that in the suttas, but there is not much about them, just like for ''desire for non-existence''. They are just listed and zero explanation. This is great for commentators who can tack their various speculations in their teachings, but at the end of the day, nobody knows what those means.

So for the signless like here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.11.irel.html

the note says

  The Signless (animitta) is one of the three Deliverances (vimokkha) by which beings are liberated from the world. The other two
  are Desirelessness (appanihita) and Emptiness (sunnata). The Signless
  is connected with the idea of impermanence of all conditioned things
  (cf. Visuddhi Magga, XXI 67f).

This is the usual interpretation of those weird signless, desirelessness and emptiness liberations. You can read the Visuddhi Magga to read more on this, but the Visuddhi Magga is not the dhamma, only a some commentary by some people.

The usual connection with the fetters is with the births, ie Breaking the first 5 fetters frees you from rebirth in the sense-world, and breaking the remaining 5 higher fetters, frees you from being reborn in the form world and the formless world.
So the non-returners have broken the 5 lower fetters and if they fail to reach nibanna as humans, they get to be reborn as some non-returner devas. Now the difference between those nonfully enlightened devas and the normal devas is here https://suttacentral.net/an4.123/en/sujato
https://suttacentral.net/an4.124/en/sujato

that the normal devas delight in whatever world they live, then they are reborn in hell sooner or later (like any non enlightened people), and the enlightened devas just die like the human arahants.

So to link anicca dukkha and anatta to the fetters, you link them to the realms of births and you can say that the five higher fetters are failure to see anicca, dukkha, anatta  of those higher realms , plus the failure to see that what is anicca about those realm is also dukkha, and to fail to see that what is dukkha about those realms is also anatta [ie to to crave for them].


Is Buddha nature everywhere the same? Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?

I don't think so, that seems wrong. But original enlightenment is always everywhere bliss, right? So how can Buddha-nature, which I would translate into, rather than "awareness" as the early Korean Son master Chunl's translators do, place, ever be impermanent independent of the body?

Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just nothingness, unless original enlightenment -- just like enlightenment itself -- can be lost and gained?

Is Buddha nature everywhere the same?

Yes and No. As Najarjuna stated: Neither one nor different (非一非異).

Also as the Heart Sutra stated: Neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure, neither increased nor decreased, therefore formless in Emptiness it is; no Taking, Thinking, Conducting or Cognizing; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind; nor vision, sound, smell, taste, touch or phenomena; no dimension of eyes so forth even no dimension of consciousness; no ignorance also no ending of ignorance, so forth even no aging-death or ending of aging-death; no suffering, aggregating, cessation or the path, no wisdom also nor has any attainment. (This supposed is addressing to Śāriputra. But only few understand who or what is "Śāriputra" in the Heart Sutra. Xuanzhang translated it as 舍利子, not 舍利弗, the later is common translation for Śāriputra.)

Because this "Buddha-nature" is not an object or concept, anything the human mind capable of conceiving is not it. Like you can draw the moon, photograph the moon, look at the moon, but you cannot touch it or hold it in your hand. You might argue that the spaceman can touch the moon. But no. Think about it, he is only touching the moondust. Therefore the teachings can only teach what it is not.

  Without rupa, form, "awareness" -- or place -- is presumably just nothingness

In the strict sense, we cannot talk about nothingness either. Many talk in our common language as if "nothingness" does really exist - see the mistake? Even the 7th Dhyana the Sphere of Nothingness, that nothingness is just a "pretence" - explaint by ancient meditation teachers in the Sutras. It is a kind of stoppage of mental activity or conceptual proliferation. Hence the Sutra said one died at the 7th Dhyana will be reborn in the Asamjnisattvah Heaven (the heaven without thought) and followed by the stupid animal realm.

Ultimately, talking about Buddha-nature perhaps a good exercise, but only seeing it gives the real taste.


Does MN 60 contradict SN 12.15? If so, why is it so? SN 12:15 Kaccayanagotta Sutta states:

  By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when
  one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right
  discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not
  occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually
  is with right discernment, 'existence (atthitañceva)' with reference to the world
  does not occur to one. 'Everything exists': That is one extreme.
  'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. It's to this
  extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

MN 60 Apannaka Sutta states:

  ...this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a
  doctrine of non-existence.'

  ...this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a
  doctrine of existence (atthikavādo).'

My reading of these two suttas gives an impression of a contradiction. MN 60 appears to state the 'doctrine of existence' ('atthikavādo') is right view. But SN 12.15 appears to state the 'view of existence' ('atthitañceva') is wrong view.

Is this a contradiction? If so, what is the cause, what is the reason, for this?

SN 12.15 says that "everything exists" and "everything doesn't exist" are opposite extremes and are both wrong view.

I guess there are different problems with each view: e.g. "everything exists" implies attachment and ignores conditioned/composite nature of everything; whereas "everything doesn't exist" implies nihilism and amorality.

I think that MN 60 concentrates its argument on one aspect, i.e. that the view that "nothing exists" leads to amorality:

  it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing

For that reason, "everything exists" is the relatively skillful view.

Incidentally I think that people sometimes talk about a "two truths" doctrine, i.e. that "conventionally things exist but ultimately nothing exists". Another way to express the "conventional truth (or relative truth) versus ultimate truth" duality is to call conventional "skillful" or "skillful means".


How can Nama-rupa of Dependent Arising be same as Five Aggregates? It is generally told that the 4th entry in the chain of Dependent Origination, namely Nama-rupa is nothing but the Five Aggregates (Nama being the sum of Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara and Vinnana). But three of the Aggregates separately appear in the chain of Dependent Origination : Sankhara (2nd entry), Vinnana (3rd entry) and Vedana (7th entry). So there occur three repetitions if Nama-rupa is identical with Five Aggregates. How can this be explained?

Due to past fabrication resulting from past experiences is instruments in creating the current conciousness. As conciousness cannot exist without a body this creates current body with each of the relevant sense faculties associated with the different consciousness.

The faculties in the current body which come in contact with external objects. The conciousness experiences and identifies the external objects based on the sensation of the touch these and our perception reacts with like, dislike and neutral metal action.

These current reaction creates more fabrication which keeps the above cycle going in the future. The reaction is that of our perception classifying sensations into pleasing, unpleasant and neutral sensations of which we want more or less.

The 5 Aggregates is the same as Nama Rupa. Different parts of the aggregates appear in different places in DO to illustrate the above cycle base on which aggregate is in active in the relevant part of the process. DO is not always depicted in the 12 link form; for further details see Dependent Arising by Piya Tan.