If all that is impermanent is unsatisfactory, then is all that is permanent satisfactory? If all that has a beginning and an ending is impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory, then (with binary logic) that which has no beginning and no ending is permanent and satisfactory.

Is this right or wrong? Why? And how does it change when applying catuskoti logic?

All 'things' are impermanent and unsatisfactory (and without self - these are the first three of the Four Dharma Seals). Your subsequent reasoning is wrong* and not Buddhist teaching either - Buddhism teaches neither nihilism nor permanence (one aspect of the Middle Way).

The point of the teaching of impermanence and unsatisfactoriness (and no-self) is to encourage you to give up your attachment to things as a source of happiness and security, and live within the fourth Dharma Seal, 'Nirvana is tranquility'.

Wrong in standard logic ('All Americans are mortal, therefore all non-Americans are immortal' - a fallacy known as 'denying the antecedent': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent ), and wrong with respect to the 'four possibilities', which are brought up in Madhyamaka philosophy simply for the purpose of being denied.


Did the Buddha state that there is only one way, and state/imply that any other path (such as those practiced by yogis) was futile? This question mainly came up to my mind as I thought about how interconnected some concepts and practices of Buddhism are with other spiritual practices, such as meditation, and the concept of letting go.

Was the Buddha ever questioned about something of this nature, and did he ever make this clear at any point in his teachings?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn11 for the Buddha's statement that there are no true recluses beyond the Sangha.

  “Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse,
  only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines
  of others are devoid of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar
  your lion’s roar."

The Buddha is careful not to deny the achievements of others, but framing achievement through the understanding of the four kinds of clinging, he implies that others may reach a very close goal, yet through having wrong view with regards to Self, through not penetrating anatta, are still clung to it, and hence have not cut off clinging (and therefore craving, which correlates directly with suffering) at the root, when declaring so.

  "Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging
  to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and
  observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.

  Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full
  understanding of all kinds of clinging, they do not completely
  describe the full understanding of all kinds of clinging. They
  describe the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures
  without describing the full understanding of clinging to views,
  clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.
  Why is that? Those good recluses and brahmins do not understand these
  three instances of clinging as they actually are. Therefore, though
  they claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of
  clinging, they describe only the full understanding of clinging to
  sensual pleasures without describing the full understanding of
  clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to
  a doctrine of self.

  Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full
  understanding of all kinds of clinging…they describe the full
  understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures and clinging to views
  without describing the full understanding of clinging to rules and
  observances and clinging to a doctrine of self. Why is that? They do
  not understand two instances…therefore they describe only the full
  understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures and clinging to views
  without describing the full understanding of clinging to rules and
  observances and clinging to a doctrine of self.

  Though certain recluses and brahmins claim to propound the full
  understanding of all kinds of clinging…they describe the full
  understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and
  clinging to rules and observances without describing the full
  understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self. They do not
  understand one instance…therefore they describe only the full
  understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, and
  clinging to rules and observances without describing the full
  understanding of clinging to a doctrine of self."

With regards to the way to the goal, since the purpose of recluseship at the time was to comprehend experience (stress/suffering) as it actually is, with direct insight, there will only be one correct answer. In a world of anicca, anatta follows naturally, unless one relies on a transcendental (beyond experience) notion of Self. Therefore, the above quote is a fair statement.

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn26 The Buddha himself had two teachers to whom he went to before his enlightenment, Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, who came very close to cessation in meditation, but not having the insight into impermanence, could not arrive at the true cessation of suffering.

Patanjali states that 'The restraint of the modifications of the mind-stuff is Yoga.', which is the cessation the Buddha practiced (the ceasing of mental fermentations). However, Patanjali then infers a transcendental notion of Self (I assume it is implied that once modifications to the mind cease, the True Self is said to be left), which, if it is to Be, is logically beyond conditioned experience as it is an independent entity, and hence not verifiable in the here and now. Such a position naturally creates doubt and does not lead to final release.

The only path within Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path, which encompasses right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. Yogis may be accomplished in many of these and that would be a great attainment for them and their students, but all other than the Buddha stumbled at right-view - the first step, because they conceived of their notions of Self.


Transforming the three poisons This collection of Dhamma Lists includes the following,

  Three Poisons/Defilements (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind)

  Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
  Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
  Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity

What do the statements like "mindfulness transforms this into Faith" mean? Where else (in literature) is this explained? Why these particular pairs (Faith from Greed, Wisdom from Aversion, and Equanimity from Delusion), what is the connection or how is the transformation between each pair?

Wikipedia gave a different set of pairs as Opposite wholesome qualities, which seem more obviously connected/related/opposite than the pairs or "transformations" listed above:

  The three wholesome mental factors that are identified as the opposites of the three poisons are:

  amoha (non-bewilderment); prajna (wisdom)
  alobha (non-attachment)
  adveṣa (non-aggression, lack of hatred); mettā (loving-kindness)

  The principal aim of the Buddhist path is to cultivate these and related positive qualities.

The article titled The Way of Wisdom says the following, which explains a connection between greed and faith,

It is usual to classify types of personality according to whether they are dominated by greed, hatred or confusion. Those who walk in greed are said to be more susceptible to faith than the other two, because of the kinship which exists between faith and greed. To quote Buddhaghosa (Visuddhimagga III,75):

"As on the unwholesome plane greed clings and takes no offense, so faith on the wholesome plane. As greed searches for objects of sense-desire, so faith for the qualities of morality, etc. As greed does not let go that which is harmful, so faith does not let go that which is beneficial."

So then, looking at the next section of Visuddhimagga, that explains a connection between aversion and wisdom (literally intelligence and understanding),

One of intelligent temperament is parallel to one of hating temperament
because understanding is strong when profitable [kamma] occurs in one of hating
temperament, owing to its special qualities being near to those of hate. For, in an
unprofitable way, hate is disaffected and does not hold to its object, and so, in a
profitable way, is understanding. Hate seeks out only unreal faults, while
understanding seeks out only real faults. And hate occurs in the mode of
condemning living beings, while understanding occurs in the mode of condemning
formations.

Reading further in the Visuddhimagga I don't see a similar relation delusion and equanimity. Paragraph 77 relates delusion with a "speculative" temperament:

One of speculative temperament is parallel to one of deluded temperament
because obstructive applied thoughts arise often in one of deluded temperament
who is striving to arouse unarisen profitable states, owing to their special qualities
being near to those of delusion. For just as delusion is restless owing to perplexity,
so are applied thoughts that are due to thinking over various aspects. And just as
delusion vacillates owing to superficiality, so do applied thoughts that are due to
facile conjecturing.

I'm not sure that "speculative" is good nor related to equanimity.
There is one paragraph later on, though, which clearly relates delusion with equanimity ... because, it says, delusion is an equanimity cased by unknowing,

And by seeing and so on: when one of greedy temperament sees even a slightly
pleasing visible object, he looks long as if surprised, he seizes on trivial virtues,
discounts genuine faults, and when departing, he does so with regret as if unwilling
to leave. When one of hating temperament sees even a slightly unpleasing visible
object, he avoids looking long as if he were tired, he picks out trivial faults, discounts
genuine virtues, and when departing, he does so without regret as if anxious to
leave. When one of deluded temperament sees any sort of visible object, he copies
what others do: if he hears others criticizing, he criticizes; if he hears others praising,
he praises; but actually he feels equanimity in himself—the equanimity of
unknowing. So too with sounds, and so on.

In summary:

Greed searches for and tries to keep for objects of sense-desire – faith searches for and tries to keep qualities of morality.
Aversion rejects things because it's of a hating temperament, and looks for unreal faults – wisdom rejects formations, and looks for real faults.
Delusion feels equanimity because it's ignorant.

The context comes from a previous paragraph, i.e. they're meant to be descriptions of different "temperaments".

But mundane concentration should be developed by one who has taken his
stand on virtue that is quite purified in the way already stated. He should sever
any of the ten impediments that he may have. He should then approach the good
friend, the giver of a meditation subject, and he should apprehend from among
the forty meditation subjects one that suits his own temperament. After that he
should avoid a monastery unfavourable to the development of concentration and
go to live in one that is favourable. Then he should sever the lesser impediments
and not overlook any of the directions for development. This is in brief.


Is there a tremendous decrease in suffering at stream-entry? Is it true that at stream-entry there is a profound decrease in the intensity of suffering perceived in samsara? If I'm not wrong, the Buddha does use the metaphor of a small clod of earth, as tiny as that can be picked up on a fingernail, to portray the amount of suffering one perceives after stream-entry, compared to the intense suffering, equivalent to the whole of earth, that a worldling feels in samsara?

You quoted the Nakhasikha Sutta which states that suffering that remains for a person who has attained stream entry is like dirt under the fingernail, compared to suffering remaining for an ordinary worldling which is equivalent to the great earth.
For e.g. a person's immediate family members all die due to an unfortunate accident. This person may become very depressed and stay depressed for a long time, if he is an ordinary worldling. He would experience sadness (aversion) and delusion - two of the three poisons.
A stream enterer would still become depressed, but then he will quickly come to his senses and remember the teachings of the Buddha, that all is impermanent.
He is aware that his sorrow is caused by clinging to the idea that the deceased family members belong to him (the self, an idea conjured by the mind).
He understands how the idea of the self arises, due to dependent origination. He understands how dependent origination works.
He also understands that the notion of persons and family members are all reification/ objectification-classification/ concept proliferation (papanca), just like the idea of the self.
The stream enterer would be able to let go a lot sooner than the ordinary worldling.
The ordinary worldling may get stuck in mental loops that amplify sadness and delusion. The stream enterer experiences sadness but has the wisdom to not get stuck in mental loops.
In comparison, an arahant will not suffer at all, because he has completely uprooted ignorance through wisdom. For the stream enterer, ignorance is still there, but it has been reduced greatly by wisdom.
The stream enterer still has craving and clinging, but now he has attained sufficient wisdom to understand them and how they work. In comparison, an arahant has completely destroyed craving and clinging.
Reduction of suffering for a stream enterer doesn't mean that negative events or painful sensations do not happen anymore. It simply means that the stream enterer does not suffer from them very much, compared to the ordinary worldling. His ability to endure them has increased tremendously.


Is it possible to "over-train" in samatha meditation? Every morning I set aside one hour for meditation -- primarily just counting breaths, but occasionally abdominal noting. My overall aim is to achieve some kind of basic tranquility so I can then decide if I should move onto something else. That is, I'm doing "samatha meditation" as preparation for "vipassana meditation". (Although I have asked about that apparent dichotomy in another question.)

However, although I reserve a whole hour, at the moment I'm only doing 20 minutes (built up slowly over some weeks from 10 minutes). My current plan is to keep to that gradual build, but sometimes I wonder if I should just "go for broke" and sit for an hour at a time.

One reason I don't is the same reason I wouldn't start out by running for an hour. Instead, I'd start with a shorter period, and build it up. But I don't know if my concern is valid for meditation. There are clear physiological reasons for not building up physical exercise too quickly. Muscles and tendons need time to build strength and flexibility, so even if I felt like running for an hour, I wouldn't. I'd force myself to increase only slowly.

But does the same thing apply for "mental" exercise -- i.e. for Buddhist samatha meditation of the kind I describe? Should I "hold back" even though I'm keen to do more? Is it possible in any way to "injure" oneself by over-training when it comes to meditation.

Note, I'm specifically interested in the mental/spiritual aspects. Im pretty sure it's possible to physically overdo it by, for example, trying to sit in full lotus too long in the early stages (or, in my case, ever).

First, physically, you're probably always going to cause some pain by sitting in a strict posture unless you've been doing it since you were young. So if a person had just started meditation and did so with a great deal of zeal, I could see them causing some pain and stress in the body by doing too much at once. They might even cause some permanent damage if, in their zeal to do it right, they won't sit in anything other than full lotus, even when they're causing pain.

The bigger issue though is that, mentally, there's the danger of getting burned out. Thanissaro mentioned in one of his talks he had friends who would go out into retreat alone for long periods and the problem they would run into is making no progress. Weeks and weeks of no progress in their meditation. It must be tough to become a monk, have one goal, do nothing but practice toward that goal and end up making no progress.

I think it's universal: your practice will have ups and downs. There are times where the mind becomes more and more focused, it lets go of all discursive thought, the precepts become easier to follow, and then there are times when it seems you're sliding backwards.

All in all, the real danger, if there is any, of overtraining is this mental burn out, because when you sink a huge amount of time and energy into something, you want to see short-term progress.

As to whether it would be better to do less sitting than more, I'm not sure. Are you the kind of person who takes on new projects easily and then gives up easily when you encounter difficulty? I suppose the more short-term oriented a person is, the more I'd recommend they just take things slow and steady so that they don't run into a patch of doldrums, get frustrated and give it all up entirely.


No more kamma and vipaka for Noble Ones? There is a (are) person(s) here, who advocate the denying of "person is heir of his action", advocate no-self, for whom who has reached the path already (Sekha).

In that case, do, and why, make Sekhas an effort toward good and liberating, if such would be the case?

What would happen to a person who would throw away the boot before crossing or in the middle (if such even would be possible to develope grave wrong view for a Sekha) of the sea?

It would be good if the "Noble Ones", "Emptinessdweller" and "Ahara-hats" here would elaburate their thesis of the use of kamma and self-denying for Sekhas and foremost worldlings since less Arahats might be in need for such tunings.

(Note: that is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to make use to get out of the wheel of that)

The effort of Sekha is merely intuition of mind to remain empty. Only when mindfulness & wisdom of non-Arahant Sekha lapses is there thought of kamma-vipaka.

For Sekha with mindfulness, wisdom knows only the element of ignorance is the doer of kamma. For the mindful Sekha, "old kamma" is merely something "felt" (rather than identified with), per SN 12.37. In AN 3.61, it is said: "For those who feel, I teach the four noble truths" (of non-craving & non-identifying).


Observing hindrances & seeing impermanence vs right effort I'm not sure whether it has been poorly taught by a monk but as far as I know the Buddha never really taught to just merely watch the hindrances, right? The sixth factor of the N8P is right effort and it calls us to do something about the hindrances. But why then does the Buddha at other times say that we have to see the impermanence, the unstability (non self) and the unsatisfactory nature of thoughts, feelings, emotions etc? Should we do both approaches or mainly right effort?

Val, hindrences have to be overcome by right effort and phenomenas, as they really are, can then be observed on a more refined level, a level that is then not so much subject of defilements. Right effort is required to build upon the foundations to errect the whole path and serves as entrance upon the Samadhi section and at the same time connects the other single elements of wheel so that it might beginn to roll for an end of suffering.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."
— MN 117

There is no such as right concentration if there is not also the factor of right effort involved:

"Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."
— MN 117

The single factors are not to be seen as being abound once reaching a certain but as a coming together of all, like the single supports of a wooden wheel.
Of what is finally right effort on even the most subtile levels on knows after the gain of path and fruit.
Just this right effort, in simply ways taught by the Buddha to his son will bring one to the final liberation and to develope all needed factors.

"Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bharadvaja. If one didn't make an exertion, one wouldn't finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth."...

So get up, dreamer, and go for an initiative!
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


Can a buddhist enjoy life - what are the limitations and restrictions I see many people telling that buddhism restricts the happiness of "gihi" (non clergy) life. What do you think? Does teaching in buddhism ask people to always think of uncertainty?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE!

Anyone who says that is misrepresenting Buddhism completely. The primary goal in Buddhism is the attainment of true happiness. The problem, of course, is that, according to Buddhism, no thing in the universe can bring such happiness. This is what is meant by the concept of uncertainty; not that we should always think  of it, but that it is a characteristic inherent in all arisen phenomena.

The good news is that by understanding this reality, we can find true and lasting happiness because we will no longer seek out happiness in that which cannot provide it. We will no longer face disappointment when that which we think of as stable turns out to be unstable; when that which we think of as satisfying turns out to be unsatisfying; and when that which we think of as controllable turns out to be out of our control.

  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
  atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.

  All formations are impermanent. When one sees this with wisdom,
  thereupon becoming disenchanted with what is unsatisfying, this is the path of purification.

  -- Dhp. 277


Have any notable Buddhists commented on Krishnamurti's teachings? Have any important Buddhists made any claim/s about Krishnamurti's teachings? Especially (caveat I know nothing about this) his claim that

  "Tell them there is nothing to understand"

Bold emphasis is mine.

or

  He claimed that the demand for enlightenment was the only thing
  standing in the way of enlightenment itself, if enlightenment existed
  at all.

I have read a remark by Ajahn Sumedho on Krishnamurti. I don't recall much of the details. But I can tell you that Krishnamurti 's teachings are different from Buddhism, although he has practiced Vipassana himself.
Edit: My answer relates to Jiddu Krishnamurthi, not U. G. Krishnamurthi. I am unfamiliar with U.G.

Sometimes you hear monks or nuns or lay people here saying, 'Don't attach to anything.' So we attach to the view that we shouldn't be attached! 'I'm not going to attach to Ajahn Sumedho; I can learn from anybody. I'm going to leave, just to prove I'm not attached to Venerable Sumedho.' Then you're attaching to the idea that you shouldn't be attached to me, or that you've got to go away to prove that you're not attached – which isn't it at all. That's not being wise, is it? You're just attaching to something else. You may go to Brockwood Park and hear Krishnamurti' and then you think – 'I'm not going to attach to those religious conventions, all that bowing, Buddha images, monks and all that stuff. Krishnamurti says it is all poppycock: "Don't have anything to do with it, all that is useless." ' So you attach to the view that religious conventions are all useless, and you shouldn't have anything to do with them. But that's also an attachment, isn't it? – attachment to views and opinions – and if you attach to what Krishnamurti says, or you attach to what I say, it's still an attachment.
Ajahn Sumedho
You can be attached to the idea of not being attached. Krishnamurti, for example, would always emphasise not to be attached to anything. He would say, 'Monks, this is all wrong. Religion, monks, all this is wrong. It's not the way.' Then people listening to that would attach to his view, and they weren't aware of the attachment they had to Krishnamurti's view. So the problem is not the view, but the attachment. A view is a view. You can see if you're attached to a view, for or against it. Then the actual practice is to not being attached to any view, and you are very much investigating what's going on.
Ajahn Sumedho

Edit: I added a separate answer on U. G. Krishnamurthi.


What will Most Effect in Next Life Done Good or Bad? If some person when he live's on earth His doing 50% good & 50% Bad things (theatrically). after he died what will Happen to him in next life. 1st will he effected with his good things he done in Past or bad things?

In balance of probability his last though may be 50:50 good or bad. Therefore there is a 50:50 chance the next birth will be good or bad but more biased towards the bad as there always decency that more bad through arise as you minds have the unwholesome roots. Also the action you did near the end may have a significant influence over that happens. Also in this life you might have done 50:50 good and bad but who knows what proportion of Karma you have from previous lives. In absence of a proximate to death or powerful Karma from this life giving arise there might be a chance a Karma from a part life and deciding the final moment. Also if what was done was done low level of volition this might affect the results, e.g., some may give for publicity than benevolent intentions. So it is very difficult to say what the chances are.


If a living being is not self aware than can he experience suffering or pleasure? When some living being like dog or any mini bacteria are killed, since they are not self aware or concious do they feel the same type of pain as we do? what is the difference between their suffering and our suffering?

Dogs don't forget pain. You only have to look at a dog that has been continuously beaten and then cringes or tries to bite anyone who tries to pet it.  Yes it has become an automatic reaction but there must be some kind of memory there about humans not being trustworthy.


Do flying monks described in Buddhist texts contradict with physics? So the Buddhist texts must be stating something incorrectly since we now know that we can't fly without the help of technology. How could they fly then?

One of the main pieces of advice in the Buddha Dhamma is verification by trying it yourself (Ehipassiko) and to be open to scientific scrutiny (Sandiṭṭhiko). Hence you can develop the Jhanas and see for your self if this is possible or not. Self-verification and experience is more convincing than people arguing in-favor or against something like this.
Having said this, there is much research in these areas under Parapsychology though this might be view as pseudoscience.


How can I work with doubt and existential concerns? After a 'bad trip' a big hindrance of mine is doubt and the idea that all is just a dream that we have no control over. This brings up terrifying ideas, concepts and images for me. That this may all just be nonsense, even buddhism. I'm aware these are concepts and mental activities, but the panic that they bring on can really deter me and interfere with my practice.

I fear that the Dhamma may just be a temporary fabrication of this reality that I'm in etc. The fact that I suffer and endure loneliness allows my mind to go astray. I'm not a member of any sangha and I dont get any support to continue to practice. I've suffered with misery most my life and this fact brings up many fatalistic fears. I'm wondering how I can try to start overcoming this and progress in the practice.

Thanks

Meditation is the key to beginning to understand your mind. The thoughts, images, indeed all mental activities are not "you". Meditation (in just about every system, religious and not) is about discovering the truth about your self. (The word "self" has many completely different meanings depending on the context of the word so don't get too hung up on the word.)

I suffer from depression. It is my experience that depressive episodes come and go. And I remain. Fear comes and goes. And I remind. So, meditation on who I am (and am not) is more helpful than meditation (or attention) on that which comes and goes. As you practice meditation, the mental noise will decrease. (Thankfully.) At worst, you give your mind some rest. Try it. It works. One day at a time. Good luck!


If someone causes me pain but I don’t lament it, feel sorrow about it- what circumstance, if any, warrants acting against the person causing pain? Step 1: Some person causes me pain

Step 2: let’s say I stay neutral about pain, pain does not cause me sorrow, and I don’t feel even slightest feelings of ill will towards that person — all because I know pain is impermanent and it is not self

Step 3: so at that point, should I take action against this person, as matter of cause and effect - or not - or what would Buddha do in similar circumstances

Remaining equanimous doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t take action.

It means not reacting automatically from your emotions.

Step 1) someone hurts you.
Step 2) you observe this and ensure you are equanimous and non reactive.
Step 3) take mindful, conscious action. Not out of pity or anger, but out of compassion and reason.

For example if someone assaults you, it’s not that you should be a passive rag doll. You can defend yourself, but it’s important to have clarity and peace of mind before and while you do it.


Meditation Into A Dream State Does anyone know if one can fall asleep into a dream while in the process of mindful insight practice and still maintain mindfulness and concentration? This would be different than establishing mindfulness while dreaming.

Before I became Buddhist I did a lot of random "spiritual" practices, including "astral travel". The later is when you try to retain "waking" consciousness as you fall asleep.

I only had mixed success with the various techniques for achieving that, but the one that worked more or less well was to relax the body and completely refrain from any movement until you lose all bodily sensations. So effectively you let the body "fall asleep" while keeping the mind awaken.

The major difficulty for me was (to avoid) getting overexcited at the moment the body falls asleep - which (overexcitement) resulted in hyperventilation and loss of control.

Eventually I realized that establishing lucid mind inside the dream was easier for me than carrying it over from the waking state, and so I dropped that frustrating practice.

Another related technique I had better success with was doing the Four Immeasurables type meditation at that same moment of falling asleep. This works better as you don't have to artificially restrict body movements, which seems to go counter to deep meditation in my experience.


Seeking scriptural source for "all defilements temporarily suppressed when in jhana" I've seen statements like "When one is in jhana, all defilements are suppressed temporarily." Is there any scriptural source for this?

AN 9.36 Jhana Sutta:

  "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded (or "withdrawn") from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation [in the following way:] He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness [by thinking]: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'

AN 4.123 adds:

  He savors that, finds satisfaction through that.

AN 5.28 adds:

  He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.

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

This is why we sometimes say that kleshas are temporarily suspended while in Jhana, because you "withdraw" from them by "turning your mind away" from their objects - all the worldly pursuits, goals, and judgements.

Again, I insist: it's NOT like Jhana happens by itself and as its sideeffect brings all these good qualities. We deliberately turn away ("withdraw") from negative thoughts and we deliberately generate positive thoughts.

So it is misleading to say "all defilements are temporarily suppressed when in jhana" - we deliberately put them aside, we deliberately generate bliss - and that's how we enter jhana.


Did Ledi Sayadaw invent a vipassana technique? According to the currently available historical sources, did Ledi Sayadaw invent his technique of meditation, or did he learn it in the caves of the Sagaing Hills? Is there enough information to tell which possibility is more likely?

Though there is no definite record who his teacher was, it is said he learned it from someone else when he was in the Monywa region in the side of Lak-pan-taung Mountain. Also there is reference that this is the Traditional Burmese method. This is mentioned in the VRI and pariyatti.org biography. VRI teachers Vipassana as handed down in the Ledi linage. VRI may be drawing on works by Sayagyi U Ba Khin (E.g. The Clock of Vipassana Has Struck page 71 also makes reference to this.) It the strong belief of this tradition (which I also very much involved and practice) that he learned from a linage handed down from the Sona and Uttara who came as missionaries during King Asoka's time.

The Wikipedia entry (originally sourced from On saints and wizards Ideals of human perfection and power in contemporary Burmese Buddhism by Patrick Pranke page 461) mentions Ledi Sayadaw learned the technique of Vipassana which had remained being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills.

Hence this was not exactly his creation as per biographical references above. But the book The Birth of Insight in in page 7 says otherwise though. So there is no proper or consistent way to determine what exactly is right,  though previous case may be right. There are parallel of the technique to some extent in other linages too.

  For eight more years he remained there, teaching and continuing his
  own scholastic endeavors, until 1882 when he moved to Monywa. He was
  now 36 years old. At that time, Monywa was a small district center on
  the east bank of the Chindwin River, which was renowned as a place
  where the teaching method included the entire Tipiṭaka, rather than
  selected portions only.

  To teach Pali to the bhikkhus and sāmaṇeras at Monywa, he came into
  town during the day, but in the evening he would cross to the west
  bank of the Chindwin River and spend the nights in meditation in a
  small vihara (monastery) on the side of Lak-pan-taung Mountain.
  Although we do not have any definitive information, it seems likely
  that this was the period when he began practicing Vipassana in the
  traditional Burmese way: with attention to Ānāpāna (respiration) and
  vedanā (sensation).

Source: http://www.pariyatti.org/Resources/Treasures/VenLediSayadaw/tabid/205/Default.aspx, http://www.vridhamma.org/Teachers-2

  Ledi Sayadaw learned the technique of Vipassana which had remained
  being taught in the caves of the Sagaing Hills, which was honeycombed
  with meditation caves and dotted with forest monasteries. For how long
  we do not know. Verbal accounts state that two monks brought the
  practice of Vipassana to this area at the time of the Buddha. It is
  just as likely that prior to the eighteenth century in Burma, as
  elsewhere in the Theravāda world, it was generally believed that it
  was no longer possible to attain enlightenment and hence nibbāna
  through vipassanā or any other means during the present age.

  The earliest known challenger to this assumption is that of a monk
  from the Sagaing Hills in Upper Burma named Waya-zawta whose movement
  ﬂourished during the reign of Maha-damma-yaza-dipati (r. 1733–1752). A
  young scholar-monk named Medawi (1728–1816) began writing vipassanā
  manuals in the vernacular. Couched in the language of abhidhamma,
  these are the very earliest ‘how-to’ vipassanā books we possess from
  Burma. Medawi’s earliest manual was completed in 1754. Ledi's lineage
  comes from this line, whereby his main teacher was King Mindon’s royal
  minister U Hpo Hlaing (1830–1883), who was notable for his avid
  interest in western science and eﬀorts to reconcile this new
  perspective with abhidhamma. This synthetic approach was passed on to
  his protégé, the scholar-monk, U Nyana, who later became famous as
  Ledi Sayadaw, arguably the most signiﬁcant promoter of vipassanā in
  the modern period.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledi_Sayadaw, http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/view/9290/3151 (page 461)


Why is there no self in the container of the 5 aggregates? I can see that there is no self to find in the 5 aggregates. But what about their container ?

I have a recurrent thought which troubles me : I imagine the 5 aggregates happening within a frame, which is a different one for every living creature.

There is this frame, this perspective, which is unique for any of us, starts at birth, and ends at death. The five aggregates can only be experienced through that perspective.

I can't feel what my cat is feeling when I touch it, I can only experience the aggregates appearing inside my perspective, not the one of the cat.

I don't feel like this is contradicting any buddhist view. The problem is that I don't see how one is suppose not to identify with his own perspective.

1) Where is the impermanence in this ?

2) How can identifying a self there can lead to suffering ?

3) Is there a reference about it in the suttas ?

This is the problem with mixing up ultimate reality with conventional reality. In ultimate reality, the cat does not exist. What is real is the tactile experience of the touch. That experience is an instance of the 5 aggregates arising due to causes. The experience is impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self.

'Container' is only a concept in the mind. It doesn't exist. Sights can be sensed, sounds can be sensed, aromas can be sensed, tastes can be sensed, tactile sensations can be sensed, mental objects can be sensed. 'Container' is not something that can be sensed. So it's nothing more than a concept. It has no basis in ultimate reality. Vipassana meditation is about stop looking at the world in terms of entities and start looking at the world in terms of experiences. You cannot see the 3 characteristics in concepts.


At what point do we arrest reification? Further to my last question on reification, I want to know the specificity of the application.
Gathering from the answers;

...reifications are overcome by questioning them.

and

Start by watching yourself in the middle of daily situations, watching
your behavior and your mind, your state of mind, your emotions. See
how you react, how you get angry or irritated or scared etc. See what
situations and most importantly what thoughts trigger these reactions
these states in you.

This paragraph talks about much higher-level mental formulations and emotions which I have overcome.
I am much interested or dealing with reifications suggested in Honey cake sutta which this answer points to, Buddha says;

Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from
the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth
approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which
these arise, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to
desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and
ignorance.

Further Venerable Mahākaccāna explains this as;

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting
of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you
feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think
about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from
which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the
proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known
by the eye in the past, future, and present.

Based on Mahākaccāna's explain, I want to ask, for an e.g. I see a Banana kept on a table, my eye-consciousness arises based on my eye and sight of banana, and contact is made and based on that a feeling arises. What I feel I perceive and what I perceive I think about.
In this sequence at what point do I have a choice to arrest the reification or perception? The moment I see the banana on the table may be within a fraction of seconds I perceive and get in the idea that its a palatable fruit, how can I question this idea that its a fruit and from my past memory I know I like its taste and I would like to eat it. This progress of events happen almost instantaneously. How much time do I have to question the model of my brain, which was trained way way back when I might have eaten the banana for the first time. How can I look at the banana as if I am looking at it for the first time and not recall from the model from my brain or form a new model?

From Sutta Nipata 4.14, we read:

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
about seclusion & the state of peace.
Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?"
"He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
'I am the thinker.'

Objectification-classification in this translation means the same as "reification".
Ven. Thanissaro, the translator, commented on this:

On objectification-classifications and their role in leading to
conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to MN 18. The perception,
"I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that
it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I;
being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then
can proliferate into mental and physical conflict. The conceit
inherent in this perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become
unbound, one must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all
take for granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are
not inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able
to drop them.

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the meaning given to it by the mind. In fact, some of these are not even objects, except that they have been objectified by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
From your question, you talked about seeing, let's say, attractive people on a screen. To an ant, it's just lights of different colors. If a mouse sees them - it's just an image of what it may perceive as humans - a threat. But to you, they are attractive people. So why are they "attractive people"? It's because that's how your mind objectified and classified them relative to yourself. That's how your mind reified them. That's papanca.
Fully enlightened persons like the Buddha and the arahants see things the way they are, without objectifying and classifying them relative to the idea of the self.
So according to Snp 4.14, to put an end to reification, you must first put an end to the root of reification, which is the mental idea of the self, the thought "I am the thinker". And the way to achieve this is to increase wisdom and weaken ignorance. That would weaken craving, clinging, becoming and birth (of the idea of the self). For this, please see this answer on the South Indian Monkey Trap.
And how do you increase wisdom and weaken ignorance? For that, we have the Noble Eightfold Path.


What does Buddhism teach about energy? I am interested in what Buddhism has to say about the flow of energy in our lives.
(For clarification, by "energy" i am referring to the concrete aspects of stamina/fatigue, feeling tired or having the strength to go about your day. I realize the topic of energy is broad, and dealt with in different yogic, para-psychological or pseudo-scientific contexts, but those aspects are out of the scope of my question).
To the best of my knowledge, the extent of Buddhist commentaries regarding energy use concepts like indriyas/balanis and not least viriya. For instance, in AN 6.55 we can read that:

...when energy is too forceful it leads to restlessness. When energy is too slack it leads to laziness. So, Soṇa, you should apply yourself to energy and serenity, find a balance of the faculties, and learn the pattern of this situation.

https://suttacentral.net/an6.55/en/sujato
In SN 48.43 Buddha elaborates on the faculty of energy:

The faculty of energy is the power of energy, and the power of energy is the faculty of energy.

https://suttacentral.net/sn48.43/en/sujato
Possibly related, we can also read about piti, a feeling of energizing rapture (if you will) as a dhyana factor:

Here, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination.

https://suttacentral.net/an5.28/en/bodhi
Seeing as tranquility in Buddhism is - arguably - given precedence over energizing i am assuming that the latter is somewhat subordinate, and dealt with to lesser degree than other Buddhist topics. Or am i wrong?
What else can Buddhism teach us about energies? (This is a reference request.)

"There are these eight grounds for the arousal of energy. Which eight?
"There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I am doing this work, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the first grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has done some work. The thought occurs to him: 'I have done some work. While I was doing work, I couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the second grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has to go on a journey. The thought occurs to him: 'I will have to go on this journey. But when I am going on the journey, it will not be easy to attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the third grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has gone on a journey. The thought occurs to him: 'I have gone on a journey. While I was going on the journey, I couldn't attend to the Buddha's message. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fourth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a village or town, does not get as much coarse or refined food as he needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone for alms in a village or town, have not gotten as much coarse or refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the fifth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk, having gone for alms in a village or town, does get as much coarse or refined food as he needs to fill himself up. The thought occurs to him: 'I, having gone for alms in a village or town, have gotten as much coarse or refined food as I need to fill myself up. This body of mine is light & suitable for work. Why don't I make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?'[1] So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the sixth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk comes down with a slight illness. The thought occurs to him: 'I have come down with a slight illness. Now, there's the possibility that it could get worse. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the seventh grounds for the arousal of energy.
"Then there is the case where a monk has recovered from his illness, not long after his recovery. The thought occurs to him: 'I have recovered from my illness. It's not long after my recovery. Now, there's the possibility that the illness could come back. Why don't I make an effort beforehand for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized?' So he makes an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth grounds for the arousal of energy.
"These are the eight grounds for the arousal of energy." - an8.95 https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_95.html

"May nothing remain but skin and sinews and bones; may flesh and blood dry up in the body! Not before having achieved what can be achieved by manly strength, manly energy, manly exertion shall my energy subside!"— MN 70

More on overcoming laziness and drowsiness;

"But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.[2] What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these factors. - aggi sutta

Some translations

Viriya - Energy (1,2), Effort (3), Persistence (4), Energy (5)

Nyanasatta Thera as (1), Piyadissa Thera (2), Burmese Pitaka (3), Thanissaro (4) Bhikkhu Bodhi (5)

Abhidhamma expression;

The energy of his searching, investigating and reasoning out thoroughly that same thing with wisdom, is strenuous, unshrinking. This is called energy-awakening-factor. (3)Therein what is energy-awakening-factor? That which is the arousing of mental energy. right effort, energy-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called energy-awakening-factor.
The mental inception of energy which there is on that occasion, the striving and the onward effort, the exertion and endeavour, the zeal and ardour, the vigour and fortitude, the state of unfaltering effort, the state of sustained desire, the state of unflinching endurance, the solid grip of the burden, energy, energy as faculty and as power, right endeavour—this is the energy that there then is.

Arousing energy from other texts;
Things are conducive to the abandonment of sloth and torpor:

Knowing that overeating is a cause of it;
Changing the bodily posture;
Resolving the perception of light;
Staying in the open air;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation. -Vsm

These things, too, are helpful in conquering sloth and torpor:

The recollection of Death; Today the effort should be made, Who knows if tomorrow Death will come?— MN 131

Perceiving the suffering in impermanence

In a monk who is accustomed to see the suffering in impermanence and who is frequently engaged in this contemplation, there will be established in him such a keen sense of the danger of laziness, idleness, lassitude, indolence and thoughtlessness, as if he were threatened by a murderer with drawn sword.— AN 7:46

Sympathetic joy

Cultivate the meditation on sympathetic joy! For by cultivating it, listlessness will disappear.— MN 62

Contemplation of the spiritual journey

"I have to tread that path which the Buddhas, the Paccekabuddhas and the Great Disciples have gone; but by an indolent person that path cannot be trodden."— Vism. IV,55

Contemplation of the Master's greatness

"Full application of energy was praised by my Master, and he is unsurpassed in his injunctions and a great help to us. He is honored by practicing his Dhamma, not otherwise."— Ibid.

Contemplation on the greatness of the Heritage

"I have to take possession of the Great Heritage, called the Good Dhamma. But one who is indolent cannot take possession of it."— Ibid.

How does one stimulate the mind at a time when it needs stimulation?

If due to slowness in the application of wisdom or due to non-attainment of the happiness of tranquillity, one's mind is dull, then one should rouse it through reflecting on the eight stirring objects. These eight are: birth, decay, disease and death; the suffering in the worlds of misery; the suffering of the past rooted in the round of existence; the suffering of the future rooted in the round of existence; the suffering of the present rooted in the search for food. — Vism. IV,63

The five threatening dangers

If, monks, a monk perceives these five threatening dangers, it is enough for him to live heedful, zealous, with a heart resolute to achieve the unachieved, to attain the unattained, to realize the unrealized. Which are these five dangers?

(1) Here, monks, a monk reflects thus: "I am now free from sickness, free from disease, my digestive power functions smoothly, my constitution is not too cool and not too hot, it is balanced and fit for making effort. But a time will come when this body will be in the grip of sickness. And one who is sick cannot easily contemplate upon the Teachings of the Buddha; it is not easy for him, to live in the wilderness or a forest or jungle, or in secluded dwellings. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even in sickness."
(2) Reflect thus: "I am now young, a youth, young in age, black-haired, in the prime of youth, in the first phase of life. But a time will come when this body will be in the grip of old age. But one who is overpowered by old age cannot easily contemplate on the Teachings of the Buddha; it is not easy for him to live in the wilderness or a forest or jungle, or in secluded dwellings. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even in old age."
(3) And further, monks, a monk reflects thus: "Now there is an abundance of food, good harvests, easily obtainable is a meal of alms, it is easy to live on collected food and offerings. But a time will come when there will be a famine, a bad harvest, difficult to obtain will be a meal of alms, it will be difficult to live on collected food and offerings. And in a famine people migrate to places where food is ample, and there habitations will be thronged and crowded. But in habitations thronged and crowded one cannot easily contemplate upon the Teachings of the Buddha. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even in a famine."
(4) And further, monks, a monk reflects thus: "Now people live in concord and amity, in friendly fellowship as mingled milk and water and look at each other with friendly eyes. But there will come a time of danger, of unrest among the jungle tribes when the country people mount their carts and drive away and fear-stricken people move to a place of safety, and there habitations will be thronged and crowded. But in habitations thronged and crowded one cannot easily contemplate upon the Teachings of the Buddha. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even in time of danger."
(5) And further, monks, a monk reflects thus: "Now the Congregation of Monks lives in concord and amity, without quarrel, lives happily under one teaching. But a time will come when there will be a split in the Congregation. And when the Congregation is split, one cannot easily contemplate upon the Teachings of the Buddha; it is not easy to live in the wilderness or a forest or jungle, or in secluded dwellings. Before this undesirable condition, so unpleasant and disagreeable, approaches me, prior to that, let me muster my energy for achieving the unachieved, for attaining the unattained, for realizing the unrealized, so that, in the possession of that state, I shall live happily even when the Congregation is split. — AN 5:78

At last a couple more Sutta excerpt;

“So, mendicants, when the senior mendicants left, why did you sleep until the sun came up, snoring?
What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of an anointed king who rules his whole life, dear and beloved to the country, while indulging in the pleasures of sleeping, lying, and drowsing as much as he likes?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing.
What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of an appointed official … a hereditary official … a general … a village chief … or a guild head who runs the guild his whole life, dear and beloved to the guild, while indulging in the pleasures of sleeping, lying, and drowsing as much as he likes?”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing.
What do you think, mendicants? Have you ever seen or heard of an ascetic or brahmin who indulges in the pleasures of sleeping, lying, and drowsing as much as they like? Their sense doors are unguarded, they eat too much, they’re not dedicated to wakefulness, they’re unable to discern skillful qualities, and they don’t pursue the development of the qualities that lead to awakening in the evening and toward dawn. Yet they realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.”
“No, sir.”
“Good, mendicants! I too have never seen or heard of such a thing.
So you should train like this: ‘We will guard our sense doors, eat in moderation, be dedicated to wakefulness, discern skillful qualities, and pursue the development of the qualities that lead to awakening in the evening and toward dawn.’ That’s how you should train.” - AN6.17

Drowsiness, lethargy, lazy stretching,
Discontent, torpor after meals:
Because of this, here among beings,
The noble path does not appear.”
“Drowsiness, lethargy, lazy stretching,
Discontent, torpor after meals:
When one dispels this with energy,
The noble path is cleared.” -sn1.16


How is suffering the supporting condition for faith? In Upanisa Sutta Suffering is noted as a supporting condition for faith, I have a faint idea of how this could be, but I have a hard time following it as I did all other supporting conditioned listed in a successive order. Could you please shade a light.

Thanks a mil

  Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not
  lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
  faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.

Upanisa Sutta: Discourse on Supporting Conditions_translated from the Pali by
Bhikkhu Bodhi

The sutta lists links of dependent origination, backwards.

So I'd read it as "With existence as condition, birth. With birth as condition, suffering. With suffering as condition, faith."

I expect it means faith in the four noble truths, for example: i.e. because of (conditioned by) suffering you agree with the noble truths (including the first noble truth), and develop confidence in the Buddha's teaching.

Note that suffering is the end or final result of samsara ... and faith is the beginning or first step towards liberation. So this sutta lists two sequences of links (the conditions of suffering and the conditions of liberation), and links the two together there.

There is a longer article on the sutta here, which talks about how faith arises, and a shorter one here.

You might possibly be confused by the term "supporting condition": other translations may include "proximate condition", "requisite condition", "prerequisite".


Strong blood flow when meditating I am currently following a vipassana retreat at Panditarama Lumbini (where you are asked to notice the rise and fallings of the abdomen). The first 5 days were OK (even if I maybe was pushing too much with crossing the legs, hurting for one hour periods) but I have a problem since two days ago (even if I stooped pushing hard crossing my legs): When I sit down for meditation, my blood flow increases so that I can feel it everywhere on my body including head and abdomen, to the point that I feel both the breath and the blood flow when putting the hand over my abdomen. Also, I started salivating a lot (only when I sit down for meditation). Also after only one or two minutes of starting the meditation, my breathing speeds up (instead of speed down as usual).

I have had this problem already for two days now. What can be the real problem and how to solve it?
Shall I stop the retreat?
(I feel that stopping now the retreat without having experienced a nice insight would be a bad idea because I probably wouldn't retry the retreat never again)

According to my teacher, increased salivation is a good sign. This means your mindfulness of body and of feelings is recovering.

Increased sensation of blood flow is alright as long as it does not cause a headache. A headache would mean you are trying too hard and fighting with yourself. If that were the case then you would want to either chill down a little or take a break.

Breathing speed up soon after sitting means you're no longer blocking it. Allow yourself to make a lot of noise, don't try to be quiet or calm down too soon. Let your breathing by very noisy until it calms down by itself.

Overall it sounds like you are making good progress, just keep going, don't fight yourself and go with your intuition. If I were you I would not stop the retreat now. Just don't generate expectation to get some external insight. The insight is the elephant in the room you can access through being aware of all experiences, esp. ones that you habitually push outside your attention.

While abdomen is the anchor that keeps you from flying away, it does not mean you should block other inner experiences.


Kosher, Halal and Buddhism If you are a meat eating buddhist, is there any support that eating in this way lessens the karmic impact of consuming meat?

I also was told that Kosher/Halal dealt with dispatching the animal in a way that minimized suffering to the animal. So if eating meat at all had a karmic effect would eating in this way minimize it.

I think that this (the karma of meat-eating) is a doctrine on which different schools of Buddhism differ.

I considered replying to your "dispatching the animal in a way" but remembered that Buddhism considers it:

Wrong to kill
Wrong to counsel (advise) someone else to kill

There are a few "offences" that are so grave that a monk would be expelled or "defeated" -- intentionally killing is one of these grave offenses -- and so is advising someone else to kill.

The end of page 79 of The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained says,

  Again from the
  Vinita-vatthu: A bhikkhu tells an executioner to kill his victims mercifully with a
  single blow, rather than torturing them. The executioner follows his advice and
  the bhikkhu incurs a parajika, for the recommendation to kill mercifully is still a
  recommendation to kill.

Earlier on page 79, it says it's bad when the killer carries out your detailed instructions (what kind of weapon to use and so on).

My (this) answer is disingenuous because the Patimokkha Rule is actually/only/specifically about killing human beings -- even so I don't suppose you'll find Buddhist doctrine that recommends killing, nor how to kill.

Getting the Message says, in part,

  Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.


Can I attain Vipassana without doing the body scan? I returned from Goenka's Vipassana retreat. The technique of being aware of sensations with equanimity was very helpful and led me into deeper states of meditation.

But his technique includes scanning the body as you move deeper. What I found was if I am focused on sensations on my face then willfully changing the focus to shoulder disturbs meditation.

Also, I have to keep my mind active to control and move my focus with will, from say face to shoulder etc.

Else where as I read Ajahn Brahm, his whole technique comprise of 'letting-go' of 'doer' or 'will'. Main emphasis is about the attitude of not getting the 'doer' or 'craving' or 'will' involved.

Further to the answers to my last question as I now understand we reach to Vipassana i.e. insight. So my question is can I skip the body scan part. Can I attain Vipassana and Jnana without involving the body scan. Just being aware of sensations on face bring a great deal of Samatha. Keep the doer, controlling mind aside.

I am sorry I am mixing Ajahn Brahm and Goenka. What is happening is I am finding it difficult to attain ggod meditative mind through AB's method of focusing on breath but I am doing good progress in sense of calming my mind and reducing the thoughts by Goenkas method to watch sensations through equanimity.

So my plan is attain Samatha through Goenka's method of watching sensations and then as I attain meditative mind with no thoughts switch to AB's method to attain Jnana.

I checked other question-answers regarding body scan but they do not answer my question as their problem is not 'bringing in the doer' or 'will' their problems are different.

So my question is can I skip the body scan?

This is an old post, and I don’t even have an account here but I found this by googling to try to find out if there are other Vipassana centers or teachers practicing Vipassana the same way as the teacher in my town! (Jefferson City, MO, US, Vipassana Buddhist Church, Rev. Montee Dhammaruchi). I’ll talk about that a little and hopefully the info is helpful to someone!
It’s been years since I attended there, I traveled away for a long time and found other Buddhists doing different things in Portland Oregon. I practice shikantaza now, as a beginner, after finding that Dogen’s framework seems to click with my logic and also challenge me in a way that feels growthful.
But anyway, years ago, I practiced this form of Vipassana for about 3 years with Rev. Montee, and then continued in it independently until I switched to Zen. The instructions are to sit in a way that isn’t too straining. He encourages full lotus if possible, half lotus if you can’t do full, Burmese posture if you can’t do either. The point is ideally you are splitting your weight between two knees and your butt. Some people sat in chairs though, and he didn’t mind making those available. And then you try to isolate awareness in your breath, with all senses, focusing on your nostrils if possible. And then when sounds or sensations or thoughts happen, try not to be disturbed by them but be aware of their impermanence. That was basically my experience and understanding of it, and I haven’t learned or practiced any other form of Vipassana than what he instructed. Other Vipassana techniques sound pretty different when I read about them. The way Montee taught it, it never involved a body scan. Mindfulness of the whole body was encouraged but there wasn’t a systematic method like that. It may be that he was trying to streamline the essence of Vipassana. When I first began practicing Zazen I had a hard time differentiating between it and Montee’s Vipassana. I know that he had trained in Zen originally so maybe that’s why he taught this way.


How are the Seven Purifications (satta-visuddhi) practiced in daily life? What are the 7 Purifications in laymans terms and how is this practiced in daily life?

This book is focused only on this question.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/bm7insight.pdf

Hope it helps.


Does any Mahayana school teach that I am atman? Does any Mahayana school teach that I am atman, the Self of buddha nature?

Assuming a resounding "no", may I please ask, if atman is "like" anything, or is it more like the eventual non existence, annihilation, of the empirical self, like death is for philosophically enlightened atheists?

It is not true that qualia are substances, not only in Western philosophy, but in Buddhism too, because otherwise the skandhas, being insubstantial, would not be like anything!

Perhaps that question is unanswerable, because I can't see any alternative to those possibilities !

may I please ask, if atman is "like" anything

I think that:

'Atman' is more commonly used in Hinduism
Buddhism usually denies that 'Atman' exists ... the more usual Buddhist doctine is 'anatman': according to Buddhism, 'anatman' is a better description of the world
Anatman is a word whose definition is a negative (negation) of Atman.
'Atman' is a word but not necessarily a reality (the mere fact that a word exists doesn't imply that what it's describing exists: see for example "unicorn").

So Atman is a word with a meaning, which other schools (not Buddhism) claimed had existence.

When some schools of Buddhism were trying to describe something (i.e. 'Buddha-nature') they re-used an existing word (i.e. 'Atman') for that description.

I think it's less confusing to view/use 'Atman' as an adjective instead of as a noun.

For example, this says,

  Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self. What is this Self ? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [nitya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is unchanging [asraya-aviparinama], is termed ’the Self ’ [atman].

I (perhaps incorrectly) understand that as saying that 'atman' can be used like an adjective to describe anything/whatever is "true, real, and eternal".

When you ask, "ia atman 'like' anything?" IMO that's as if you're saying, "assuming that atman is a substance or a thing, can I understand it as being 'like' some other substance or thing which I already understand or have a word for?"

It might be better to say, Atman means "true, real, and eternal" and you can use it describe that which is true, real, and eternal.

  is it more like the eventual non existence, annihilation, of the empirical self

If a dog is (immediately/already) not a cat, or if the moon is not a finger (or if a chariot is not an axle and an axle is not a chariot), then I think you can say that "it is not" -- without trying to say, "a dog is like the eventual non existence, annihilation of a cat" (but maybe whether or not you call it "eventual" depends on whether you believe in "sudden enlightenment").

  Perhaps that question is unanswerable, because I can't see any alternative to those possibilities

The Buddha warned about the 'thicket of views' you get into by trying to understand 'self', so I don't understand why you (IMO) persist along these lines of enquiry.

The Buddha specifically said that instead of asking "what is self? what is the Buddha? etc.?", he wanted to teach people about the four noble truths (i.e. dukkha and the way to end dukkha).

Beware that although I tried to answer this I know even less about Mahayana doctrines and terminology than I do about the Pali suttas, i.e. this is my opinion and liable to be ignorant.


Should a beginner try to educate others about the benefits of Vipassana? As a practitioner (but a beginner) of Anapana and Vipassana meditation, I have realized and experienced the immense benefits of the technique and the immense potential of Dhamma to bring change and goodness in whoever applies it in life. As is natural, when one samples something as beneficial as the Dhamma, one cannot contain the benefits to oneself and is always tempted to suggest the practise of Vipassana to those around us, so that they may also start coming out of their misery. This is what I understand is one of the qualities of Dhamma, "Ehipassiko".

But, the question really is, should a beginner like me even talk about it to others? Because, I still have my share of mental defilements and as a result I'm still prone to wrong thoughts, words and deeds. Therefore, although I genuinely feel like recommending the practise of Vipassana to others out of compassion, I'm apprehensive that I may not be the best example to show others what practitioners of Vipassana really are and that may as a result corrupt the idea of the Buddha's teachings in the minds of someone who may be listening to Dhamma for the first time.

So, should one really talk about the Dhamma and Vipassana to others and if yes, when (at what minimum level of advancement or personal progress on the path, so that one inspires others as a personal living example)?

Well, if you take your own case as a guideline, most people really just need a point or nudge in the right direction.  Depending on how interested people are, you might share the benefits you've discovered.

If it's a teacher or another great being who is putting practice into their daily life, talking and discussing can be great.  Especially view these people as pure guides so you can benefit as much as possible.

On the whole, the practice should transform your life and pysche, so if you are talking about practice without letting the transformation happen first, it's no good.  We must transform, then let our lives-as-examples embody the truth we wish to speak.

Writing is also very important, so if you have a friend with whom you can write back and forth about Dharma, so much the better.  To journal your own notes and gather your thoughts is prime.

In general, if you are really interested in bettering someone else's life, a master would spend a decent amount of their effort trying to understand what that person needed and how they could present it in a gradual and follow-able way that would lead to fruition for the person, but also the knowledge that it is effort which carries you.


Caught between two worlds Hi my Name is Tobias and I am 31 years old. Of course there is a personal story behind my question and a lot of causes and conditions that led to my current situation but in brief the question goes somewhat like this:

What advice could you give someone who after a long period of looking deeply into buddhhism comes to the conclusion that there is actually nothing else to do in this life apart from practicing the dhamma (most preferably as a monk) but due to decisions earlier in his life this person is bound to live a worldly life (having two children to care for)?

The obvious answer would probably be to practise as a layperson and become a monk maybe in the next life :)

This sounds good in theory but I have come to realize that this is actually not easy to be done when you have no real interest in social interaction, seeing that most of the things people spend their time with are utterly useless.

So it is like being caught between two things where you can´t really focus on either one completely!

Thanks very much for your advice and opinion.

There is a lot you can do to make the best of your situation. I can tell you what's been helpful for me.

Social interaction regarding worldly things can seem like a ridiculous waste of time; but social interaction regarding the Buddha's teachings can be energizing. Reducing your old ways of social interaction and time spent on entertainment can give you time to find others, both online and locally, who share your interest in the Buddha's teachings.

A job can seem very dreary when the old ambitions you had no longer motivate you. But you can keep in mind that your job gives you the opportunity to give dana and support the Dhamma and that is really an honor, I think. Learning to live frugally so that you can give dana can be rewarding.

You can set a quiet, good example for everyone in your world by keeping the five precepts, following the noble 8 fold path, and letting it drop in casual conversation that you are Buddhist or that you meditate. You don't ever have to try to convince anyone about your beliefs. Just let your actions and demeanor speak for itself. Seeing positive changes in you may create interest in Buddhism or meditation in those around you.

You can join in a sort of spiritual solidarity with monastics by keeping the 8 precepts as often as possible. That's good for focusing on your practice too.

When monastics depend on laypeople for support and laypeople depend on monastics for spiritual support and teachings, a wonderful synergy is created. And both sides of the coin are important. I recommend a book called The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity at Home, at Work, and in the World. http://www.amazon.com/The-Buddhas-Teachings-Prosperity-World/dp/0861715470# It has many teachings directed at laypeople that you don't often hear and can help you understand the important of laypeople in Buddhism.

Best wishes in your journey.


Ego death and stream entry is it the same thing? I was wondering if ego death and stream entry is the same?
During what i call 'ego death' or 'experience of pure consciousness', i emptied out  and saw the internal galaxy images. Insights came  although it felt too much to comprehend. I was speechless. Basically it was inconceivable. It lasted 6 hours and more I couldn't sleep after. After that my life changed significantly. I still have issues with self esteem  but much less.

I wish it were so complete.  Stream entry, while a major event in one's practice, is by no means the death of the ego.  In fact, it only releases one from the lower three fetters (e.g. belief in a self, doubt, and attachment to rites and rituals).  There's much more to go.  I'd go so far to say that it's not until one becomes an arhant that the "ego", as we understand in the Western sense, is finally put to rest.

It's important to understand, however, that "stream entry" is category term for a collection of insights.  While these insights can happen as the result of a single event, that event and the experiences surrounding it like feelings of oneness, visions, and the like are really inconsequential.  What is important is the shift in perspective that follows.  This is fundamentally what distinguishes Buddhism from other mystical traditions.


When to let things let go and when to fight for them? I find myself in conflict with the Buddhist idea of letting go.

If someone insults you, is rude to you, insults a loved one, harrases you or a loved one and so on. According to Buddhism, we should forget about it. Past is past.

But then on the other hand Buddhism also mentions that we should be courageous. And sometimes being courageous can lead to further pain. Say that you confront people who insult a loved one and then they stab you.

I'm having a problem to decide when to confront and when not to.

For now, I always let go and I feel like a doormat sometimes.

Thank you.

I think the best message on this topic is the Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2) -- about insult and anger:

The first message is that, in order to not accept an insult, don't (violently) reject it, just don't participate in it

And secondly,

  You make things worse
  when you flare up
  at someone who's angry.
  Whoever doesn't flare up
  at someone who's angry
      wins a battle
      hard to win.

For what it's worth I think that my "martial arts" teacher taught just about exactly that same message -- about anger, fighting, and so on.


What other suttas instruct how to do Anapanasati, apart from the Anapanasati Sutta? Anapanasati is mainly covered in the Anapanasati Sutta.

Some of these instructions (perhaps additional instructions) are also written elsewhere: for example in the Anapana Samuthiya, Girimananda Sutta, the Sattipattana Suttas, Kayagatasati Sutta, etc.

What are the additional instructions or variations covered elsewhere, not covered in the Anapanasati Sutta?

I hope that answers will do one or more of the following:

Reference suttas (apart from the Anapanasati Sutta) which include Anapanasati instructions
Quote the instructions, examples or guidance which are different or which are additional to that given in the Anapanasati Sutta
If it already given in the Anapanasati Sutta without variation, no need to quote or mention.
Comparison with Sanskrit and Tibetan text is also welcome.

MN62 Maha-Rahulovada Sutta is one of them.

  "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or
  breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or
  breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or
  breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4]
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

  "[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' [6] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.' [7] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.'
  [8] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.'

  "[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.' [10] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in satisfying the mind.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out satisfying the mind.' [11] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in steadying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I
  will breathe out steadying the mind.' [12] He trains himself, 'I will
  breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out
  releasing the mind.'

  "[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14]
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion.'[5] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.' [15] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation.' [16] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.'

  "This, Rahula, is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed &
  pursued so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit.

  "When mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued in this
  way, even one's final in-breaths & out-breaths are known as they
  cease, not unknown."[6]

Just as the what was instructed by Buddha to Ven Rahula. This is the only way that i understand and experienced it myself.


Why don't animals(animal realm) commit suicide? We all know that suicide has been totally refused in Buddhism as unwholesome act.
suicide can be observed in human realm but why not in animal realm?

I'm not sure that they don't, not sure that it is never observed -- sometimes an old dog walks in front of a car for example, and is killed, and I wonder if they knew what they were doing.
But your question reminds me of a poem, by a non-Buddhist author, it's short and says:

Self-Pity
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

It's a famous poem, striking, maybe worth considering from a Buddhist perspective.
I'm not even sure about that poem, though, not sure that it's true either: its author didn't always write kindly even about people (perhaps he was wrong about animals, too) -- it's hard to be sure of others' motives.
Animals sometimes feel sad, I'm pretty sure of that, and apparently mourn their dead; but perhaps self-pity depends on the ability to tell (or fabricate) a story about oneself: which, maybe, animals don't.


Are the Pali words "cause" ("hetu'), "condition" ("paccaya"), "nutriment" ("ahara") and "root" ("mula") synonyms? Are the Pali words "cause" ("hetu'), "condition" ("paccaya"), "nutriment" ("ahara") and "root" ("mula") always synonyms?

The Pali words "cause" ("hetu') is NOT a synonym of "condition" ("paccaya"). To explain this, let me take the example in paticca samuppada (PS). The PS cycle that describes the “cause and effect” in Buddha Dhamma starts as: “avijja paccaya sankhara, sankhara paccaya vinnana, vinnana paccaya nama rupa, nama rupa paccaya salayatana,….”.

One may tend to think that “avijja paccaya sankhara” means “avijja causes sankhara” or “ignorance causes one to acts that generate bad kamma”, but it is not so. All of us ordinay people have avijja, but that does not mean that we always act accordingly. Most of the time we act appropriately or morally. However, if avijja is there, it is likely that at times one will act with avijja and do inappropriate or immoral things.

Thus PS does not refer to a “direct link”. Any effect must have a cause. But there can be possible causes without leading to any effects. Otherwise, Nibbana would not be possible. For causes to bring about corresponding effects, suitable conditions must be present. That is what ‘paccaya’ means.

Similarly the Pali words "nutriment" ("ahara") is NOT a synonym of "root" ("mula"). In Pali language, “mula” is a root, so that “mūlika héthu” means “root causes”. To explain this, let me take the example of a tree. The roots (mūlika hetu) are critical for the tree’s survival, but the “patta” also plays an important role for the tree’s growth. The “patta” are essential for the tree’s survival, just as the roots of the tree are. One could kill a tree simply by a process called “girdling” where those phloem cells are removed. Girdling, also called ring-barking is the complete removal of a strip of bark. from around the entire circumference of either a branch or trunk of a woody plant. Girdling results in the death of the area above the girdle over time. A branch completely girdled will fail and when the main trunk of a tree is girdled, the entire tree will die.

So, the tree’s survival depends on not only its roots, but also its “patta” containing those critical phloem cells. Thus, CONDITIONS are as important as ROOT CAUSES, and both these taken together is "nutriment" ("ahara") for the tree.


Are there suttas that recommend a specific order of the buddhist practices? Every now and then i see claims that a particular practice of the noble eightfold path (or alternatively, the threefold division) builds on a specific preceding practice.

Two examples of claims (right or wrong) is that right view is a necessary foundation for the other seven practices, or that panna comes last building on the two other thirds in the threefold division.

I am interested in suttas as sources for claims like this, so my question is what specific references there are for describing this type of order of the practices. (Please note that i'm primarily asking for references, and not personal opinions).

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the
  forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In
  one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right
  speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In
  one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right
  mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In
  one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right
  knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed
  with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

  MN 117

  Bhikkhus, this is the forerunner and precursor of the rising of the
  sun, that is, the dawn. So too, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu this is the
  forerunner and precursor of the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths
  as the really are, that is, right view.

  SN 56.37

  Mendicants, the dawn is the forerunner and precursor of the sunrise.

  In the same way right view is the forerunner and precursor of skillful
  qualities.

  Right view gives rise to right thought. Right thought gives rise to
  right speech. Right speech gives rise to right action. Right action
  gives rise to right livelihood. Right livelihood gives rise to right
  effort. Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right
  mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise
  to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.

  AN 10.121


Should I do what I don't want to do? Namo Buddhaya.

For my survival I work but I do not like the work. I am always thinking of escaping it. But if I escape from it then how will I eat ? It is my only source of income.

My question is : Should I do what I don't want to do especially if it is required for survival ?

Should I start clinging to my work ? Or Should I start loving my work?
If I should start loving my work then will it not automatically create clinging to the work ? In other words will I not miss the work when the work is gone ?

As my teacher explained, living with the feeling of wrongness is the very essence of samsara.

This constant feeling that you don't like your work, don't want to do it, and are forced to endure it only for survival - is NOT a normal condition. You should not force yourself to live like this year after year after year.

When you have inner conflict, you don't live your life authentically - and because of that non-authentic living you keep creating and maintaining situations that force you to maintain that inner conflict. This works like a vicious circle!

To quit this job in the hope of finding a better job is not an answer. My teacher called that "The Hunting-Dog Mind" (chasing after birds). Simply changing jobs will not help -- as long as you still have inner conflict, your mind will keep recreating pathological situations anywhere you go. Instead, the answer is to remove the inner conflict and learn to live authentic life, to be truly yourself. When you are truly yourself, the actions you choose, your reactions with people, etc. they all create your own path step by step - that may take you to a different job or connect you with entirely different people etc. And because every step of this path is made authentically and without inner conflict, it does not lead to new inner conflict - it leads to maintenance and development of inner peace and strength.

The main exercise to remove inner conflict is meditation. When we meditate we connect with our true nature, beyond attachments, thoughts, and judgements that we picked up during the course of our life. Of course, there is also the foundation of basic sila - five precepts, ten parami and so on - because we can't be authentic and spontaneous until we have eliminated major sources of conflict like the lust for material pleasures, for fame, for success, all kinds of overgeneralizations, identifications, side-taking, and hatred based on that, the defensiveness of the ego and so on. So the function of sila is to remove the gross source of conflict. And then the function of meditation is to remove subtle conflict.

Once we reduced inner conflict enough, we must start practicing authentic living in our daily life. This is a somewhat scary moment - because we should build up enough courage to be true to ourselves even if our new behavior can completely change our life situation. For example, we may end up quitting our family or our job. Or we will stay in our family and/or job, but we will stop tolerating certain things that we always hated, and will openly talk about them with other people (with wisdom and tact, assuming we worked on our sila and meditation). Or we may accept everything as is, because we may realize that our rebellion was only due to attachment to some mental image. Or we accept some things, confront others, and abandon third. In any case, authentic living means being true to ourselves and living without inner conflict.

This authentic living without inner conflict is understood by (some) Zen and Vajrayana schools to be the real essence of Buddhist liberation.


Recently started mediation,on my own,had a weird sensation I recently tried meditating.I only did it for about 5 minutes. But had a sense of vibration on the center of my forehead. So is it good or bad? What should i do?

All kinds of weird experiences arise in meditation. If you react with craving or aversion then you are regressing in your meditation. Be progressive by giving it not importance and experiencing the vibrating sensation and the impermanent or arsing and passing nature of the experience.